The Project Gutenberg eBook of History for ready reference, Volume 1, A-Elba

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

Title: History for ready reference, Volume 1, A-Elba

Author: J. N. Larned

Illustrator: Alan C. Reiley

Release date: May 10, 2021 [eBook #65306]

Most recently updated: October 18, 2024

Language: English

Credits: Don Kostuch

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY FOR READY REFERENCE, VOLUME 1, A-ELBA ***

[Transcriber's Notes: These modifications are intended to provide

continuity of the text for ease of searching and reading.

1. To avoid breaks in the narrative, page numbers (shown in curly

brackets "{123}") are usually placed between paragraphs. In this

case the page number is preceded and followed by an empty line.

2. If a paragraph is exceptionally long, the page number is

placed at the nearest sentence break on its own line, but

without surrounding empty lines.

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

between subjects.

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

with spaces and newlines.

6. Subjects are arranged thusly:

Main titles are at the left margin, in all upper case

(as in the original) and are preceded by an empty line.

Subtitles (if any) are indented three spaces and

immediately follow the main title.

Text of the article (if any) follows the list of subtitles (if

any) and is preceded with an empty line and indented three

spaces.

References to other articles in this work are in all upper case

(as in the original) and indented six spaces. They usually

begin with "See", "Also" or "Also in".

Citations of works outside this book are indented six spaces

and in italics, as in the original. The bibliography in

APPENDIX F on page xxi provides additional details, including

URLs of available internet versions.

----------Subject: End----------

indicates the end of a long group of subheadings or other

large block.

End Transcriber's Notes.]

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

History For Ready Reference, Volume 1 of 6

From The Best

Historians, Biographers, And Specialists

Their Own Words In A Complete

System Of History

For All Uses, Extending To All Countries And Subjects,

And Representing For Both Readers And Students The Better

And Newer Literature Of History In The English Language

By J. N. Larned

With Numerous Historical Maps From Original Studies

And Drawings By Alan C. Reiley

In Five Volumes

Volume I--A To Elba

Springfield, Massachusetts.

The C. A. Nichols Company., Publishers

MDCCCXCV

Copyright,1893,

By J. N. Larned.

The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

United States Of AmericaPrinted by H. O. Houghton & Company.

Preface.

This work has two aims: to represent and exhibit the better

Literature of History in the English language, and to give it

an organized body--a system--adapted to the greatest

convenience in any use, whether for reference, or for reading,

for teacher, student, or casual inquirer.

The entire contents of the work, with slight exceptions readily

distinguished, have been carefully culled from some thousands of

books,--embracing the whole range (in the English language) of

standard historical writing, both general and special: the

biography, the institutional and constitutional studies, the

social investigations, the archeological researches, the

ecclesiastical and religious discussions, and all other important

tributaries to the great and swelling main stream of historical

knowledge. It has been culled as one might pick choice fruits,

careful to choose the perfect and the ripe, where such are found,

and careful to keep their flavor unimpaired.

The flavor of the Literature of History, in its best examples,

and the ripe quality of its latest and best thought, are

faithfully preserved in what aims to be the garner of a fair

selection from its fruits.

History as written by those, on one hand, who have depicted its

scenes most vividly, and by those, on the other hand, who have

searched its facts, weighed its evidences, and pondered its

meanings most critically and deeply, is given in their own words.

If commoner narratives are sometimes quoted, their use enters but

slightly into the construction of the work. The whole matter is

presented under an arrangement which imparts distinctness to its

topics, while showing them in their sequence and in all their

large relations, both national and international.

For every subject, a history more complete, I think, in the

broad meaning of "History," is supplied by this mode than could

possibly be produced on the plan of dry synopsis which is common

to encyclopedic works. It holds the charm and interest of many

styles of excellence in writing, and it is read in a clear light

which shines directly from the pens that have made History

luminous by their interpretations.

Behind the Literature of History, which can be called so in the

finer sense, lies a great body of the Documents of History, which

are unattractive to the casual reader, but which even he must

sometimes have an urgent wish to consult. Full and carefully

chosen texts of a large number of the most famous and important

of such documents--charters, edicts, proclamations, petitions,

covenants, legislative acts and ordinances, and the constitutions

of many countries--have been accordingly introduced and are easily

to be found.

The arrangement of matter in the work is primarily alphabetical,

and secondarily chronological. The whole is thoroughly indexed,

and the index is incorporated with the body of the text, in the

same alphabetical and chronological order.

Events which touch several countries or places are treated fully

but once, in the connection which shows their antecedents and

consequences best, and the reader is guided to that ampler

discussion by references from each caption under which it may be

sought. Economies of this character bring into the compass of

five volumes a body of History that would need twice the number,

at least, for equal fulness on the monographic plan of

encyclopedic works.

Of my own, the only original writing introduced is in a general

sketch of the history of Europe, and in what I have called the

"Logical Outlines" of a number of national histories, which are

printed in colors to distinguish the influences that have been

dominant in them. But the extensive borrowing which the work

represents has not been done in an unlicensed way. I have felt

warranted, by common custom, in using moderate extracts without

permit. But for everything beyond these, in my selections from

books now in print and on sale, whether under copyright or

deprived of copyright, I have sought the consent of those,

authors or publishers, or both, to whom the right of consent or

denial appears to belong. In nearly all cases I have received

the most generous and friendly responses to my request, and

count among my valued possessions the great volume of kindly

letters of permission which have come to me from authors and

publishers in Great Britain and America. A more specific

acknowledgment of these favors will be appended to this preface.

The authors of books have other rights beyond their rights of

property, to which respect has been paid. No liberties have been

taken with the text of their writings, except to abridge by

omissions, which are indicated by the customary signs. Occasional

interpolations are marked by enclosure in brackets. Abridgment by

paraphrasing has only been resorted to when unavoidable, and is

shown by the interruption of quotation marks. In the matter of

different spellings, it has been more difficult to preserve for

each writer his own. As a rule this is done, in names, and in the

divergences between English and American orthography; but, since

much of the matter quoted has been taken from American editions

of English books, and since both copyists and printers have

worked under the habit of American spellings, the rule may not

have governed with strict consistency throughout.

J. N. L.

The Buffalo Library,

Buffalo, New York, December, 1893.

Acknowledgments.

In my preface I have acknowledged in general terms the courtesy

and liberality of authors and publishers, by whose permission I

have used much of the matter quoted in this work. I think it now

proper to make the acknowledgment more specific by naming those

persons and publishing houses to whom I am in debt for such kind

permissions. They are as follows:

Authors.

Professor Evelyn Abbott;

President Charles Kendall Adams;

Professor Herbert B. Adams;

Professor Joseph H. Allen;

Sir William Anson, Bart.;

Reverend Henry M. Baird;

Mr. Hubert Howe Bancroft;

Honorable S. G. W. Benjamin;

Mr. Walter Besant;

Professor Albert S. Bolles;

John G. Bourinot, F. S. S.;

Mr. Henry Bradley;

Reverend James Franck Bright;

Daniel G. Brinton, M. D.;

Professor William Hand Browne;

Professor George Bryce;

Right Honorable James Bryce, M. P.;

J. B. Bury, M. A.;

Mr. Lucien Carr;

Gen. Henry B. Carrington;

Mr. John D. Champlin, Jr.;

Mr. Charles Carleton Coffin;

Honorable Thomas M. Cooley;

Professor Henry Coppée;

Reverend Sir George W. Cox, Bart.;

Gen. Jacob Dolson Cox;

Mrs. Cox (for "'Three Decades of Federal Legislation," by the

late Honorable Samuel S. Cox);

Professor Thomas F. Crane;

Right Reverend Mandell Creighton, Bishop of Peterborough;

Honorable J. L. M. Curry;

Honorable George Ticknor Curtis;

Professor Robert K. Douglas;

J. A. Doyle, M. A.;

Mr. Samuel Adams Drake;

Sir Mountstuart E. Grant-Duff;

Honorable Sir Charles Gaven Duffy;

Mr. Charles Henry Eden;

Mr. Henry Sutherland Edwards;

Orrin Leslie Elliott, Ph. D.;

Mr. Loyall Farragut;

The Ven. Frederic William Farrar, Archdeacon of Westminster;

Professor George Park Fisher;

Professor John Fiske;

Mr. William. E. Foster;

Professor William Warde Fowler;

Professor Edward A. Freeman;

Professor James Anthony Froude;

Mr. James Gairdner;

Arthur Gilman, M. A.;

Mr. Parke Godwin;

Mrs. M. E. Gordon (for the "History of the Campaigns of the

Army of Virginia under Gen. Pope," by the late Gen. George H.

Gordon);

Reverend Sabine Baring-Gould;

Mr. Ulysses S. Grant, Jr. (for the "Personal Memoirs" of the

late Gen. Grant);

Mrs. John Richard Green (for her own writings and for those

of the late John Richard Green);

William Greswell, M. B.;

Major Arthur Griffiths;

Frederic Harrison, M. A.;

Professor Albert Bushnell Hart;

Mr. William Heaton;

Colonel Thomas Wentworth Higginson;

Professor B. A. Hinsdale;

Miss Margaret L. Hooper (for the writings of the late

Mr. George Hooper);

Reverend Robert F. Horton;

Professor James K. Hosmer;

Colonel Henry M. Hozier;

Reverend William Hunt;

Sir William Wilson Hunter;

Professor Edmund James;

Mr. Rossiter Johnson;

Mr. John Foster Kirk;

The Very Reverend George William Kitchin, Dean of Winchester;

Colonel Thomas W. Knox;

Mr. J. S. Landon;

Honorable Emily Lawless;

William E. H. Lecky, LL. D., D. C. L.;

Mrs. Margaret Levi (for the "History of British Commerce,"

by the late Dr. Leone Levi);

Professor Charlton T. Lewis;

The Very Reverend Henry George Liddell, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford;

Honorable Henry Cabot Lodge;

Richard Lodge, M. A.;

Reverend W. J. Loftie;

Mrs. Mary S. Long (for the "Life of General Robert E. Lee," by

the late Gen. A. L. Long);

Mrs. Helen Lossing (for the writings of the late Benson J. Lossing);

Charles Lowe, M. A.;

Charles P. Lucas, B. A.;

Justin McCarthy, M. P.;

Professor John Bach McMaster;

Honorable Edward McPherson,

Professor John P. Mahaffy;

Capt. Alfred T. Mahan, U. S. N.;

Colonel George B. Malleson;

Clements R. Markham, C. B., F. R. S.;

Professor David Masson;

The Very Reverend Charles Merivale, Dean of Ely;

Professor John Henry Middleton;

Mr. J. G. Cotton Minchin;

William R. Morfill, M. A.;

Right Honorable John Morley, M. P.;

Mr. John T. Morse, Jr.;

Sir William Muir;

Mr. Harold Murdock;

Reverend Arthur Howard Noll;

Miss Kate Norgate;

C. W. C. Oman, M. A.;

Mr. John C. Palfrey (for "History of New England," by the late

John Gorham Palfrey);

Francis Parkman, LL. D.;

Edward James Payne, M. A.;

Charles Henry Pearson, M. A.;

Mr. James Breck Perkins;

Mrs. Mary E. Phelan (for the "History of Tennessee," by the

late James Phelan);

Colonel George E. Pond;

Reginald L. Poole, Ph. D.;

Mr. Stanley Lane-Poole;

William F. Poole, LL. D.;

Major John W. Powell;

Mr. John W. Probyn;

Professor John Clark Ridpath;

Honorable Ellis H. Roberts;

Honorable Theodore Roosevelt;

Mr. John Codman Ropes;

J. H. Rose, M. A.;

Professor Josiah Royce;

Reverend Philip Schaff;

James Schouler, LL. D.;

Honorable Carl Schurz;

Mr. Eben Greenough Scott;

Professor J. R. Seeley;

Professor Nathaniel Southgate Shaler;

Mr. Edward Morse Shepard;

Colonel M. V. Sheridan (for the "Personal Memoirs" of the

late Gen. Sheridan);

Mr. P. T. Sherman (for the "Memoirs" of the late Gen. Sherman);

Samuel Smiles, LL. D.;

Professor Goldwin Smith;

Professor James Russell Soley;

Mr. Edward Stanwood;

Leslie Stephen, M. A.;

H. Morse Stephens, M. A.;

Mr. Simon Sterne;

Charles J. Stillé, LL. D.;

Sir John Strachey;

Right Reverend William Stubbs, Bishop of Peterborough;

Professor William Graham Sumner;

Professor Frank William Taussig;

Mr. William Roscoe Thayer;

Professor Robert H. Thurston;

Mr. Telemachus T. Timayenis;

Henry D. Traill, D. C. L.;

Gen. R. de Trobriand;

Mr. Bayard Tuckerman;

Samuel Epes Turner, Ph. D.;

Professor Herbert Tuttle;

Professor Arminius Vambéry;

Mr. Henri Van Laun;

Gen. Francis A. Walker;

Sir D. Mackenzie Wallace;

Spencer Walpole, LL. D.;

Alexander Stewart Webb, LL. D.;

Mr. J. Talboys Wheeler;

Mr. Arthur Silva White;

Sir Monier Monier-Williams;

Justin Winsor, LL. D.;

Reverend Frederick C. Woodhouse;

John Yeats, LL: D.;

Miss Charlotte M. Yonge.

Publishers.

London:

Messrs.

W. H. Allen & Company;

Asher & Company;

George Bell & Sons;

Richard Bentley & Son;

Bickers & Sons;

A. & C. Black;

Cassell & Company;

Chapman & Hall;

Chatto & Windus:

Thomas De La Rue & Company;

H. Grevel & Company;

Griffith, Farran & Company;

William Heinemann:

Hodder & Stoughton;

Macmillan & Company;

Methuen & Company;

John Murray;

John C. Nimmo;

Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Company;

George Philip & Son;

The Religious Tract Society;

George Routledge & Sons;

Seeley & Company;

Smith, Elder & Company;

Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge;

Edward Stanford;

Stevens & Haynes;

Henry Stevens & Son;

Elliot Stock;

Swan Sonnenschein & Company;

The Times;

T. Fisher Unwin;

Ward, Lock, Bowden & Company;

Frederick Warne & Company;

Williams & Norgate.

New York:

Messrs.

D. Appleton & Company;

Armstrong & Company;

A. S. Barnes & Company;

The Century Company;

T. Y. Crowell & Company;

Derby & Miller:

Dick & Fitzgerald;

Dodd, Mead & Company;

Harper & Brothers;

Henry Holt & Company;

Townsend MacCoun;

G. P. Putnam's Sons;

Anson D. F. Randolph & Company;

D. J. Sadler & Company;

Charles Scribner's Sons;

Charles L. Webster & Company;

Edinburgh:

Messrs.

William Blackwood & Sons;

W. & R. Chambers;

David Douglas;

Thomas Nelson & Sons;

W. P. Nimmo;

Hay & Mitchell;

The Scottish Reformation Society.

Philadelphia:

Messrs.

L. H. Everts & Company;

J. B. Lippincott Company;

Oldach & Company;

Porter & Coates.

Boston:

Messrs.

Estes & Lauriat;

Houghton, Mifflin & Company;

Little, Brown & Company;

D. Lothrop Company;

Roberts Brothers.

Dublin:

Messrs.

James Duffy & Company;

Hodges, Figgis & Company;

J. J. Lalor.

Chicago:

Messrs.

Callaghan & Company;

A. C. McClurg & Company;

Cincinnati:

Messrs.

Robert Clarke & Company;

Jones Brothers Publishing Company;

Hartford, Connecticut:

Messrs.

O. D. Case & Company;

S. S. Scranton & Company;

Albany:

Messrs.

Joel Munsell's Sons.

Cambridge, England:

The University Press.

Norwich, Connecticut:

The Henry Bill Publishing Company;

Oxford:

The Clarendon Press.

Providence, R. I.

J. A. & R. A. Reid.

A list of books quoted from will be given in the final volume. I

am greatly indebted to the remarkable kindness of a number of

eminent historical scholars, who have critically examined the

proof sheets of important articles and improved them by their

suggestions. My debt to Miss Ellen M. Chandler, for assistance

given me in many ways, is more than I can describe.

In my publishing arrangements I have been most fortunate, and I

owe the good fortune very largely to a number of friends, among

whom it is just that I should name Mr. Henry A. Richmond,

Mr. George E. Matthews, and Mr. John G. Milburn. There is no

feature of these arrangements so satisfactory to me as that which

places the publication of my book in the hands of the Company of

which Mr. Charles A. Nichols, of Springfield, Massachusetts, is

the head.

I think myself fortunate, too, in the association of my work with

that of Mr. Alan C. Reiley, from whose original studies and

drawings the greater part of the historical maps in these volumes

have been produced.

J. N. Larned.

List Of Maps And Plans.

'Ethnographic map of Modern Europe,'

Preceding the title-page.

Map of American Discovery and Settlement,

To follow page 46

Plan of Athens, and Harbors of Athens,

On page 145 Plan of Athenian house,

On page 162 Four development maps of Austria,

To follow page 196

Ethnographic map of Austria-Hungary,

On page 197

Four development maps of Asia Minor and the Balkan Peninsula,

To follow page 242

Map of the Balkan and Danubian States, showing changes during

the present century,

On page 244

Map of Burgundy under Charles the Bold,

To follow page 332

Development map showing the diffusion of Christianity,

To follow page 432

Logical Outlines, In Colors.

Athenian and Greek history, To follow page 144.

Austrian history, To follow page 198.

Chronological Tables.

The Seventeenth Century:

First half and second half,  To follow page 208.

To the Peloponnesian War,  and Fourth and Third Centuries, B. C.,

To follow page 166.

Appendices To Volume I.

A. Notes to Ethnographic map;

by Mr. A. C. Reiley.

B. Notes to four maps of Asia Minor and the Balkan Peninsula;

by  Mr. A. C. Reiley.

C. Notes to map of the Balkan Peninsula in the present century;

by  Mr. A. C. Reiley.

D. Notes to map showing the diffusion of Christianity;

Mr. A. C. Reiley.

E. Notes on the American Aborigines;

by Major J. W. Powell and

Mr. J. Owen Dorsey, of the United States Bureau of Ethnology.

F. Bibliography of America

(Discovery, Exploration, Settlement, Archæology, and Ethnology),

and of Austria.

{1}

History For Ready Reference.

A. C. Ante Christum;

used sometimes instead of the more familiar abbreviation,

B. C.--Before Christ.

A. D. Anno Domini;

The Year of Our Lord.

See ERA, CHRISTIAN.

A. E. I. O. U.

"The famous device of Austria, A. E. I. O. U., was first used

by Frederic III. [1440-1493], who adopted it on his plate,

books, and buildings. These initials stand for 'Austriae Est

Imperare Orbi Universo'; or, in German, 'Alles Erdreich Ist

Osterreich Unterthan': a bold assumption for a man who was not

safe in an inch of his dominions."

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

A. H. Anno Hejiræ.

See ERA, MAHOMETAN.

A. M.

"Anno Mundi;" the Year of the World, or the year from the

beginning of the world, according to the formerly accepted

chronological reckoning of Archbishop Usher and others.

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

"Ab urbe condita," from the founding of the city; or "Anno

urbis Conditæ," the year from the founding of the city; the

Year of Rome.

See ROME: B. C. 753.

AACHEN.

See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE.

AARAU, Peace of (1712).

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1652-1789.

ABÆ, Oracle of.

See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

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

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

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

ABBASSIDES, The rise, decline and fall of the.

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

also BAGDAD: A. D. 1258.

ABBEY.--ABBOT.--ABBESS.

See MONASTERY.

ABDALLEES, The.

See INDIA: A. D. 1747-1761.

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

ABD-EL-KADER,

The War of the French in Algiers with.

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

ABDICATIONS.

Alexander, Prince of Bulgaria.

See BULGARIA: A. D. 1878-1886.

Amadeo of Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.

Charles IV. and Ferdinand VII. of Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808.

Charles V. Emperor.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1552-1561,

and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555.

Charles X. King of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815-1830.

Charles Albert, King of Sardinia.

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

Christina, Regent of Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.

Christina, Queen of Sweden.

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

Diocletian, Emperor.

See ROME: A. D. 284-305.

Ferdinand, Emperor of Austria.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

Louis Bonaparte, King of Holland.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1806-1810.

Louis Philippe.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.

Milan, King of Servia.

See SERVIA: A. D. 1882-1889.

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

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1824-1889,

and BRAZIL: A. D. 1825-1865.

Ptolemy I. of Egypt.

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

Victor Emanuel I.

See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.

William I., King of Holland.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1884.

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

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

Abdul-Hamid II., 1876-.

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

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

ABENCERRAGES, The.

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

ABENSBURG, Battle of.

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

ABERCROMBIE'S CAMPAIGN IN AMERICA.

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

ABERDEEN MINISTRY, The.

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

ABIPONES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

ABJURATION OF HENRY IV.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.

ABNAKIS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONKIN FAMILY.

ABO, Treaty of (1743).

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1740-1762.

ABOLITIONISM IN AMERICA, The Rise of.

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

ABORIGINES, AMERICAN.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES.

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

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

Land-battle of (1799).

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

ABRAHAM, The Plains of.

That part of the high plateau of Quebec on which the memorable

victory of Wolfe was won, September 13, 1759. The plain was so

called "from Abraham Martin, a pilot known as Maitre Abraham,

who had owned a piece of land here in the early times of the

colony."

F. Parkman, Montcalm and Wolfe, volume 2, page 289.

For an account of the battle which gave distinction to the

Plains of Abraham,

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

ABSENTEEISM IN IRELAND.

In Ireland, "the owners of about one-half the land do not live

on or near their estates, while the owners of about one fourth do

not live in the country. ... Absenteeism is an old evil, and

in very early times received attention from the government.

... Some of the disadvantages to the community arising from

the absence of the more wealthy and intelligent classes are

apparent to everyone. Unless the landlord is utterly

poverty-stricken or very unenterprising, 'there is

a great deal more going on' when he is in the country. ... I

am convinced that absenteeism is a great disadvantage to the

country and the people. ... It is too much to attribute to it

all the evils that have been set down to its charge. It is,

however, an important consideration that the people regard it

as a grievance; and think the twenty-five or thirty millions

of dollars paid every year to these landlords, who are rarely

or never in Ireland, is a tax grievous to be borne."

D. B. King, The Irish Question, pages 5-11.

{2}

ABSOROKOS, OR CROWS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

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

ABU KLEA, Battle of (1885).

See EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885.

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

ABUNA OF ABYSSINIA.

"Since the days of Frumentius [who introduced Christianity

into Abyssinia in the 4th century] every orthodox Primate of

Abyssinia has been consecrated by the Coptic Patriarch of the

church of Alexandria, and has borne the title of Abuna"--or

Abuna Salama, "Father of Peace."

H. M. Hozier, The British Expedition to Abyssinia,

page 4.

ABURY, OR AVEBURY.--STONEHENGE.--CARNAC.

"The numerous circles of stone or of earth in Britain and

Ireland, varying in diameter from 30 or 40 feet up to 1,200,

are to be viewed as temples standing in the closest possible

relation to the burial-places of the dead. The most imposing

group of remains of this kind in this country [England] is

that of Avebury [Abury], near Devizes, in Wiltshire, referred

by Sir John Lubbock to a late stage in the Neolithic or to the

beginning of the bronze period. It consists of a large circle of

unworked upright stones 1,200 feet in diameter, surrounded by

a fosse, which in turn is also surrounded by a rampart of

earth. Inside are the remains of two concentric circles of

stone, and from the two entrances in the rampart proceeded

long avenues flanked by stones, one leading to Beckhampton,

and the other to West Kennett, where it formerly ended in

another double circle. Between them rises Silbury Hill, the

largest artificial mound in Great Britain, no less than 130

feet in height. This group of remains was at one time second

to none, 'but unfortunately for us [says Sir John Lubbock] the

pretty little village of Avebury [Abury], like some beautiful

parasite, has grown up at the expense and in the midst of the

ancient temple, and out of 650 great stones, not above twenty

are still standing. In spite of this it is still to be classed

among the finest ruins in Europe. The famous temple of Stonehenge

on Salisbury Plain is probably of a later date than Avebury,

since not only are some of the stones used in its construction

worked, but the surrounding barrows are more elaborate than

those in the neighbourhood of the latter. It consisted of a

circle 100 feet in diameter, of large upright blocks of sarsen

stone, 12 feet 7 inches high, bearing imposts dovetailed into

each other, so as to form a continuous architrave. Nine feet

within this was a circle of small foreign stones ... and

within this five great trilithons of sarsen stone, forming a

horse-shoe; then a horse-shoe of foreign stones, eight feet

high, and in the centre a slab of micaceous sandstone called

the altar-stone. ... At a distance of 100 feet from the outer

line a small ramp, with a ditch outside, formed the outer

circle, 300 feet in diameter, which cuts a low barrow and

includes another, and therefore is evidently of later date

than some of the barrows of the district."

W. B. Dawkins; Early Man in Britain, chapter 10.

"Stonehenge ... may, I think, be regarded as a monument of the

Bronze Age, though apparently it was not all erected at one time,

the inner circle of small, unwrought, blue stones being

probably older than the rest; as regards Abury, since the

stones are all in their natural condition, while those of

Stonehenge are roughly hewn, it seems reasonable to conclude

that Abury is the older of the two, and belongs either to the

close of the Stone Age, or to the commencement of that of

Bronze. Both Abury and Stonehenge were, I believe, used as

temples. Many of the stone circles, however, have been proved

to be burial places. In fact, a complete burial place may be

described as a dolmen, covered by a tumulus, and surrounded by

a stone circle. Often, however, we have only the tumulus,

sometimes only the dolmen, and sometimes again only the stone

circle. The celebrated monument of Carnac, in Brittany,

consists of eleven rows of unhewn stones, which differ greatly

both in size and height, the largest being 22 feet above ground,

while some are quite small. It appears that the avenues

originally extended for several miles, but at present they are

very imperfect, the stones having been cleared away in places for

agricultural improvements. At present, therefore, there are

several detached portions, which, however, have the same

general direction, and appear to have been connected together.

... Most of the great tumuli in Brittany probably belong to the

Stone Age, and I am therefore disposed to regard Carnac as

having been erected during the same period."

Sir J. Lubbock, Prehistoric Times, chapter 5.

ABYDOS.

An ancient city on the Asiatic side of the Hellespont,

mentioned in the Iliad as one of the towns that were in

alliance with the Trojans. Originally Thracian, as is

supposed, it became a colony of Miletus, and passed at

different times under Persian, Athenian, Lacedæmonian and

Macedonian rule. Its site was at the narrowest point of the

Hellespont--the scene of the ancient romantic story of Hero

and Leander--nearly opposite to the town of Sestus. It was in

the near neighborhood of Abydos that Xerxes built his bridge

of boats; at Abydos, Alcibiades and the Athenians won an

important victory over the Peloponnesians.

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

ABYDOS, Tablet of.

One of the most valuable records of Egyptian history, found in

the ruins of Abydos and now preserved in the British Museum. It

gives a list of kings whom Ramses II. selected from among his

ancestors to pay homage to. The tablet was much mutilated when

found, but another copy more perfect has been unearthed by M.

Mariette, which supplies nearly all the names lacking on the

first.

F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History of the East,

volume 1, book 3.

ABYSSINIA: Embraced in ancient Ethiopia.

See ETHIOPIA.

ABYSSINIA: Fourth Century.

Conversion to Christianity.

"Whatever may have been the effect produced in his native

country by the conversion of Queen Candace's treasurer,

recorded in the Acts of the Apostles [chapter VIII.], it would

appear to have been transitory; and the Ethiopian or

Abyssinian church owes its origin to an expedition made early

in the fourth century by Meropius, a philosopher of Tyre, for

the purpose of scientific inquiry. On his voyage homewards, he

and his companions were attacked at a place where they had

landed in search of water, and all were massacred except two

youths, Ædesius and Frumentius, the relatives and pupils of

Meropius. These were carried to the king of the country, who

advanced Ædesius to be his cup-bearer, and Frumentius to be

his secretary and treasurer. On the death of the king, who

left a boy as his heir, the two strangers, at the request of

the widowed queen, acted as regents of the kingdom until the

prince came of age. Ædesius then returned to Tyre, where he

became a presbyter. Frumentius, who, with the help of such

Christian traders as visited the country, had already

introduced the Christian doctrine and worship into Abyssinia,

repaired to Alexandria, related his story to Athanasius, and

... Athanasius ... consecrated him to the bishoprick of Axum

[the capital of the Abyssinain kingdom]. The church thus

founded continues to this day subject to the see of

Alexandria."

J. C. Robertson, History of the Christian Church,

book 2, chapter 6.

{3}

ABYSSINIA: 6th to 16th Centuries.

Wars in Arabia.

Struggle with the Mahometans.

Isolation from the Christian world.

"The fate of the Christian church among the Homerites in

Arabia Felix afforded an opportunity for the Abyssinians,

under the reigns of the Emperors Justin and Justinian, to show

their zeal in behalf of the cause of the Christians. The

prince of that Arabian population, Dunaan, or Dsunovas, was a

zealous adherent of Judaism; and, under pretext of avenging

the oppressions which his fellow-believers were obliged to

suffer in the Roman empire, he caused the Christian merchants

who came from that quarter and visited Arabia for the purposes

of trade, or passed through the country to Abyssinia, to be

murdered. Elesbaan, the Christian king of Abyssinia, made this

a cause for declaring war on the Arabian prince. He conquered

Dsunovas, deprived him of the government, and set up a

Christian, by the name of Abraham, as king in his stead. But

at the death of the latter, which happened soon after,

Dsunovas again made himself master of the throne; and it was a

natural consequence of what he had suffered, that he now

became a fiercer and more cruel persecutor than he was before.

... Upon this, Elesbaan interfered once more, under the reign

of the emperor Justinian, who stimulated him to the

undertaking. He made a second expedition to Arabia Felix, and

was again victorious. Dsunovas lost his life in the war; the

Abyssinian prince put an end to the ancient, independent

empire of the Homerites, and established a new government

favourable to the Christians."

A. Neander, General History of the Christian Religion

and Church, second period, section 1.

"In the year 592, as nearly as can be calculated from the

dates given by the native writers, the Persians, whose power

seems to have kept pace with the decline of the Roman empire,

sent a great force against the Abyssinians, possessed

themselves once more of Arabia, acquired a naval superiority

in the gulf, and secured the principal ports on either side of

it."

"It is uncertain how long these conquerors retained their

acquisition; but, in all probability their ascendancy gave way

to the rising greatness of the Mahometan power; which soon

afterwards overwhelmed all the nations contiguous to Arabia,

spread to the remotest parts of the East, and even penetrated

the African deserts from Egypt to the Congo. Meanwhile

Abyssinia, though within two hundred miles of the walls of

Mecca, remained unconquered and true to the Christian faith;

presenting a mortifying and galling object to the more zealous

followers of the Prophet. On this account, implacable and

incessant wars ravaged her territories. ... She lost her

commerce, saw her consequence annihilated, her capital

threatened, and the richest of her provinces laid waste. ...

There is reason to apprehend that she must shortly have sunk

under the pressure of repeated invasions, had not the

Portuguese arrived [in the 16th century] at a seasonable

moment to aid her endeavours against the Moslem chiefs."

M. Russell, Nubia and Abyssinia, chapter 3.

"When Nubia, which intervenes between Egypt and Abyssinia,

ceased to be a Christian country, owing to the destruction of

its church by the Mahometans, the Abyssinian church was cut

off from communication with the rest of Christendom. ... They

[the Abyssinians] remain an almost unique specimen of a

semi-barbarous Christian people. Their worship is strangely

mixed with Jewish customs."

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

ABYSSINIA: Fifteenth-Nineteenth Centuries.

European Attempts at Intercourse.

Intrusion of the Gallas.

Intestine conflicts.

"About the middle of the 15th century, Abyssinia came in

contact with Western Europe. An Abyssinian convent was endowed

at Rome, and legates were sent from the Abyssinian convent at

Jerusalem to the council of Florence. These adhered to the

Greek schism. But from that time the Church of Rome made an

impress upon Ethiopia. ... Prince Henry of Portugal ... next

opened up communication with Europe. He hoped to open up a

route from the West to the East coast of Africa [see PORTUGAL:

A. D. 1415-1460], by which the East Indies might be reached

without touching Mahometan territory. During his efforts to

discover such a passage to India, and to destroy the revenues

derived by the Moors from the spice trade, he sent an

ambassador named Covillan to the Court of Shoa. Covillan was

not suffered to return by Alexander, the then Negoos [or

Negus, or Nagash--the title of the Abyssinian sovereign]. He

married nobly, and acquired rich possessions in the country.

He kept up correspondence with Portugal, and urged Prince

Henry to diligently continue his efforts to discover the

Southern passage to the East. In 1498 the Portuguese effected

the circuit of Africa. The Turks shortly afterwards extended

their conquests towards India, where they were baulked by the

Portuguese, but they established a post and a toll at Zeyla,

on the African coast. From here they hampered and threatened

to destroy the trade of Abyssinia," and soon, in alliance with

the Mahometan tribes of the coast, invaded the country. "They

were defeated by the Negoos David, and at the same time the

Turkish town of Zeyla was stormed and burned by a Portuguese

fleet." Considerable intimacy of friendly relations was

maintained for some time between the against the Turks.

{4}

Abyssinians and the Portuguese, who assisted in defending them

"In the middle of the 16th century ... a

migration of Gallas came from the South and swept up to and

over the confines of Abyssinia. Men of lighter complexion and

fairer skin than most Africans, they were Pagan in religion

and savages in customs. Notwithstanding frequent efforts to

dislodge them, they have firmly established themselves. A

large colony has planted itself on the banks of the Upper

Takkazie, the Jidda and the Bashilo. Since their establishment

here they have for the most part embraced the creed of

Mahomet. The province of Shoa is but an outlier of Christian

Abyssinia, separated completely from co-religionist districts

by these Galla bands. About the same time the Turks took a

firm hold of Massowah and of the lowland by the coast, which

had hitherto been ruled by the Abyssinian Bahar Nagash.

Islamism and heathenism surrounded Abyssinia, where the lamp

of Christianity faintly glimmered amidst dark superstition in

the deep recesses of rugged valleys." In 1558 a Jesuit mission

arrived in the country and established itself at Fremona. "For

nearly a century Fremona existed, and its superiors were the

trusted advisors of the Ethiopian throne. ... But the same

fate which fell upon the company of Jesus in more civilized

lands, pursued it in the wilds of Africa. The Jesuit

missionaries were universally popular with the Negoos, but the

prejudice of the people refused to recognise the benefits

which flowed from Fremona." Persecution befell the fathers,

and two of them won the crown of martyrdom. The Negoos,

Facilidas, "sent for a Coptic Abuna [ecclesiastical primate]

from Alexandria, and concluded a treaty with the Turkish

governors of Massowah and Souakin to prevent the passage of

Europeans into his dominions. Some Capuchin preachers, who

attempted to evade this treaty and enter Abyssinia, met with

cruel deaths. Facilidas thus completed the work of the Turks

and the Gallas, and shut Abyssinia out from European influence

and civilization. ... After the expulsion of the Jesuits,

Abyssinia was torn by internal feuds and constantly harassed

by the encroachments of and wars with the Gallas. Anarchy and

confusion ruled supreme. Towns and villages were burnt down,

and the inhabitants sold into slavery. ... Towards the middle

of the 18th century the Gallas appear to have increased

considerably in power. In the intestine quarrels of Abyssinia

their alliance was courted by each side, and in their country

political refugees obtained a secure asylum." During the early

years of the present century, the campaigns in Egypt attracted

English attention to the Red Sea. "In 1804 Lord Valentia, the

Viceroy of India, sent his Secretary, Mr. Salt, into

Abyssinia;" but Mr. Salt was unable to penetrate beyond Tigre.

In 1810 he attempted a second mission and again failed. It was

not until 1848 that English attempts to open diplomatic and

commercial relations with Abyssinia became successful. Mr.

Plowden was appointed consular agent, and negotiated a treaty

of commerce with Ras Ali, the ruling Galla chief."

H. M. Hozier, The British Expedition to Abyssinia,

Introduction.

ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1854-1889.

Advent of King Theodore.

His English captives and the Expedition which released them.

"Consul Plowden had been residing six years at Massowah when

he heard that the Prince to whom he had been accredited, Ras

Ali, had been defeated and dethroned by an adventurer, whose

name, a few years before, had been unknown outside the

boundaries of his native province. This was Lij Kâsa, better

known by his adopted name of Theodore. He was born of an old

family, in the mountainous region of Kwara, where the land

begins to slope downwards towards the Blue Nile, and educated

in a convent, where he learned to read, and acquired a

considerable knowledge of the Scriptures. Kâsa's convent life

was suddenly put an end to, when one of those marauding Galla

bands, whose ravages are the curse of Abyssinia, attacked and

plundered the monastery. From that time he himself took to the

life of a freebooter. ... Adventurers flocked to his standard;

his power continually increased; and in 1854 he defeated Ras

Ali in a pitched battle, and made himself master of central

Abyssinia." In 1855 he overthrew the ruler of Tigre. "He now

resolved to assume a title commensurate with the wide extent

of his dominion. In the church of Derezgye he had himself

crowned by the Abuna as King of the Kings of Ethiopia, taking

the name of Theodore, because an ancient tradition declared

that a great monarch would some day arise in Abyssinia." Mr.

Plowden now visited the new monarch, was impressed with

admiration of his talents and character, and became his

counsellor and friend. But in 1860 the English consul lost his

life, while on a journey, and Theodore, embittered by several

misfortunes, began to give rein to a savage temper. "The

British Government, on hearing of the death of Plowden,

immediately replaced him at Massowah by the appointment of

Captain Cameron." The new Consul was well received, and was

entrusted by the Abyssinian King with a letter addressed to

the Queen of England, soliciting her friendship. The letter,

duly despatched to its destination, was pigeon-holed in the

Foreign Office at London, and no reply to it was ever made.

Insulted and enraged by this treatment, and by other evidences

of the indifference of the British Government to his

overtures, King Theodore, in January, 1864, seized and

imprisoned Consul Cameron with all his suite. About the same

time he was still further offended by certain passages in a

book on Abyssinia that had been published by a missionary

named Stern. Stern and a fellow missionary, Rosenthal with the

latter's wife, were lodged in prison, and subjected to flogging

and torture. The first step taken by the British Government,

when news of Consul Cameron's imprisonment reached England,

was to send out a regular mission to Abyssinia, bearing a

letter signed by the Queen, demanding the release of the

captives. The mission, headed by a Syrian named Rassam, made

its way to the King's presence in January, 1866. Theodore

seemed to be placated by the Queen's epistle and promised

freedom to his prisoners. But soon his moody mind became

filled with suspicions as to the genuineness of Rassam's

credentials from the Queen, and as to the designs and

intentions of all the foreigners who were in his power. He was

drinking heavily at the time, and the result of his "drunken

cogitations was a determination to detain the mission--at any

rate until by their means he should have obtained a supply of

skilled artisans and machinery from England."

{5}

Mr. Rassam and his companions were accordingly put into

confinement, as Captain Cameron had been. But they were

allowed to send a messenger to England, making their situation

known, and conveying the demand of King Theodore that a man be

sent to him "who can make cannons and muskets." The demand was

actually complied with. Six skilled artisans and a civil

engineer were sent out, together with a quantity of machinery

and other presents, in the hope that they would procure the

release of the unfortunate captives at Magdala. Almost a year

was wasted in these futile proceedings, and it was not until

September, 1867, that an expedition consisting of 4,000

British and 8,000 native troops, under General Sir Robert

Napier, was sent from India to bring the insensate barbarian

to terms. It landed in Annesley Bay, and, overcoming enormous

difficulties with regard to water, food-supplies and

transportation, was ready, about the middle of January, 1868,

to start upon its march to the fortress of Magdala, where

Theodore's prisoners were confined. The distance was 400

miles, and several high ranges of mountains had to be passed

to reach the interior table-land. The invading army met with

no resistance until it reached the Valley of the Beshilo, when

it was attacked (April 10) on the plain of Aroge or Arogi, by

the whole force which Theodore was able to muster, numbering a

few thousands, only, of poorly armed men. The battle was

simply a rapid slaughtering of the barbaric assailants, and

when they fled, leaving 700 or 800 dead and 1,500 wounded on

the field, the Abyssinian King had no power of resistance

left. He offered at once to make peace, surrendering all the

captives in his hands; but Sir Robert Napier required an

unconditional submission, with a view to displacing him from

the throne, in accordance with the wish and expectation which

he had found to be general in the country. Theodore refused

these terms, and when (April 13) Magdala was bombarded and

stormed by the British troops--slight resistance being

made--he shot himself at the moment of their entrance to the

place. The sovereignty he had successfully concentrated in

himself for a time was again divided. Between April and June

the English army was entirely withdrawn, and "Abyssinia was

sealed up again from intercourse with the outer world."

Cassell's Illustrated History of England,

volume 9, chapter 28.

"The task of permanently uniting Abyssinia, in which Theodore

failed, proved equally impracticable to John, who came to the

front, in the first instance, as an ally of the British, and

afterwards succeeded to the sovereignty. By his fall (10th

March, 1889) in the unhappy war against the Dervishes or

Moslem zealots of the Soudan, the path was cleared for Menilek

of Shoa, who enjoyed the support of Italy. The establishment

of the Italians on the Red Sea littoral ... promises a new era

for Abyssinia."

T. Nöldeke, Sketches from Eastern History, chapter 9.

ALSO IN

H. A. Stern, The Captive Missionary.

H. M. Stanley, Coomassie and Magdala, part 2.

ACABA, the Pledges of.

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

ACADEMY, The Athenian.

"The Academia, a public garden in the neighbourhood of Athens,

was the favourite resort of Plato, and gave its name to the

school which he founded. This garden was planted with lofty

plane-trees, and adorned with temples and statues; a gentle

stream rolled through it."

G. H. Lewes, Biog. History of Philosophy, 6th Epoch.

The masters of the great schools of philosophy at Athens "chose

for their lectures and discussions the public buildings which

were called gymnasia, of which there were several in different

quarters of the city. They could only use them by the sufferance

of the State, which had built them chiefly for bodily

exercises and athletic feats. ... Before long several of the

schools drew themselves apart in special buildings, and even

took their most familiar names, such as the Lyceum and the

Academy, from the gymnasia in which they made themselves at

home. Gradually we find the traces of some material

provisions, which helped to define and to perpetuate the

different sects. Plato had a little garden, close by the

sacred Eleusinian Way, in the shady groves of the Academy,

which he bought, says Plutarch, for some 3,000 drachmæ. There

lived also his successors, Xenocrates and Polemon. ...

Aristotle, as we know, in later life had taught in the Lyceum,

in the rich grounds near the Ilissus, and there he probably

possessed the house and garden which after his death came into

the hands of his successor, Theophrastus."

W. W. Capes, University life in Ancient Athens,

pages. 31-33.

For a description of the Academy, the Lyceum, and other

gymnasia of Athens.

See GYMNASIA GREEK.

Concerning the suppression of the Academy,

See ATHENS: A. D. 529.

ACADIA.

See NOVA SCOTIA.

ACADIANS, The, and the British Government.

Their expulsion.

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

ACARNANIANS.

See AKARNANIANS.

ACAWOIOS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

ACCAD.--ACCADIANS.

See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.

ACCOLADE.

"The concluding sign of being dubbed or adopted into the order

of knighthood was a slight blow given by the lord to the

cavalier, and called the accolade, from the part of the body,

the neck, whereon it was struck. ... Many writers have

imagined that the accolade was the last blow which the soldier

might receive with impunity: but this interpretation is

not correct, for the squire was as jealous of his honour as

the knight. The origin of the accolade it is impossible to

trace, but it was clearly considered symbolical of the

religious and moral duties of knighthood, and was the only

ceremony used when knights were made in places (the field of

battle, for instance), where time and circumstances did not

allow of many ceremonies."

C. Mills, History of Chivalry, page 1, 53, and foot-note.

ACHÆAN CITIES, League of the.

This, which is not to be confounded with the "Achaian League"

of Peloponnesus, was an early League of the Greek settlements

in southern Italy, or Magna Græca. It was "composed of the

towns of Siris, Pandosia, Metabus or Metapontum, Sybaris with

its offsets Posidonia and Laus, Croton, Caulonia, Temesa,

Terina and Pyxus. ... The language of Polybius regarding the

Achæan symmachy in the Peloponnesus may be applied also to

these Italian Achæans; 'not only did they live in federal and

friendly communion, but they made use of the same laws, and

the same weights, measures and coins, as well as of

the same magistrates, councillors and judges.'"

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 1, chapter 10.

{6}

ACHÆAN LEAGUE.

See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

ACHÆMENIDS, The.

The family or dynastic name (in its Greek form) of the kings

of the Persian Empire founded by Cyrus, derived from an

ancestor, Achæmenes, who was probably a chief of the Persian

tribe of the Pasargadæ. "In the inscription of Behistun, King

Darius says: 'From old time we were kings; eight of my family

have been kings, I am the ninth; from very ancient times we

have been kings.' He enumerates his ancestors: 'My father was

Vistaçpa, the father of Vistaçpa was Arsama; the father of

Arsama was Ariyaramna, the father of Ariyaramna was Khaispis,

the father of Khaispis was Hakhamanis; hence we are called

Hakhamanisiya (Achæmenids).' In these words Darius gives the

tree of his own family up to Khaispis; this was the younger

branch of the Achæmenids. Teispes, the son of Achaemenes, had

two sons; the elder was Cambyses (Kambujiya) the younger

Ariamnes; the son of Cambyses was Cyrus (Kurus), the son of

Cyrus was Cambyses II. Hence Darius could indeed maintain that

eight princes of his family had preceded him; but it was not

correct to maintain that they had been kings before him and

that he was the ninth king."

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

ALSO IN

G. Rawlinson, Family of the Achæmenidæ, appendix to

book 7 of Herodotus.

See, also, PERSIA, ANCIENT.

ACHAIA:

"Crossing the river Larissus, and pursuing the northern coast

of Peloponnesus south of the Corinthian Gulf, the traveller

would pass into Achaia--a name which designated the narrow

strip of level land, and the projecting spurs and declivities

between that gulf and the northernmost mountains of the

peninsula. ... Achaean cities--twelve in number at least, if

not more--divided this long strip of land amongst them, from

the mouth of the Larissus and the northwestern Cape Araxus on

one side, to the western boundary of the Sikyon territory on

the other. According to the accounts of the ancient legends

and the belief of Herodotus, this territory had been once

occupied by Ionian inhabitants, whom the Achaeans had

expelled."

G. Grote, History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 4 (volume 2).

After the Roman conquest and the suppression of the Achaian

League, the name Achaia was given to the Roman province then

organized, which embraced all Greece south of Macedonia and

Epirus.

See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

"In the Homeric poems, where ... the 'Hellenes' only appear in

one district of Southern Thessaly, the name Achæans is employed

by preference as a general appelation for the whole race. But

the Achæans we may term, without hesitation, a Pelasgian

people, in so far, that is, as we use this name merely as the

opposite of the term 'Hellenes,' which prevailed at a later

time, although it is true that the Hellenes themselves were

nothing more than a particular branch of the Pelasgian stock.

... [The name of the] Achæans, after it had dropped its

earlier and more universal application, was preserved as the

special name of a population dwelling in the north of the

Peloponnese and the south of Thessaly."

Georg Friedrich Schömann, Antiquity of Greece:

The State, Introduction.

"The ancients regarded them [the Achæans] as a branch of the

Æolians, with whom they afterwards reunited into one national

body, i.e., not as an originally distinct nationality or

independent branch of the Greek people. Accordingly, we hear

neither of an Achæan language nor of Achæan art. A manifest

and decided influence of the maritime Greeks, wherever the

Achæans appear, is common to the latter with the Æolians.

Achæans are everywhere settled on the coast, and are always

regarded as particularly near relations of the Ionians. ...

The Achæans appear scattered about in localities on the coast

of the Ægean so remote from one another, that it is impossible

to consider all bearing this name as fragments of a people

originally united in one social community; nor do they in fact

anywhere appear, properly speaking, as a popular body, as the

main stock of the population, but rather as eminent families,

from which spring heroes; hence the use of the expression

'Sons of the Achæans' to indicate noble descent."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 1, chapter 3.

ALSO IN

M. Duncker, History of Greece,

book 1, chapter 2, and book 2, chapter 2.

See, also,

ACHAIA,

and

GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.

ACHAIA: A. D. 1205-1387.

Mediæval Principality.

Among the conquests of the French and Lombard Crusaders in

Greece, after the taking of Constantinople, was that of a

major part of the Peloponnesus--then beginning to be called

the Morea--by William de Champlitte, a French knight, assisted

by Geffrey de Villehardouin, the younger--nephew and namesake

of the Marshal of Champagne, who was chronicler of the

conquest of the Empire of the East. William de Champlitte was

invested with this Principality of Achaia, or of the Morea, as

it is variously styled. Geffrey Villehardouin represented him

in the government, as his "bailly," for a time, and finally

succeeded in supplanting him. Half a century later the Greeks,

who had recovered Constantinople, reduced the territory of the

Principality of Achaia to about half the peninsula, and a

destructive war was waged between the two races. Subsequently

the Principality became a fief of the crown of Naples and

Sicily, and underwent many changes of possession until the

title was in confusion and dispute between the houses of

Anjou, Aragon and Savoy. Before it was engulfed finally in the

Empire of the Turks, it was ruined by their piracies and

ravages.

G. Finlay, History of Greece from its Conquest by the

Crusaders, chapter 8.

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

Achmet II., 1691-1695.

Achmet III., 1703-1730.

ACHRADINA.

A part of the ancient city of Syracuse, Sicily, known as the

"outer city," occupying the peninsula north of Ortygia, the

island, which was the "inner city."

ACHRIDA, Kingdom of.

After the death of John Zimisces who had reunited Bulgaria to

the Byzantine Empire, the Bulgarians were roused to a struggle

for the recovery of their independence, under the lead of four

brothers of a noble family, all of whom soon perished save

one, named Samuel. Samuel proved to be so vigorous and able a

soldier and had so much success that he assumed presently the

title of king. His authority was established over the greater

part of Bulgaria, and extended into Macedonia, Epirus and

Illyria. He established his capital at Achrida (modern

Ochrida, in Albania), which gave its name to his kingdom. The

suppression of this new Bulgarian monarchy occupied the

Byzantine Emperor, Basil II., in wars from 981 until 1018,

when its last strongholds, including the city of Achrida, were

surrendered to him.

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire from 716 to

1057, book 2, chapter 2, section 2.

{7}

ACKERMAN, Convention of (1826).

See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

ACOLAHUS, The.

See MEXICO, ANCIENT: THE TOLTEC EMPIRE.

ACOLYTH, The.

See VARANGIAN or WARING GUARD.

ACRABA, Battle of, A. D. 633.

After the death of Mahomet, his successor, Abu Bekr, had to

deal with several serious revolts, the most threatening of

which was raised by one Moseilama, who had pretended, even in

the life-time of the Prophet, to a rival mission of religion.

The decisive battle between the followers of Moseilama and

those of Mahomet was fought at Acraba, near Yemama. The

pretender was slain and few of his army escaped.

Sir W. Muir, Annals of the Early Caliphate, chapter 7.

ACRABATTENE, Battle of.

A sanguinary defeat of the Idumeans or Edomites by the Jews

under Judas Maccabæus, B. C. 164.

Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, book 12, chapter 8.

ACRAGAS.

See AGRIGENTUM.

ACRE (St. Jean d'Acre, or Ptolemais): A. D. 1104.

Conquest, Pillage and Massacre by the Crusaders and Genoese.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111.

ACRE: A. D.1187.

Taken from the Christians by Saladin.

See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.

ACRE: A. D. 1189-1191.

The great siege and reconquest by the Crusaders.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1188-1192.

ACRE: A. D. 1256-1257.

Quarrels and battles between the Genoese and Venetians.

See VENICE: A. D. 1256-1257.

ACRE: A. D. 1291.

The Final triumph of the Moslems.

See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291.

ACRE: 18th Century.

Restored to Importance by Sheik Daher.

"Acre, or St. Jean d'Acre, celebrated under this name in the

history of the Crusades, and in antiquity known by the name of

Ptolemais, had, by the middle of the 18th century, been almost

entirely forsaken, when Sheik Daher, the Arab rebel, restored

its commerce and navigation. This able prince, whose sway

comprehended the whole of ancient Galilee, was succeeded by

the infamous tyrant, Djezzar-Pasha, who fortified Acre, and

adorned it with a mosque, enriched with columns of antique

marble, collected from all the neighbouring cities."

M. Malte-Brun, System of Univ. Geog., book 28 (volume 1).

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

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

ACRE: A. D. 1831-1840.

Siege and Capture by Mehemed Ali.

Recovery for the Sultan by the Western Powers.

See TURKS: A. D.1831-1840.

ACROCERAUNIAN PROMONTORY.

See KORKYRA.

ACROPOLIS OF ATHENS, The.

"A road which, by running zigzag up the slope was rendered

practicable for chariots, led from the lower city to the

Acropolis, on the edge of the platform of which stood the

Propylæa, erected by the architect Mnesicles in five years,

during the administration of Pericles. ... On entering through

the gates of the Propylæa a scene of unparalleled grandeur and

beauty burst upon the eye. No trace of human dwellings

anywhere appeared, but on all sides temples of more or less

elevation, of Pentelic marble, beautiful in design and

exquisitely delicate in execution, sparkled like piles of

alabaster in the sun. On the left stood the Erectheion, or

fane of Athena Polias; to the right, that matchless edifice

known as the Hecatompedon of old, but to later ages as the

Parthenon. Other buildings, all holy to the eyes of an

Athenian, lay grouped around these master structures, and, in

the open spaces between, in whatever direction the spectator

might look, appeared statues, some remarkable for their

dimensions, others for their beauty, and all for the legendary

sanctity which surrounded them. No city of the ancient or

modern world ever rivalled Athens in the riches of art. Our

best filled museums, though teeming with her spoils, are poor

collections of fragments compared with that assemblage of gods

and heroes which peopled the Acropolis, the genuine Olympos of

the arts."

J. A. St. John, The Hellenes, book 1, chapter 4.

"Nothing in ancient Greece or Italy could be compared with the

Acropolis of Athens, in its combination of beauty and grandeur,

surrounded as it was by temples and theatres among its rocks,

and encircled by a city abounding with monuments, some of

which rivalled those of the Acropolis. Its platform formed one

great sanctuary, partitioned only by the boundaries of the ...

sacred portions. We cannot, therefore, admit the suggestion of

Chandler, that, in addition to the temples and other monuments on

the summit, there were houses divided into regular streets.

This would not have been consonant either with the customs or

the good taste of the Athenians. When the people of Attica

crowded into Athens at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war,

and religious prejudices gave way, in every possible case, to the

necessities of the occasion, even then the Acropolis remained

uninhabited. ... The western end of the Acropolis, which

furnished the only access to the summit of the hill, was one

hundred and sixty eight feet in breadth, an opening so narrow

that it appeared practicable to the artists of Pericles to

fill up the space with a single building which should serve

the purpose of a gateway to the citadel, as well as of a

suitable entrance to that glorious display of architecture and

sculpture which was within the inclosure. This work [the

Propylæa], the greatest production of civil architecture in

Athens, which rivalled the Parthenon in felicity of execution,

surpassed it in boldness and originality of design. ... It may be

defined as a wall pierced with five doors, before which on

both sides were Doric hexastyle porticoes."

W. M. Leake, Topography of Athens, section 8.

See, also, ATTICA.

ACT OF ABJURATION, The.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.

ACT OF MEDIATION, The.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.

ACT OF SECURITY.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.

ACT OF SETTLEMENT (English).

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1701.

ACT OF SETTLEMENT (Irish).

See IRELAND: A. D. 1660-1665.

{8}

ACT RESCISSORY.

See SCOTLAND; A. D. 1660-1666.

ACTIUM: B. C. 434.

Naval Battle of the Greeks.

A defeat inflicted upon the Corinthians by the Corcyrians, in

the contest over Epidamnus which was the prelude to the

Peloponnesian War.

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 4, chapter 1.

ACTIUM: B. C. 31.

The Victory of Octavius.

See ROME: B. C. 31.

ACTS OF SUPREMACY.

See SUPREMACY, ACTS OF;

and ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534; and 1559.

ACTS OF UNIFORMITY.

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

ACULCO, Battle of (1810).

See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.

ACZ, Battle of (1849).

See AUSTRIA, A. D. 1848-1849.

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

ADAMS, John, in the American Revolution.

See

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (MAY-JUNE);

1774 (SEPTEMBER); 1775 (MAY-AUGUST);

1776 (JANUARY-JUNE), 1776 (JULY).

In diplomatic service.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1782 (APRIL); 1782 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

Presidential election and administration.

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

ADAMS, John Quincy.

Negotiation of the Treaty of Ghent.

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

Presidential election and administration.

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

ADAMS, Samuel, in and after the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772-1773;

1774 (SEPTEMBER); 1775(MAY); 1787-1789.

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

See ROME: A. D. 488-526.

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

See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534.

ADEL.--ADALING.--ATHEL.

"The homestead of the original settler, his house,

farm-buildings and enclosure, 'the toft and croft,' with the

share of arable and appurtenant common rights, bore among the

northern nations [early Teutonic] the name of Odal, or Edhel;

the primitive mother village was an Athelby, or Athelham; the

owner was an Athelbonde: the same word Adel or Athel signified

also nobility of descent, and an Adaling was a nobleman.

Primitive nobility and primitive landownership thus bore the

same name."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,

chapter 3, section 24.

See, also, ALOD, and ETHEL.

ADELAIDE, The founding and naming of.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840.

ADELANTADOS.-ADELANTAMIENTOS.

"Adelantamientos was an early term for gubernatorial districts

[in Spanish America, the governors bearing the title of

Adelantados], generally of undefined limits, to be extended by

further conquests."

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,

volume 6 (Mexico, volume 3), page 520.

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

ADIABENE.

A name which came to be applied anciently to the tract of

country east of the middle Tigris, embracing what was

originally the proper territory of Assyria, together with

Arbelitis. Under the Parthian monarchy it formed a tributary

kingdom, much disputed between Parthia and Armenia. It was

seized several times by the Romans, but never permanently

held.

G. Rawlinson, Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, page 140.

ADIRONDACKS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ADIRONDACKS.

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

See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

ADITES, The.

"The Cushites, the first inhabitants of Arabia, are known in

the national traditions by the name of Adites, from their

progenitor, who is called Ad, the grandson of Ham."

F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History, book 7, chapter 2.

See ARABIA: THE ANCIENT SUCCESSION AND FUSION OF RACES.

ADJUTATORS.

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

ADLIYAH, The.

See ISLAM.

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

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

ADOPTIONISM.

A doctrine, condemned as heretical in the eighth century,

which taught that "Christ, as to his human nature, was not

truly the Son of God, but only His son by adoption." The dogma

is also known as the Felician heresy, from a Spanish bishop,

Felix, who was prominent among its supporters. Charlemagne

took active measures to suppress the heresy.

J. I. Mombert, History of Charles the Great,

book 2, chapter 12.

ADRIA, Proposed Kingdom of.

See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389.

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

ADRIANOPLE.--HADRIANOPLE.

A city in Thrace founded by the Emperor Hadrian and designated

by his name. It was the scene of Constantine's victory over

Licinius in A. D. 323 (see ROME: 'A. D. 305-323), and of the

defeat and death of Valens in battle with the Goths (see GOTHS

(VISIGOTHS): A. D. 378). In 1361 it became for some years the

capital of the Turks in Europe (see TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389).

It was occupied by the Russians in 1829, and again in 1878

(see TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829, and A. D. 1877-1878), and gave

its name to the Treaty negotiated in 1829 between Russia and

the Porte (see GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829).

ADRIATIC, The Wedding of the.

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

ADRUMETUM.

See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

ADUATUCI, The.

See BELGÆ.

ADULLAM, Cave of.

When David had been cast out by the Philistines, among whom he

sought refuge from the enmity of Saul, "his first retreat was the

Cave of Adullam, probably the large cavern not far from

Bethlehem, now called Khureitun. From its vicinity to

Bethlehem, he was joined there by his whole family, now

feeling themselves insecure from Saul's fury. ... Besides

these were outlaws from every part, including doubtless some

of the original Canaanites--of whom the name of one at least

has been preserved, Ahimelech the Hittite. In the vast

columnar halls and arched chambers of this subterranean

palace, all who had any grudge against the existing system

gathered round the hero of the coming age."

Dean Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish

Church, lecture 22.

ADULLAMITES, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

{9}

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

This was a battle fought near Bradford, June 29, 1643, in the

great English Civil War. The Parliamentary forces, under Lord

Fairfax, were routed by the Royalists, under Newcastle.

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

ÆAKIDS (Æacids).

The supposed descendants of the demi-god Æakus, whose grandson

was Achilles. (See MYRMIDONS.) Miltiades, the hero of Marathon,

and Pyrrhus, the warrior King of Epirus, were among those

claiming to belong to the royal race of Eakids.

ÆDHILING.

See ETHEL.

ÆDILES, Roman.

See ROME: B. C. 494-492.

ÆDUI.--ARVERNI.--ALLOBROGES.

"The two most powerful nations in Gallia were the Ædui [or

Hædui] and the Arverni. The Ædui occupied that part which lies

between the upper valley of the Loire and the Saone, which river

was part of the boundary between them and the Sequani. The

Loire separated the Ædui from the Bituriges, whose chief town

was Avaricum on the site of Bourges. At this time [B. C.121]

the Arverni, the rivals of the Ædui, were seeking the

supremacy in Gallia. The Arverni occupied the mountainous

country of Auvergne in the centre of France and the fertile

valley of the Elaver (Allier) nearly as far as the junction of

the Allier and the Loire. ... They were on friendly terms with

the Allobroges, a powerful nation east of the Rhone, who

occupied the country between the Rhone and the Isara (Isère).

... In order to break the formidable combination of the

Arverni and the Allobroges, the Romans made use of the Ædui,

who were the enemies both of the Allobroges and the Arverni.

... A treaty was made either at this time or somewhat earlier

between the Ædui and the Roman senate, who conferred on their

new Gallic friends the honourable title of brothers and

kinsmen. This fraternizing was a piece of political cant which

the Romans practiced when it was useful."

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

See, also, GAULS.

Ægæ.

See EDESSA (MACEDONIA).

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

See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

ÆGEAN, The.

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

Euxine."

E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe,

page 413, and foot-note.

ÆGIALEA.--ÆGIALEANS.

The original name of the northern coast of Peloponnesus, and

its inhabitants.

See GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.

ÆGIKOREIS.

See PHYLÆ.

ÆGINA.

A small rocky island in the Saronic gulf, between Attica and

Argolis. First colonized by Achæans it was afterwards occupied

by Dorians (see GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS) and was unfriendly to

Athens. During the sixth century B. C. it rose to great power

and commercial importance, and became for a time the most

brilliant center of Greek art. At the period of the Persian

war, Ægina was "the first maritime power in Greece." But the

Æginetans were at that time engaged in war with Athens, as the

allies of Thebes, and rather than forego their enmity, they

offered submission to the Persian king. The Athenians

thereupon appealed to Sparta, as the head of Greece, to

interfere, and the Æginetans were compelled to give hostages

to Athens for their fidelity to the Hellenic cause. (See

GREECE: B. C. 492-491.) They purged themselves to a great

extent of their intended treason by the extraordinary valor

with which they fought at Salamis. But the sudden pre-eminence

to which Athens rose cast a blighting shadow upon Ægina, and

in 429 B. C. it lost its independence, the Athenians taking

possession of their discomfited rival.

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, volume 1, chapter 14.

Also in

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

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

ÆGINA: B. C. 458-456.

Alliance with Corinth in war with Athens and Megara.--Defeat

and subjugation.

See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

ÆGINA: B. C. 431.

Expulsion of the Æginetans from their island by the Athenians.

Their settlement at Thyrea.

See GREECE: B. C. 431-429.

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

The first appearance of the Romans in Greece, when they

entered the country as the allies of the Ætolians, was

signalized by the barbarous destruction of Ægina. The city

having been taken, B. C. 210, its entire population was

reduced to slavery by the Romans and the land and buildings

of the city were sold to Attalus, king of Pergamus.

E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government,

chapter 8, section 2.

ÆGINETAN TALENT.

See TALENT.

ÆGITIUM, Battle of (B. C. 426).

A reverse experienced by the Athenian General, Demosthenes, in

his invasion of Ætolia, during the Peloponnesian War.

Thucydides, History, book 3, section 97.

ÆGOSPOTAMI (Aigospotamoi), Battle of.

See GREECE: B. C. 405.

ÆLFRED.

See ALFRED.

ÆLIA CAPITOLINA.

The new name given to Jerusalem by Hadrian.

See JEWS: A. D. 130-134.

ÆLIAN AND FUFIAN LAWS, The.

"The Ælian and Fufian laws (leges Ælia and Fufia) the age of

which, unfortunately we cannot accurately determine. ...

enacted that a popular assembly [at Rome] might be dissolved,

or, in other words, the acceptance of any proposed law

prevented, if a magistrate announced to the president of the

assembly that it was his intention to choose the same time for

watching the heavens. Such an announcement (obnuntiatio) was

held to be a sufficient cause for interrupting an assembly."

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 6, chapter 16.

ÆMILIAN WAY, The.

"M. Æmilius Lepidus, Consul for the year 180 B. C. ...

constructed the great road which bore his name. The Æmilian

Way led from Ariminum through the new colony of Bononia to

Placentia, being a continuation of the Flaminian Way, or great

north road, made by C. Flaminius in 220 B. C. from Rome to

Ariminum. At the same epoch, Flaminius the son, being the

colleague of Lepidus, made a branch road from Bononia across

the Appenines to Arretium."

H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 41.

ÆMILIANUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 253.

{10}

ÆOLIANS, The.

"The collective stock of Greek nationalities falls, according

to the view of those ancient writers who laboured most to

obtain an exact knowledge of ethnographic relationships, into

three main divisions, Æolians, Dorians and Ionians. ... All

the other inhabitants of Greece [not Dorians and Ionians] and

of the islands included in it, are comprised under the common

name of Æolians--a name unknown as yet to Homer, and which was

incontestably applied to a great diversity of peoples, among

which it is certain that no such homogeneity of race is to be

assumed as existed among the lonians and Dorians. Among the

two former races, though even these were scarcely in any

quarter completely unmixed, there was incontestably to be

found a single original stock, to which others had merely been

attached, and as it were engrafted, whereas, among the peoples

assigned to the Æolians, no such original stock is

recognizable, but on the contrary, as great a difference is

found between the several members of this race as between

Dorians and lonians, and of the so-called Æolians, some stood

nearer to the former, others to the latter. ... A thorough and

careful investigation might well lead to the conclusion that

the Greek people was divided not into three, but into two main

races, one of which we may call Ionian, the other Dorian,

while of the so-called Æolians some, and probably the greater

number, belonged to the former, the rest to the latter."

G. F. Schöman, Antiquity of Greece: The State,

part 1, chapter 2.

In Greek myth, Æolus, the fancied progenitor of the Æolians,

appears as one of the three sons of Hellen. "Æolus is

represented as having reigned in Thessaly: his seven sons were

Kretheus, Sisyphus, Athamas, Salmoneus, Deion, Magnes and

Perieres: his five daughters, Canace, Alcyone, Peisidike,

Calyce and Permede. The fables of this race seem to be

distinguished by a constant introduction of the God Poseidon,

as well as by an unusual prevalence of haughty and

presumptuous attributes among the Æolid heroes, leading them

to affront the gods by pretences of equality, and sometimes

even by defiance."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 6.

See, also, THESSALY, DORIANS AND IONIANS,

and ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

ÆQUIANS, The.

See OSCANS; also LATIUM;

and ROME; B. C. 458.

ÆRARIANS.

Roman citizens who had no political rights.

See CENSORS, ROMAN.

ÆRARIUM, The.

See FISCUS.

ÆSOPUS INDIANS.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

ÆSTII, or ÆSTYI, The.

"At this point [beyond the Suiones] the Suevic Sea [the

Baltic], on its eastern shore, washes the tribes of the Æstii,

whose rites and fashions and styles of dress are those of the

Suevi, while their language is more like the British. They

worship the mother of the gods and wear as a religious symbol

the device of a wild boar. ... They often use clubs, iron

weapons but seldom. They are more patient in cultivating corn

and other produce than might be expected from the general

indolence of the Germans. But they also search the deep and

are the only people who gather amber, which they call

glesum."--"The Æstii occupied that part of Prussia which is to

the north-east of the Vistula. ... The name still survives in

the form Estonia."

Tacitus, Germany, translated by Church and Brodribb,

with note.

See, also, PRUSSIAN LANGUAGE, THE OLD.

ÆSYMNETÆ, An.

Among the Greeks, an expedient "which seems to have been tried

not unfrequently in early times, tor preserving or restoring

tranquility, was to invest an individual with absolute power,

under a peculiar title, which soon became obsolete: that of

æsymnetæ. At Cuma, indeed, and in other cities, this was the

title of an ordinary magistracy, probably of that which

succeeded the hereditary monarchy; but when applied to an

extraordinary office, it was equivalent to the title of

protector or dictator."

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 10.

ÆTHEL.--ÆTHELING.

See ETHEL, and ADEL.

ÆTHELBERT, ÆTHELFRITH, ETC.

See ETHELBERT, etc.

ÆTOLIA.--ÆTOLIANS.

"Ætolia, the country of Diomed, though famous in the early

times, fell back during the migratory period almost into a

savage condition, probably through the influx into it of an

Illyrian population which became only partially Hellenized.

The nation was divided into numerous tribes, among which the

most important were the Apodoti, the Ophioneis, the Eurytanes

and the Agræans. There were scarcely any cities, village life

being preferred universally. ... It was not till the wars

which arose among Alexander's successors that the Ætolians

formed a real political union, and became an important power

in Greece."

G. Rawlinson, Manual of Ancient History, book 3.

See also,

AKARNANIANS, and GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.

ÆTOLIAN LEAGUE, The.

"The Achaian and the Ætolian Leagues, had their constitutions

been written down in the shape of a formal document, would

have presented but few varieties of importance. The same

general form of government prevailed in both; each was

federal, each was democratic; each had its popular assembly,

its smaller Senate, its general with large powers at the head

of all. The differences between the two are merely those

differences of detail which will always arise between any two

political systems of which neither is slavishly copied from

the other. ... If therefore federal states or democratic

states, or aristocratic states, were necessarily weak or

strong, peaceful or aggressive, honest or dishonest, we should

see Achaia and Ætolia both exhibiting the same moral

characteristics. But history tells another tale. The political

conduct of the Achaian League, with some mistakes and some

faults, is, on the whole, highly honourable. The political

conduct of the Ætolian League is, throughout the century in

which we know it best [last half of third and first half of

second century B. C.] almost always simply infamous. ... The

counsels of the Ætolian League were throughout directed to

mere plunder, or, at most, to selfish political

aggrandisement."

E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government, chapter 6.

The plundering aggressions of the Ætolians involved them in

continual war with their Greek kindred and neighbours, and

they did not scruple to seek foreign aid. It was through their

agency that the Romans were first brought into Greece, and it

was by their instrumentality that Antiochus fought his battle

with Rome on the sacredest of all Hellenic soil. In the end,

B. C. 189, the League was stripped by the Romans of even its

nominal independence and sank into a contemptible servitude.

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

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

{11}

AFGHANISTAN: B. C. 330.

Conquest by Alexander the Great.

Founding of Herat and Candahar.

See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 330-323;

and INDIA: B. C. 327-312.

AFGHANISTAN: B. C. 301-246.

In the Syrian Empire.

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

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 999-1183.

The Ghaznevide Empire.

See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183;

and INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 13th Century.

Conquests of Jinghis-Khan.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227;

and INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1380-1386.

Conquest by Timour.

See Timour.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1504.

Conquest by Babar.

See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1722.

Mahmoud's conquest of Persia.

See PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1737-1738.

Conquest by Nadir Shah.

See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1747-1761.

The Empire of the Dooranie, Ahmed Abdallee.

His Conquests in India.

See INDIA; A. D. 1747-1761.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1803-1838.

Shah Soojah and Dost Mahomed.

English interference.

"Shah Soojah-ool Moolk, a grandson of the illustrious Ahmed

Shah, reigned in Afghanistan from 1803 till 1809. His youth

had been full of trouble and vicissitude. He had been a

wanderer, on the verge of starvation, a pedlar, and a bandit,

who raised money by plundering caravans. His courage was

lightly reputed, and it was as a mere creature of circumstance

that he reached the throne. His reign was perturbed, and in

1809 he was a fugitive and an exile. Runjeet Singh, the Sikh

ruler of the Punjaub, defrauded him of the famous Koh-i-noor,

which is now the most precious of the crown jewels of England,

and plundered and imprisoned the fallen man. Shah Soojah at

length escaped from Lahore. After further misfortunes he at

length reached the British frontier station of Loodianah, and

in 1816 became a pensioner of the East India Company. After

the downfall of Shah Soojah, Afghanistan for many years was a

prey to anarchy. At length in 1826, Dost Mahomed succeeded in

making himself supreme at Cabul, and this masterful man

thenceforward held sway until his death in 1863,

uninterruptedly save during the three years of the British

occupation. Dost Mahomed was neither kith nor kin to the

legitimate dynasty which he displaced. His father Poyndah Khan

was an able statesman and gallant soldier. He left twenty-one

sons, of whom Futteh Khan was the eldest, and Dost Mahomed one

of the youngest. ... Throughout his long reign Dost Mahomed

was a strong and wise ruler. His youth had been neglected and

dissolute. His education was defective, and he had been

addicted to wine. Once seated on the throne, the reformation

of our Henry V. was not more thorough than was that of Dost

Mahomed. He taught himself to read and write, studied the

Koran, became scrupulously abstemious, assiduous in affairs,

no longer truculent, but courteous. ... There was a fine

rugged honesty in his nature, and a streak of genuine

chivalry; notwithstanding the despite he suffered at our

hands, he had a real regard for the English, and his loyalty

to us was broken only by his armed support of the Sikhs in the

second Punjaub war. The fallen Shah Soojah, from his asylum in

Loodianah, was continually intriguing for his restoration. His

schemes were long inoperative, and it was not until 1832 that

certain arrangements were entered into between him and the

Maharaja Runjeet Singh. To an application on Shah Soojah's

part for countenance and pecuniary aid, the Anglo-Indian

Government replied that to afford him assistance would be

inconsistent with the policy of neutrality which the

Government had imposed on itself; but it unwisely contributed

financially toward his undertaking by granting him four

months' pension in advance. Sixteen thousand rupees formed a

scant war fund with which to attempt the recovery of a throne,

but the Shah started on his errand in February, 1833. After a

successful contest with the Ameers of Scinde, he marched on

Candahar, and besieged that fortress. Candahar was in

extremity when Dost Mahomed, hurrying from Cabul, relieved it,

and joining forces with its defenders, he defeated and routed

Shah Soojah, who fled precipitately, leaving behind him his

artillery and camp equipage. During the Dost's absence in the

south, Runjeet Singh's troops crossed the Attock, occupied the

Afghan province of Peshawur, and drove the Afghans into the

Khyber Pass. No subsequent efforts on Dost Mahomed's part

availed to expel the Sikhs from Peshawur, and suspicious of

British connivance with Runjeet Singh's successful aggression,

he took into consideration the policy of fortifying himself by

a counter alliance with Persia. As for Shah Soojah, he had

crept back to his refuge at Loodianah. Lord Auckland succeeded

Lord William Bentinck as Governor-General of India in March,

1836. In reply to Dost Mahomed's letter of congratulation, his

lordship wrote: 'You are aware that it is not the practice of

the British Government to interfere with the affairs of other

independent States;' an abstention which Lord Auckland was

soon to violate. He had brought from England the feeling of

disquietude in regard to the designs of Persia and Russia

which the communications of our envoy in Persia had fostered

in the Home Government, but it would appear that he was wholly

undecided what line of action to pursue. 'Swayed,' says

Durand, 'by the vague apprehensions of a remote danger

entertained by others rather than himself, he despatched to

Afghanistan Captain Burnes on a nominally commercial mission,

which, in fact, was one of political discovery, but without

definite instructions. Burnes, an able but rash and ambitious

man, reached Cabul in September, 1837, two months before the

Persian army began the siege of Herat. ... The Dost made no

concealment to Burnes of his approaches to Persia and Russia,

in despair of British good offices, and being hungry for

assistance from any source to meet the encroachments of the

Sikhs, he professed himself ready to abandon his negotiations

with the western powers if he were given reason to expect

countenance and assistance at the hands of the Anglo-Indian

Government. ... The situation of Burnes in relation to the

Dost was presently complicated by the arrival at Cabul of a

Russian officer claiming to be an envoy from the Czar, whose

credentials, however, were regarded as dubious, and who, if

that circumstance has the least weight, was on his return to

Russia utterly repudiated by Count Nesselrode. The Dost took

small account of this emissary, continuing to assure Burnes

that he cared for no connection except with the English, and

Burnes professed to his Government his fullest confidence in

the sincerity of those declarations.

{12}

But the tone of Lord Auckland's reply, addressed

to the Dost, was so dictatorial and supercilious as to

indicate the writer's intention that it should give offence.

It had that effect, and Burnes' mission at once became

hopeless. ... The Russian envoy, who was profuse in his

promises of everything which the Dost was most anxious to

obtain, was received into favour and treated with distinction,

and on his return journey he effected a treaty with the

Candahar chiefs which was presently ratified by the Russian

minister at the Persian Court. Burnes, fallen into discredit

at Cabul, quitted that place in August 1838. He had not been

discreet, but it was not his indiscretion that brought about

the failure of his mission. A nefarious transaction, which

Kaye denounces with the passion of a just indignation,

connects itself with Burnes' negotiations with the Dost; his

official correspondence was unscrupulously mutilated and

garbled in the published Blue Book with deliberate purpose to

deceive the British public. Burnes had failed because, since

he had quitted India for Cabul, Lord Auckland's policy had

gradually altered. Lord Auckland had landed in India in the

character of a man of peace. That, so late as April 1837, he

had no design of obstructing the existing situation in

Afghanistan is proved by his written statement of that date,

that 'the British Government had resolved decidedly to

discourage the prosecution by the ex-king Shah

Soojah-ool-Moolk, so long as he may remain under our

protection, of further schemes of hostility against the chiefs

now in power in Cabul and Candahar.' Yet, in the following

June, he concluded a treaty which sent Shah Soojah to Cabul,

escorted by British bayonets. Of this inconsistency no

explanation presents itself. It was a far cry from our

frontier on the Sutlej to Herat in the confines of Central

Asia--a distance of more than 1,200 miles, over some of the

most arduous marching ground in the known world. ... Lord

William Bentinck, Lord Auckland's predecessor, denounced the

project as an act of incredible folly. Marquis Wellesley

regarded 'this wild expedition into a distant region of rocks

and deserts, of sands and ice and snow,' as an act of

infatuation. The Duke of Wellington pronounced with prophetic

sagacity, that the consequence of once crossing the Indus to

settle a government in Afghanistan would be a perennial march

into that country."

A. Forbes, The Afghan Wars, chapter 1.

ALSO IN;

J. P. Ferrier, History of the Afghans, chapter 10-20.

Mohan Lal,  Life of Amir Dost Mohammed Khan, volume 1.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1838-1842.

English invasion, and restoration of Soojah Dowlah.

The revolt at Cabul.

Horrors of the British retreat.

Destruction of the entire army, save one man, only.

Sale's defence of Jellalabad.

"To approach Afghanistan it was necessary to secure the

friendship of the Sikhs, who were, indeed, ready enough to

join against their old enemies; and a threefold treaty was

contracted between Runjeet Singh, the English, and Shah Soojah

for the restoration of the banished house. The

expedition--which according to the original intention was to

have been carried out chiefly by means of troops in the pay of

Shah Soojah and the Sikhs--rapidly grew into an English

invasion of Afghanistan. A considerable force was gathered on

the Sikh frontier from Bengal; a second army, under General

Keane, was to come up from Kurrachee through Sindh. Both of

these armies, and the troops of Shah Soojah, were to enter the

highlands of Afghanistan by the Bolan Pass. As the Sikhs would

not willingly allow the free passage of our troops through

their country, an additional burden was laid upon the armies,-

the independent Ameers of Sindh had to be coerced. At length,

with much trouble from the difficulties of the country and the

loss of the commissariat animals, the forces were all

collected under the command of Keane beyond the passes. The

want of food permitted of no delay; the army pushed on to

Candahar. Shah Soojah was declared Monarch of the southern

Principality. Thence the troops moved rapidly onwards towards

the more important and difficult conquest of Cabul. Ghuznee, a

fortress of great strength, lay in the way. In their hasty

movements the English had left their battering train behind,

but the gates of the fortress were blown in with gunpowder,

and by a brilliant feat of arms the fortress was stormed. Nor

did the English army encounter any important resistance

subsequently. Dost Mohamed found his followers deserting him,

and withdrew northwards into the mountains of the Hindoo

Koosh. With all the splendour that could be collected, Shah

Soojah was brought back to his throne in the Bala Hissar, the

fortress Palace of Cabul. ... For the moment the policy seemed

thoroughly successful. The English Ministry could feel that a

fresh check had been placed upon its Russian rival, and no one

dreamt of the terrible retribution that was in store for the

unjust violence done to the feelings of a people. ... Dost

Mohamed thought it prudent to surrender himself to the English

envoy, Sir William Macnaghten, and to withdraw with his family

to the English provinces of Hindostan [November, 1840]. He was

there well received and treated with liberality; for, as both

the Governor General and his chief adviser Macnaghten felt, he

had not in fact in any way offended us, but had fallen a

victim to our policy. It was in the full belief that their

policy in India had been crowned with permanent success that

the Whig Ministers withdrew from office, leaving their

successors to encounter the terrible results to which it led.

For while the English officials were blindly congratulating

themselves upon the happy completion of their enterprise, to

an observant eye signs of approaching difficulty were on all

sides visible. ... The removal of the strong rule of the

Barrukzyes opened a door for undefined hopes to many of the

other families and tribes. The whole country was full of

intrigues and of diplomatic bargaining, carried on by the

English political agents with the various chiefs and leaders.

But they soon found that the hopes excited by these

negotiations were illusory. The allowances for which they had

bargained were reduced, for the English envoy began to be

disquieted at the vast expenses of the Government. They did

not find that they derived any advantages from the

establishment of the new puppet King, Soojah Dowlah; and every

Mahomedan, even the very king himself, felt disgraced at the

predominance of the English infidels.

{13}

But as no actual insurrection broke out, Macnaghten, a man of

sanguine temperament and anxious to believe what he wished, in

spite of unmistakable warnings as to the real feeling of the

people, clung with almost angry vehemence to the persuasion

that all was going well, and that the new King had a real hold

upon the people's affection. So completely had he deceived

himself on this point, that he had decided to send back a

portion of the English army, under General Sale, into

Hindostan. He even intended to accompany it himself to enjoy

the peaceful post of Governor of Bombay, with which his

successful policy had been rewarded. His place was to be taken

by Sir Alexander Burnes, whose view of the troubled condition

of the country underlying the comparative calm of the surface

was much truer than that of Macnaghten, but who, perhaps from

that very fact, was far less popular among the chiefs. The

army which was to remain at Candahar was under the command of

General Nott, an able and decided if somewhat irascible man.

But General Elphinstone, the commander of the troops at Cabul,

was of quite a different stamp. He was much respected and

liked for his honourable character and social qualities, but

was advanced in years, a confirmed invalid, and wholly wanting

in the vigour and decision which his critical position was

likely to require. The fool's paradise with which the English

Envoy had surrounded himself was rudely destroyed. He had

persuaded himself that the frequently recurring disturbances,

and especially the insurrection of the Ghilzyes between Cabul

and Jellalabad, were mere local outbreaks. But In fact a great

conspiracy was on foot in which the chiefs of nearly every

important tribe in the country were implicated. On the evening

of the 1st of November [1841] a meeting of the chiefs was

held, and It was decided that an immediate attack should be

made on the house of Sir Alexander Burnes. The following morning

an angry crowd of assailants stormed the houses of Sir

Alexander Burnes and Captain Johnson, murdering the inmates,

and rifling the treasure-chests belonging to Soojah Dowlah's

army. Soon the whole city was in wild insurrection. The

evidence is nearly irresistible that a little decision and

rapidity of action on the part of the military would have at

once crushed the outbreak. But although the attack on Burnes's

house was known, no troops were sent to his assistance.

Indeed, that unbroken course of folly and mismanagement which

marked the conduct of our military affairs throughout this

crisis had already begun. Instead of occupying the fortress of

the Bala Hissar, where the army would have been in comparative

security, Elphlnstone had placed his troops in cantonments far

too extensive to be properly defended, surrounded by an

entrenchment of the most insignificant character, commanded on

almost all sides by higher ground. To complete the unfitness

of the position, the commissariat supplies were not stored

within the cantonments, but were placed in an isolated fort at

some little distance. An ill-sustained and futile assault was

made upon the town on the 3d of November, but from that time

onwards the British troops lay with incomprehensible

supineness awaiting their fate in their defenceless position.

The commissariat fort soon fell into the hands of the enemy

and rendered their situation still more deplorable. Some

flashes of bravery now and then lighted up the sombre scene of

helpless misfortune, and served to show that destruction might

even yet have been averted by a little firmness. ... But the

commander had already begun to despair, and before many days

had passed he was thinking of making terms with the enemy.

Macnaghten had no course open to him under such circumstances

but to adopt the suggestion of the general, and attempt as

well as he could by bribes, cajolery, and intrigue, to divide

the chiefs and secure a safe retreat for the English. Akbar

Khan, the son of Dost Mohamed, though not present at the

beginning of the insurrection, had arrived from the northern

mountains, and at once asserted a predominant influence in the

insurgent councils. With him and with the other insurgent

chiefs Macnaghten entered into an arrangement by which he

promised to withdraw the English entirely from the country if

a safe passage were secured for the army through the passes.

... While ostensibly treating with the Barrukzye chiefs, he

intrigued on all sides with the rival tribes. His double

dealing was taken advantage of by Akbar Khan. He sent

messengers to Macnaghten proposing that the English should

make a separate treaty with himself and support him with their

troops in an assault upon some of his rivals. The proposition

was a mere trap, and the envoy fell into it. Ordering troops

to be got ready, he hurried to a meeting with Akbar to

complete the arrangement. There he found himself in the

presence of the brother and relatives of the very men against

whom he was plotting, and was seized and murdered by Akbar's

own hand [December 23]. Still the General thought of nothing

but surrender. The negotiations were entrusted to Major

Pottinger. The terms of the chiefs gradually rose, and at

length with much confusion the wretched army marched out of

the cantonments [January 6, 1842], leaving behind nearly all

the cannon and superfluous military stores. An Afghan escort

to secure the safety of the troops on their perilous journey

had been promised, but the promise was not kept. The horrors

of the retreat form one of the darkest passages in English

military history. In bitter cold and snow, which took all life

out of the wretched Sepoys, without proper clothing or

shelter, and hampered by a disorderly mass of thousands of

camp-followers, the army entered the terrible defiles which

lie between Cabul and Jellalabad. Whether Akbar Khan could,

had he wished it, have restrained his fanatical followers is

uncertain. As a fact the retiring crowd--it can scarcely be

called an army--was a mere unresisting prey to the assaults of

the mountaineers. Constant communication was kept up with

Akbar; on the third day all the ladies and children with the

married men were placed in his hands, and finally even the two

generals gave themselves up as hostages, always in the hope

that the remnant of the army might be allowed to escape."

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

{14}

"Then the march of the army, without a general, went on again.

Soon it became the story of a general without an army; before

very long there was neither general nor army. It is idle to

lengthen a tale of mere horrors. The straggling

remnant of an army entered the Jugdulluk Pass--a dark,

steep, narrow, ascending path between crags. The miserable

toilers found that the fanatical, implacable tribes had

barricaded the pass. All was over. The army of Cabul was

finally extinguished in that barricaded pass. It was a trap;

the British were taken in it. A few mere fugitives escaped

from the scene of actual slaughter, and were on the road to

Jellalabad, where Sale and his little army were holding their

own. When they were within sixteen miles of Jellalabad the

number was reduced to six. Of these six five were killed by

straggling marauders on the way. One man alone reached

Jellalabad to tell the tale. Literally one man, Dr. Brydon,

came to Jellalabad [January 13] out of a moving host which had

numbered in all some 16,000 when it set out on its march. The

curious eye will search through history or fiction in vain for

any picture more thrilling with the suggestions of an awful

catastrophe than that of this solitary survivor, faint and

reeling on his jaded horse, as he appeared under the walls of

Jellalabad, to bear the tidings of our Thermopylae of pain and

shame. This is the crisis of the story. With this at least the

worst of the pain and shame were destined to end. The rest is

all, so far as we are concerned, reaction and recovery. Our

successes are common enough; we may tell their tale briefly in

this instance. The garrison at Jellalabad had received before

Dr. Brydon's arrival an intimation that they were to go out

and march toward India in accordance with the terms of the

treaty extorted from Elphinstone at Cabul. They very properly

declined to be bound by a treaty which, as General Sale

rightly conjectured, had been 'forced from our envoy and

military commander with the knives at their throats.' General

Sale's determination was clear and simple. 'I propose to hold

this place on the part of Government until I receive its order

to the contrary.' This resolve of Sale's was really the

turning point of the history. Sale held Jellalabad; Nott was

at Candahar. Akbar Khan besieged Jellalabad. Nature seemed to

have declared herself emphatically on his side, for a

succession of earthquake shocks shattered the walls of the

place, and produced more terrible destruction than the most

formidable guns of modern warfare could have done. But the

garrison held out fearlessly; they restored the parapets,

re-established every battery, retrenched the whole of the

gates and built up all the breaches. They resisted every

attempt of Akbar Khan to advance upon their works, and at

length, when it became certain that General Pollock was

forcing the Khyber Pass to come to their relief, they

determined to attack Akbar Khan's army; they issued boldly out

of their forts, forced a battle on the Afghan chief, and

completely defeated him. Before Pollock, having gallantly

fought his way through the Khyber Pass, had reached Jellalabad

[April 16] the beleaguering army had been entirely defeated and

dispersed. ... Meanwhile the unfortunate Shah Soojah, whom we

had restored with so much pomp of announcement to the throne

of his ancestors, was dead. He was assassinated in Cabul, soon

after the departure of the British, ... and his body, stripped

of its royal robes and its many jewels, was flung into a

ditch."

J. McCarthy, History of our own Times,

volume 1, chapter 11.

ALSO IN

J. W. Kaye, History of the War in Afghanistan.

G. R. Gleig, Sale's Brigade in Afghanistan.

Lady Sale, Journal of the Disasters in Afghanistan.

Mohan Lal, Life of Dost Mohammed,

chapters 15-18 (volume 2).

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1842-1869.

The British return to Cabul.

Restoration of Dost Mahomed.

It was not till September that General Pollock "could obtain

permission from the Governor-General, Lord Ellenborough, to

advance against Cabul, though both he and Nott were burning to

do so. When Pollock did advance, he found the enemy posted at

Jugdulluck, the scene of the massacre. 'Here,' says one

writer, 'the skeletons lay so thick that they had to be

cleared away to allow the guns to pass. The savage grandeur of

the scene rendered it a fitting place for the deed of blood

which had been enacted under its horrid shade, never yet

pierced in some places by sunlight. The road was strewn for

two miles with mouldering skeletons like a charnel house.' Now

the enemy found they had to deal with other men, under other

leaders, for, putting their whole energy into the work, the

British troops scaled the heights and steep ascents, and

defeated the enemy in their strongholds on all sides. After

one more severe fight with Akbar Khan, and all the force he

could collect, the enemy were beaten, and driven from their

mountains, and the force marched quietly into Cabul. Nott, on

his side, started from Candahar on the 7th of August, and,

after fighting several small battles with the enemy, he

captured Ghuzni, where Palmer and his garrison had been

destroyed. From Ghuzni General Nott brought away, by command

of Lord Ellenborough, the gates of Somnauth [said to have been

taken from the Hindu temple of Somnauth by Mahmoud of Ghazni,

the first Mohammedan invader of India, in 1024], which formed

the subject of the celebrated 'Proclamation of the Gates,' as

it was called. This proclamation, issued by Lord Ellenborough,

brought upon him endless ridicule, and it was indeed at first

considered to be a satire of his enemies, in imitation of

Napoleon's address from the Pyramids; the Duke of Wellington

called it 'The Song of Triumph.' ... This proclamation, put

forth with so much flourishing of trumpets and ado, was really

an insult to those whom it professed to praise, it was an

insult to the Mohammedans under our rule, for their power was

gone, it was also an insult to the Hindoos, for their temple

of Somnauth was in ruins. These celebrated gates, which are

believed to be imitations of the original gates, are now lying

neglected and worm-eaten, in the back part of a small museum

at Agra. But to return, General Nott, having captured Ghuzni

and defeated Sultan Jan, pushed on to Cabul, where he arrived

on the 17th of September, and met Pollock. The English

prisoners (amongst whom were Brigadier Shelton and Lady Sale),

who had been captured at the time of the massacre, were

brought, or found their own way, to General Pollock's camp.

General Elphinstone had died during his captivity. It was not

now considered necessary to take any further steps; the bazaar

in Cabul was destroyed, and on the 12th of October Pollock and

Nott turned their faces southwards, and began their march into

India by the Khyber route. The Afghans in captivity were sent

back, and the Governor-General received the troops at Ferozepoor.

{15}

Thus ended the Afghan war 01 1838-42. ... The war

being over, we withdrew our forces into India, leaving the son

of Shah Soojah, Fathi Jung, who had escaped from Cabul when

his father was murdered, as king of the country, a position

that he was unable to maintain long, being very shortly

afterward, assassinated. In 1842 Dost Mahomed, the ruler whom

we had deposed, and who had been living at our expense in

India, returned to Cabul and resumed his former position as

king of the country, still bearing ill-will towards us, which

he showed on several occasions, notably during the Sikh war,

when he sent a body of his horsemen to fight for the Sikhs,

and he himself marched an army through the Khyber to Peshawur

to assist our enemies. However, the occupation of the Punjab

forced upon Dost Mahomed the necessity of being on friendly

terms with his powerful neighbour; he therefore concluded a

friendly treaty with us in 1854, hoping thereby that our power

would be used to prevent the intrigues of Persia against his

kingdom. This hope was shortly after realized, for in 1856 we

declared war against Persia, an event which was greatly to the

advantage of Dost Mahomed, as it prevented Persian

encroachments upon his territory. This war lasted but a short

time, for early in 1857 an agreement was signed between

England and Persia, by which the latter renounced all claims

over Herat and Afghanistan. Herat, however, still remained

independent of Afghanistan, until 1863, when Dost Mahomed

attacked and took the town, thus uniting the whole kingdom,

including Candahar and Afghan Turkestan, under his rule. This

was almost the last act of the Ameer's life, for a few days

after taking Herat he died. By his will he directed that Shere

Ali, one of his sons, should succeed him as Ameer of

Afghanistan. The new Ameer immediately wrote to the

Governor-General of India, Lord Elgin, in a friendly tone,

asking that his succession might be acknowledged. Lord Elgin,

however, as the commencement of the Liberal policy of

'masterly inactivity' neglected to answer the letter, a

neglect which cannot but be deeply regretted, as Shere Ali was

at all events the de facto ruler of the country, and even had

he been beaten by any other rival for the throne, it would

have been time enough to acknowledge that rival as soon as he

was really ruler of the country. When six months later a cold

acknowledgement of the letter was given by Sir William

Denison, and when a request that the Ameer made for 6,000

muskets had been refused by Lord Lawrence, the Ameer concluded

that the disposition of England towards him was not that of a

friend; particularly as, when later on, two of his brothers

revolted against him, each of them was told by the Government

that he would be acknowledged for that part of the country

which he brought under his power. However, after various

changes in fortune, in 1869 Shere Ali finally defeated his two

brothers Afzool and Azim, together with Afzool's son,

Abdurrahman."

P. F. Walker,  Afghanistan, pages 45-51.

ALSO IN

J. W. Kaye, History of the War in Afghanistan.

G. B. Malleson, History of Afghanistan, chapters 11.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

The second war with the English and its causes.

The period of disturbance in Afghanistan, during the struggle

of Shere Ali with his brothers, coincided with the vice

royalty of Lord Lawrence in India. The policy of Lord

Lawrence, "sometimes slightingly spoken of as masterly

inactivity, consisted in holding entirely aloof from the

dynastic quarrels of the Afghans ... and in attempting to

cultivate the friendship of the Ameer by gifts of money and

arms, while carefully avoiding topics of offence. ... Lord

Lawrence was himself unable to meet the Ameer, but his

successor, Lord Mayo, had an interview with him at Umballah in

1869. ... Lord Mayo adhered to the policy of his predecessor. He

refused to enter into any close alliance, he refused to pledge

himself to support any dynasty. But on the other hand he

promised that he would not press for the admission of any

English officers as Residents in Afghanistan. The return

expected by England for this attitude of friendly

non-interference was that every other foreign state, and

especially Russia, should be forbidden to mix either directly

or indirectly with the affairs of the country in which our

interests were so closely involved. ... But a different view

was held by another school of Indian politicians, and was

supported by men of such eminence as Sir Bartle Frere and Sir

Henry Rawlinson. Their view was known as the Sindh Policy as

contrasted with that of the Punjab. It appeared to them

desirable that English agents should be established at Quetta,

Candahar, and Herat, if not at Cabul itself, to keep the

Indian Government completely informed of the affairs of

Afghanistan, and to maintain English influence in the country.

In 1874, upon the accession of the Conservative Ministry, Sir

Bartle Frere produced a memorandum in which this policy was

ably maintained. ... A Viceroy whose views were more in

accordance with those of the Government, and who was likely to

be a more ready instrument in [its] hands, was found in Lord

Lytton, who went to India intrusted with the duty of giving

effect to the new policy. He was instructed. ... to continue

payments of money, to recognise the permanence of the existing

dynasty, and to give a pledge of material support in case of

unprovoked foreign aggression, but to insist on the acceptance

of an English Resident at certain places in Afghanistan in

exchange for these advantages. ... Lord Lawrence and those who

thought with him in England prophesied from the first the

disastrous results which would arise from the alienation of

the Afghans. ... The suggestion of Lord Lytton that an English

Commission should go to Cabul to discuss matters of common

interest to the two Governments, was calculated ... to excite

feelings already somewhat unfriendly to England. He [Shere

Ali] rejected the mission, and formulated his grievances. ...

Lord Lytton waived for a time the despatch of the mission, and

consented to a meeting between the Minister of the Ameer and

Sir Lewis Pelly at Peshawur. ... The English Commissioner was

instructed to declare that the one indispensable condition of

the Treaty was the admission of an English representative

within the limits of Afghanistan. The almost piteous request

on the part of the Afghans for the relaxation of this demand

proved unavailing, and the sudden death of the Ameer's envoy

formed a good excuse for breaking off the negotiation.

{16}

Lord Lytton treated the Ameer as incorrigible, gave

him to understand that the English would proceed to secure

their frontier without further reference to him, and withdrew

his native agent from Cabul. While the relations between the

two countries were in this uncomfortable condition,

information reached India that a Russian mission had been

received at Cabul. It was just at this time that the action of

the Home Government seemed to be tending rapidly towards a war

with Russia. ... As the despatch of a mission from Russia was

contrary to the engagements of that country, and its reception

under existing circumstances wore an unfriendly aspect, Lord

Lytton saw his way with some plausible justification to demand

the reception at Cabul of an English embassy. He notified his

intention to the Ameer, but without waiting for an answer

selected Sir Neville Chamberlain as his envoy, and sent him

forward with an escort of more than 1,000 men, too large, as

it was observed, for peace, too small for war. As a matter of

course the mission was not admitted. ... An outcry was raised

both in England and in India. ... Troops were hastily

collected upon the Indian frontier; and a curious light was

thrown on what had been done by the assertion of the Premier

at the Guildhall banquet that the object in view was the

formation of a 'scientific frontier;' in other words, throwing

aside all former pretences, he declared that the policy of

England was to make use of the opportunity offered for direct

territorial aggression. ... As had been foreseen by all

parties from the first, the English armies were entirely

successful in their first advance [November, 1878]. ... By the

close of December Jellalabad was in the hands of Browne, the

Shutargardan Pass had been surmounted by Roberts, and in

January Stewart established himself in Candahar. When the

resistance of his army proved ineffectual, Shere Ali had taken

to flight, only to die. His refractory son Yakoob Khan was

drawn from his prison and assumed the reins of government as

regent. ... Yakoob readily granted the English demands,

consenting to place his foreign relations under British

control, and to accept British agencies. With considerably

more reluctance, he allowed what was required for the

rectification of the frontier to pass into English hands. He

received in exchange a promise of support by the British

Government, and an annual subsidy of £60,000. On the

conclusion of the treaty the troops in the Jellalabad Valley

withdrew within the new frontier, and Yakoob Khan was left to

establish his authority as best he could at Cabul, whither in

July Cavagnari with an escort of twenty-six troopers and

eighty infantry betook himself. Then was enacted again the sad

story which preluded the first Afghan war. All the parts and

scenes in the drama repeated themselves with curious

uniformity--the English Resident with his little garrison

trusting blindly to his capacity for influencing the Afghan

mind, the puppet king, without the power to make himself

respected, irritated by the constant presence of the Resident,

the chiefs mutually distrustful and at one in nothing save

their hatred of English interference, the people seething with

anger against the infidel foreigner, a wild outbreak which the

Ameer, even had he wished it, could not control, an attack

upon the Residency and the complete destruction [Sept., 1879]

after a gallant but futile resistance of the Resident and his

entire escort. Fortunately the extreme disaster of the

previous war was avoided. The English troops which were

withdrawn from the country were still within reach. ... About

the 24th of September, three weeks after the outbreak, the

Cabul field force under General Roberts was able to move. On

the 5th of October it forced its way into the Logar Valley at

Charassiab, and on the 12th General Roberts was able to make

his formal entry into the city of Cabul. ... The Ameer was

deposed, martial law was established, the disarmament of the

people required under pain of death, and the country scoured

to bring in for punishment those chiefly implicated in the late

outbreak. While thus engaged in carrying out his work of

retribution, the wave of insurrection closed behind the

English general, communication through the Kuram Valley was

cut off, and he was left to pass the winter with an army of

some 8,000 men connected with India only by the Kybur Pass.

... A new and formidable personage ... now made his appearance

on the scene. This was Abdurahman, the nephew and rival of the

late Shere Ali, who upon the defeat of his pretensions had

sought refuge in Turkestan, and was supposed to be supported

by the friendship of Russia. The expected attack did not take

place, constant reinforcements had raised the Cabul army to

20,000, and rendered it too strong to be assailed. ... It was

thought desirable to break up Afghanistan into a northern and

southern province. ... The policy thus declared was carried

out. A certain Shere Ali, a cousin of the late Ameer of the

same name, was appointed Wali or Governor of Candahar. In the

north signs were visible that the only possible successor to

the throne of Cabul would be Abdurahman. ... The Bengal army

under General Stewart was to march northwards, and,

suppressing on the way the Ghuznee insurgents, was to join the

Cabul army in a sort of triumphant return to Peshawur. The

first part of the programme was carried out. ... The second

part of the plan was fated to be interrupted by a serious

disaster which rendered it for a while uncertain whether the

withdrawal of the troops from Afghanistan was possible. ...

Ayoob had always expressed his disapproval of his brother's

friendship for the English, and had constantly refused to

accept their overtures. Though little was known about him,

rumours were afloat that he intended to advance upon Ghuznee,

and join the insurgents there. At length about the middle of

June [1880] his army started. ... But before the end of June

Farah had been reached and it seemed plain that Candahar would

be assaulted. ... General Burrows found it necessary to fall back

to a ridge some forty-five miles from Candahar called

Kush-y-Nakhud. There is a pass called Maiwand to the north of

the high-road to Candahar, by which an army avoiding the

position on the ridge might advance upon the city. On the 27th

of July the Afghan troops were seen moving in the direction of

this pass. In his attempt to stop them with his small force,

numbering about 2,500 men, General Burrows was disastrously

defeated. With difficulty and with the loss of seven guns,

about half the English troops returned to Candahar.

{17}

General Primrose, who was in command, had no

choice but to strengthen the place, submit to an investment,

and wait till he should be rescued. ... The troops at Cabul

were on the point of withdrawing when the news of the disaster

reached them. It was at once decided that the pick of the army

under General Roberts should push forward to the beleaguered

city, while General Stewart with the remainder should carry

out the intended withdrawal. ... With about 10,000 fighting

men and 8,000 camp followers General Roberts brought to a

successful issue his remarkable enterprise, ... falling upon

the army of the Ameer and entirely dispersing it a short

distance outside the city. All those at all inclined to the

forward policy clamoured for the maintenance of a British

force in Candahar. But the Government firmly and decisively

refused to consent to anything approaching to a permanent

occupation. ... The struggle between Abdurahman and Ayoob

continued for a while, and until it was over the English

troops remained at Quetta. But when Abdurahman had been

several times victorious over his rival and in October [1881]

occupied Herat, it was thought safe to complete the

evacuation, leaving Abdurahman for the time at least generally

accepted as Ameer."

J. F. Bright, History of England, period 4, pages

534-544.

ALSO IN

A. Forbes, The Afghan Wars, part 2.

Duke of Argyll, The Afghan Question from 1841 to

1878.

G. B. Malleson, The Russo-Afghan Question.

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

AFRICA: The name as anciently applied.

See LIBYANS.

AFRICA: The Roman Province.

"Territorial sovereignty over the whole of North Africa had

doubtless already been claimed on the part of the Roman

Republic, perhaps as a portion of the Carthaginian

inheritance, perhaps because 'our sea' early became one of the

fundamental ideas of the Roman commonwealth; and, in so far,

all its coasts were regarded by the Romans even of the

developed republic as their true property. Nor had this claim

of Rome ever been properly contested by the larger states of

North Africa after the destruction of Carthage. ... The

arrangements which the emperors made were carried out quite

after the same way in the territory of the dependent princes

as in the immediate territory of Rome; it was the Roman

government that regulated the boundaries in all North Africa,

and constituted Roman communities at its discretion, in the

kingdom of Mauretania no less than in the province of Numidia.

We cannot therefore speak, in the strict sense, of a Roman

subjugation of North Africa. The Romans did not conquer it

like the Phœnicians or the French; but they ruled over Numidia

as over Mauretania, first as suzerains, then as successors of

the native governments. ... As for the previous rulers, so

also doubtless for Roman civilization there was to be found a

limit to the south, but hardly so for the Roman territorial

supremacy. There is never mention of any formal extension or

taking back of the frontier in Africa. ... The former

territory of Carthage and the larger part of the earlier

kingdom of Numidia, united with it by the dictator Cæsar, or,

as they also called it, the old and new Africa, formed until

the end of the reign of Tiberius the province of that name

[Africa], which extended from the boundary of Cyrene to the

river Ampsaga, embracing the modern state of Tripoli, as well

as Tunis and the French province of Constantine. ...

Mauretania was not a heritage like Africa and Numidia. ... The

Romans can scarcely have taken over the Empire of the

Mauretanian kings in quite the same extent as these possessed

it; but ... probably the whole south as far as the great

desert passed as imperial land."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 13.

See, also, CARTHAGE, NUMIDIA, and CYRENE.

AFRICA: The Mediæval City.

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

AFRICA:

Moslem conquest and Moslem States in the North.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST, &c.: A. D. 640-646; 647-709,

and 908-1171;

also BARBARY STATES; EGYPT: A. D. 1250-1517, and after;

and SUDAN.

AFRICA:

Portuguese Exploration of the Atlantic Coast.

The rounding of the Cape.

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

AFRICA:

Dutch and English Colonization.

See SOUTH AFRICA.

AFRICA: A. D. 1787-1807.

Settlement of Sierra Leone.

See SIERRA LEONE.

AFRICA: A. D. 1820-1822.

The founding of Liberia.

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

AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.

Partition of the interior between European Powers.

"The partition of Africa may be said to date from the Berlin

Conference of 1884--85 [see CONGO FREE STATE]. Prior to that

Conference the question of inland boundaries was scarcely

considered. ... The founding of the Congo Independent State

was probably the most important result of the Conference. ...

Two months after the Conference had concluded its labours,

Great Britain and Germany had a serious dispute in regard to

their respective spheres of influence on the Gulf of Guinea.

... The compromise ... arrived at placed the Mission Station

of Victoria within the German sphere of influence." The

frontier between the two spheres of influence on the Bight of

Biafra was subsequently defined by a line drawn, in 1886, from

the coast to Yola, on the Benué. The Royal Niger Company,

constituted by a royal charter, ... "was given administrative

powers over territories covered by its treaties. The regions

thereby placed under British protection ... apart from the Oil

Rivers District, which is directly administered by the Crown,

embrace the coastal lands between Lagos and the northern

frontier of Camarons, the Lower Niger (including territories

of Sokoto, Gandu and Borgo), and the Benué from Yola to its

confluence." By a Protocol signed December 24, 1885, Germany

and France "defined their respective spheres of influence and

action on the Bight of Biafra, and also on the Slave Coast and

in Senegambia." This "fixed the inland extension of the German

sphere of influence (Camarons) at 15° East longitude, Greenwich.

... At present it allows the French Congo territories to

expand along the western bank of the M'bangi ... provided no

other tributary of the M'bangi-Congo is found to the west, in

which case, according to the Berlin Treaty of 1884-85, the

conventional basin of the Congo would gain an extension." On

the 12th of May, 1886, France and Portugal signed a convention

by which France "secured the exclusive control of both banks

of the Casamanza (in Senegambia), and the Portuguese frontier

in the south was advanced approximately to the southern limit

of the basin of the Casini.

{18}

On the Congo, Portugal retained the Massabi district, to which

France had laid claim, but both banks of the Loango were left

to France." In 1884 three representatives of the Society for

German Colonization--Dr. Peters, Dr. Jühlke, and Count

Pfeil--quietly concluded treaties with the chiefs of Useguha,

Ukami, Nguru, and Usagara, by which those territories were

conveyed to the Society in question. "Dr. Peters ... armed

with his treaties, returned to Berlin in February, 1885. On

the 27th February, the day following the signature of the

General Act of the Berlin Conference, an Imperial Schutzbrief,

or Charter of Protection, secured to the Society for German

Colonization the territories ... acquired for them through Dr.

Peters' treaties: in other words, a German Protectorate was

proclaimed. When it became known that Germany had seized upon

the Zanzibar mainland, the indignation in colonial circles

knew no bounds. ... Prior to 1884, the continental lands

facing Zanzibar were almost exclusively under British

influence. The principal traders were British subjects, and

the Sultan's Government was administered under the advice of

the British Resident. The entire region between the Coast and

the Lakes was regarded as being under the nominal suzerainty

of the Sultan. ... Still, Great Britain had no territorial

claims on the dominions of the Sultan." The Sultan formally

protested and Great Britain championed his cause; but to no

effect. In the end the Sultan of Zanzibar yielded the German

Protectorate over the four inland provinces and over Vitu, and

the British and German Governments arranged questions between

them, provisionally, by the Anglo-German Convention of 1886,

which was afterwards superseded by the more definite

Convention of July 1890, which will be spoken of below. In

April 1887, the rights of the Society for German Colonization

were transferred to the German East Africa Association, with

Dr. Peters at its head. The British East Africa Company took

over concessions that had been granted by the Sultan of

Zanzibar to Sir William Mackinnon, and received a royal

charter in September, 1888. In South-west Africa, "an

enterprising Bremen merchant, Herr Lüderitz, and subsequently

the German Consul-General, Dr. Nachtigal, concluded a series

of political and commercial treaties with native chiefs,

whereby a claim was instituted over Angra Pequeña, and over

vast districts in the Interior between the Orange River and

Cape Frio. ... It was useless for the Cape colonists to

protest. On the 13th October 1884 Germany formally notified to

the Powers her Protectorate over South-West Africa. ... On 3rd

August 1885 the German Colonial Company for South-West Africa

was founded, and .... received the Imperial sanction for its

incorporation. But in August 1886 a new Association was

formed--the German West-Africa Company--and the

administration of its territories was placed under an Imperial

Commissioner. ... The intrusion of Germany into South-West

Africa acted as a check upon, no less than a spur to, the

extension of British influence northwards to the Zambezi.

Another obstacle to this extension arose from the Boer

insurrection." The Transvaal, with increased independence had

adopted the title of South African Republic. "Zulu-land,

having lost its independence, was partitioned: a third of its

territories, over which a republic had been proclaimed, was

absorbed (October 1887) by the Transvaal; the remainder was

added (14th May 1887) to the British possessions.

Amatonga-land was in 1888 also taken under British protection.

By a convention with the South African Republic, Britain

acquired in 1884 the Crown colony of Bechuana-land; and in the

early part of 1885 a British Protectorate was proclaimed over

the remaining portion of Bechuana-land." Furthermore, "a

British Protectorate was instituted [1885] over the country

bounded by the Zambezi in the north, the British possessions

in the south, 'the Portuguese province of Sofala' in the east,

and the 20th degree of east longitude in the west. It was at

this juncture that Mr. Cecil Rhodes came forward, and, having

obtained certain concessions from Lobengula, founded the

British South Africa Company, ... On the 29th October 1889,

the British South Africa Company was granted a royal charter.

It was declared in this charter that the principal field of

the operations of the British South African Company shall be

the region of South Africa lying immediately to the north of

British Bechuanaland, and to the north and west of the South

African Republic, and to the west of the Portuguese

dominions.'" No northern limit was given, and the other

boundaries were vaguely defined. The position of Swazi-land

was definitely settled in 1890 by an arrangement between Great

Britain and the South African Republic, which provides for the

continued independence of Swazi-land and a joint control over

the white settlers. A British Protectorate was proclaimed over

Nyassa-Viand and the Shiré Highlands in 1889-90. To return now

to the proceedings of other Powers in Africa: "Italy took

formal possession, in July 1882, of the bay and territory of

Assab. The Italian coast-line on the Red Sea was extended from

Ras Kasar (18° 2' North Latitude) to the southern boundary of

Raheita, towards Obok. During 1889, shortly after the death of

King Johannes, Keren and Asmara were occupied by Italian

troops. Menelik of Shoa, who succeeded to the throne of

Abyssinia after subjugating all the Abyssinian provinces,

except Tigré, dispatched an embassy to King Humbert, the

result of which was that the new Negus acknowledged (29th

September, 1889) the Protectorate of Italy over Abyssinia, and

its sovereignty over the territories of Massawa, Keren and

Asmara." By the Protocols of 24th March and 15th April, 1891,

Italy and Great Britain define their respective Spheres of

Influence in East Africa. "But since then Italy has

practically withdrawn from her position. She has absolutely no

hold over Abyssinia. ... Italy has also succeeded in

establishing herself on the Somál Coast." By treaties

concluded in 1889, "the coastal lands between Cape Warsheikh

(about 2° 30' North latitude), and Cape Bedwin (8° 3' North

latitude)--a distance of 450 miles--were placed under Italian

protection. Italy subsequently extended (1890) her

Protectorate over the Somál Coast to the Jub river. ... The

British Protectorate on the Somál Coast facing Aden, now

extends from the Italian frontier at Ras Hafún to Ras Jibute

(43° 15' East longitude). ... The activity of France in her

Senegambian province, ... during the last hundred years ...

has finally resulted in a considerable expansion of her

territory. ... The French have established a claim over the

country intervening between our Gold Coast Colony and Liberia.

{19}

A more precise delimitation of the frontier between Sierra

Leone and Liberia resulted from the treaties signed at

Monrovia on the 11th of November, 1887. In 1888 Portugal

withdrew all rights over Dehomé. ... Recently, a French sphere

of influence has been instituted over the whole of the Saharan

regions between Algeria and Senegambia. ... Declarations were

exchanged (5th August 1890) between [France and Great Britain]

with the following results: France became a consenting party

to the Anglo-German Convention of 1st July 1890. (2.) Great

Britain recognised a French sphere of influence over

Madagascar. ... And (3) Great Britain recognised the sphere of

influence of France to the south of her Mediterranean

possessions, up to a line from Say on the Niger to Barrua on

Lake Tsad, drawn in such a manner as to comprise in the sphere

of action of the British Niger Company all that fairly belongs

to the kingdom of Sokoto." The Anglo-German Convention of

July, 1890, already referred to, established by its main

provisions the following definitions of territory: "The

Anglo-German frontier in East Africa, which, by the Convention

of 1886, ended at a point on the eastern shore of the Victoria

Nyanza was continued on the same latitude across the lake to

the confines of the Congo Independent State; but, on the

western side of the lake, this frontier was, if necessary, to

be deflected to the south, in order to include Mount M'fumbiro

within the British sphere. ... Treaties in that district were

made on behalf of the British East Africa Company by Mr.

Stanley, on his return (May 1889) from the relief of Emin

Pasha. ... (2.) The southern boundary of the German sphere of

influence in East Africa was recognised as that originally

drawn to a point on the eastern shore of Lake Nyassa, whence

it was continued by the eastern, northern, and western shores

of the lake to the northern bank of the mouth of the River

Songwé. From this point the Anglo-German frontier was

continued to Lake Tanganika, in such a manner as to leave the

Stevenson Road within the British sphere. (3.) The Northern

frontier of British East Africa was defined by the Jub River

and the conterminous boundary of the Italian sphere of

influence in Galla-land and Abyssinia up to the confines of

Egypt; in the west, by the Congo State and the Congo-Nile

watershed. (4.) Germany withdrew, in favor of Britain, her

Protectorate over Vitu and her claims to all territories on

the mainland to the north of the River Tana, as also over the

islands of Patta and Manda. (5.) In South-West Africa, the

Anglo-German frontier, originally fixed up to 22 south

latitude, was confirmed; but from this point the boundary-line

was drawn in such a manner eastward and northward as to give

Germany free access to the Zambezi by the Chobe River. (6.)

The Anglo-German frontier between Togo and Gold Coast Colony

was fixed, and that between the Camarons and the British Niger

Territories was provisionally adjusted. (7.) The Free-trade

zone, defined by the Act of Berlin (1885) was recognised as

applicable to the present arrangement between Britain and

Germany. (8.) A British Protectorate was recognised over the

dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar within the British coastal

zone and over the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba. Britain,

however, undertook to use her influence to secure (what have

since been acquired) corresponding advantages for Germany

within the German coastal zone and over the island of Mafia.

Finally (9), the island of Heligoland, in the North Sea, was

ceded by Britain to Germany." By a treaty concluded in June,

1891, between Great Britain and Portugal, "Great Britain

acquired a broad central sphere of influence for the expansion

of her possessions in South Africa northward to and beyond the

Zambezi, along a path which provides for the uninterrupted

passage of British goods and British enterprise, up to the

confines of the Congo Independent State and German East

Africa. ... Portugal, on the East Coast secured the Lower

Zambezi from Zumbo, and the Lower Shiré from the Ruo

Confluence, the entire Hinterland of Mosambique up to Lake

Nyassa and the Hinterland of Sofala to the confines of the

South African Republic and the Matabele kingdom. On the West

Coast, Portugal received the entire Hinterland behind her

provinces in Lower Guinea, up to the confines of the Congo

Independent State, and the upper course of the Zambezi. ... On

May 25th 1891 a Convention was signed at Lisbon, which has put an

end to the dispute between Portugal and the Congo Independent

State as to the possession of Lunda. Roughly speaking, the

country was equally divided between the disputants. ... Lord

Salisbury, in his negotiations with Germany and Portugal, very

wisely upheld the principle of free-trade which was laid down by

the Act of Berlin, 1885, in regard to the free transit of

goods through territories in which two or more powers are

indirectly interested."

A. S. White, The Development of Africa, Second Ed.,

Revised., 1892.

ALSO IN:

J. S. Keltie, The Partition of Africa, chapter 12-23.

See, also, SOUTH AFRICA, and UGANDA.

AFRICA: The inhabiting races.

The indigenous races of Africa are considered to be four in

number, namely: the Negroes proper, who occupy a central zone,

stretching from the Atlantic to the Egyptian Sudan, and who

comprise an enormous number of diverse tribes; the Fulahs

(with whom the Nubians are associated) settled mainly between

Lake Chad and the Niger; the Bantus, who occupy the whole

South, except its extremity, and the Hottentots who are in

that extreme southern region. Some anthropologists include

with the Hottentots the Bosjesmans or Bushmen. The Kafirs and

Bechuanas are Bantu tribes. The North and Northeast are

occupied by Semitic and Hamitic races, the latter including

Abyssinians and Gallas.

A. H. Keane, The African Races (Stanford's Compendium:

Africa, appendix).

ALSO IN:

R. Brown, The Races of Mankind, volume 2-3.

R. N. Cust, Sketch of the Modern Languages of

Africa.

See, also, SOUTH AFRICA.

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

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

AGADE.

See BABYLONIA: THE EARLY (CHALDEAN) MONARCHY.

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

AGAS.

See SUBLIME PORTE.

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

AGATHOCLES, The tyranny of.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 317-289.

AGE OF STONE.--AGE OF BRONZE, &c.

See STONE AGE.

{20}

AGELA.--AGELATAS.

The youths and young men of ancient Crete were publicly

trained and disciplined in divisions or companies, each of

which was called an Agela, and its leader or director the

Agelatas.

G. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece: The State,

part 3, chapter 2.

AGEMA, The.

The royal escort of Alexander the Great.

AGEN, Origin of.

See NITIOBRIGES.

AGENDICUM OR AGEDINCUM.

See SENONES.

AGER PUBLICUS.

"Rome was always making fresh acquisitions of territory in her

early history. ... Large tracts of country became Roman land,

the property of the Roman state, or public domain (ager

publicus), as the Romans called it. The condition of this

land, the use to which it was applied, and the disputes which

it caused between the two orders at Rome, are among the most

curious and perplexing questions in Roman history. ... That

part of newly acquired territory which was neither sold nor

given remained public property, and it was occupied, according

to the Roman term, by private persons, in whose hands it was a

Possessio. Hyginus and Siculus Flaccus represent this

occupation as being made without any order. Every Roman took

what he could, and more than he could use profitably. ... We

should be more inclined to believe that this public land was

occupied under some regulations, in order to prevent disputes;

but if such regulations existed we know nothing about them.

There was no survey made of the public land which was from

time to time acquired, but there were certainly general

boundaries fixed for the purpose of determining what had

become public property. The lands which were sold and given

were of necessity surveyed and fixed by boundaries. ... There

is no direct evidence that any payments to the state were

originally made by the Possessors. It is certain, however,

that at some early time such payments were made, or, at least,

were due to the state."

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, chapter 11.

AGGER.

See CASTRA.

AGGRAVIADOS, The.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

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

AGHLABITE DYNASTY.

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

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

See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

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

AGINCOURT, Battle of (1415).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1415.

AGINNUM.--Modern Agen.

See NITIOBRIGES.

AGNADEL, Battle of (1509).

See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

AGNATI.--AGNATIC.

See GENS, ROMAN.

AGNIERS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: AGNIERS.

AGOGE, The.

The public discipline enforced in ancient Sparta; the

ordinances attributed to Lycurgus, for the training of the

young and for the regulating of the lives of citizens.

G. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece:

The State, part 3, chapter 1.

AGORA, The.

The market-place of an ancient Greek city was, also, the

centre of its political life. "Like the gymnasium, and even

earlier than this, it grew into architectural splendour with

the increasing culture of the Greeks. In maritime cities it

generally lay near the sea; in inland places at the foot of

the hill which carried the old feudal castle. Being the oldest

part of the city, it naturally became the focus not only of

commercial, but also of religious and political life. Here

even in Homer's time the citizens assembled in consultation,

for which purpose it was supplied with seats; here were the

oldest sanctuaries; here were celebrated the first festive

games; here centred the roads on which the intercommunication,

both religious and commercial, with neighbouring cities and

states was carried on; from here started the processions which

continually passed between holy places of kindred origin,

though locally separated. Although originally all public

transactions were carried on in these market-places, special

local arrangements for contracting public business soon became

necessary in large cities. At Athens, for instance, the gently

rising ground of the Philopappos hill, called Pnyx, touching

the Agora, was used for political consultations, while most

likely, about the time of the Pisistratides, the market of

Kerameikos, the oldest seat of Attic industry (lying between

the foot of the Akropolis, the Areopagos and the hill of

Theseus), became the agora proper, i. e., the centre of

Athenian commerce. ... The description by Vitruvius of an

agora evidently refers to the splendid structures of

post-Alexandrine times. According to him it was quadrangular

in size [? shape] and surrounded by wide double colonades. The

numerous columns carried architraves of common stone or of

marble, and on the roofs of the porticoes were galleries for

walking purposes. This, of course, does not apply to all

marketplaces, even of later date; but, upon the whole, the

remaining specimens agree with the description of Vitruvius."

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

translated by Hueffer, part 1, section 26.

In the Homeric time, the general assembly of freemen was

called the Agora.

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 20.

AGRÆI, The.

See AKARNANIANS.

AGRARIAN LAWS, Roman.

"Great mistakes formerly prevailed on the nature of the Roman

laws familiarly termed Agrarian. It was supposed that by these

laws all land was declared common property, and that at

certain intervals of time the state resumed possession and

made a fresh distribution to all citizens, rich and poor. It

is needless to make any remarks on the nature and consequences

of such a law; sufficient it will be to say, what is now known

to all, that at Rome such laws never existed, never were

thought of. The lands which were to be distributed by Agrarian

laws were not private property, but the property of the state.

They were, originally, those public lands which had been the

domain of the kings, and which were increased whenever any

City or people was conquered by the Romans; because it was an

Italian practice to confiscate the lands of the conquered, in

whole or in part."

H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 8.

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

{21}

AGRI DECUMATES, The.

"Between the Rhine and the Upper Danube there intervenes a

triangular tract of land, the apex of which touches the

confines of Switzerland at Basel; thus separating, as with an

enormous wedge, the provinces of Gaul and Vindelicia, and

presenting at its base no natural line of defence from one river

to the other. This tract was, however, occupied, for the most

part, by forests, and if it broke the line of the Roman

defences, it might at least be considered impenetrable to an

enemy. Abandoned by the warlike and predatory tribes of

Germany, it was seized by wandering immigrants from Gaul, many

of them Roman adventurers, before whom the original

inhabitants, the Marcomanni, or men of the frontier, seem to

have retreated eastward beyond the Hercynian forest. The

intruders claimed or solicited Roman protection, and offered

in return a tribute from the produce of the soil, whence the

district itself came to be known by the title of the Agri

Decumates, or Tithed Land. It was not, however, officially

connected with any province of the Empire, nor was any attempt

made to provide for its permanent security, till a period much

later than that on which we are now engaged [the period of

Augustus]."

C. Merivale, History of the Roman, chapter 36..

"Wurtemburg, Baden and Hohenzollern coincide with the Agri

Decumates of the Roman writers."

R G. Latham, Ethnology of Europe, chapter 8.

See, also, ALEMANNI, and SUEVI.

AGRICOLA'S CAMPAIGNS IN BRITAIN.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.

AGRIGENTUM.

Acragas, or Agrigentum, one of the youngest of the Greek

colonies in Sicily, founded about B. C. 582 by the older

colony of Gela, became one of the largest and most splendid

cities of the age, in the fifth century B. C., as is testified

by its ruins to this day. It was the scene of the notorious

tyranny of Phalaris, as well as that of Theron. Agrigentum was

destroyed by the Carthagenians, B. C. 405, and rebuilt by

Timoleon, but never recovered its former importance and

grandeur.

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

See, also, PHALARIS, BRAZEN BULL OF.

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

See SICILY: B. C. 409-405.

Rebuilt by Timoleon, it was the scene of a great defeat of the

Carthagenians by the Romans, in 262 B. C.

See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

AGRIPPINA AND HER SON NERO.

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

AHMED KHEL, Battle of (1880).

See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

AIGINA.

See ÆGINA.

AIGOSPOTAMOI, Battle of.

See GREECE: B. C. 405.

AIGUILLON, Siege of.

A notable siege in the "Hundred Years' War," A. D. 1346. An

English garrison under the famous knight, Sir Walter Manny,

held the great fortress of Aiguillon, near the confluence of

the Garonne and the Lot, against a formidable French army.

J. Froissart, Chronicles, volume 1, book 1, chapter 120.

AIX, Origin of.

See SALYES.

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE:

The Capital of Charlemagne.

The favorite residence and one of the two capitals of

Charlemagne was the city which the Germans call Aachen and the

French have named Aix-la-Chapelle. "He ravished the ruins of

the ancient world to restore the monumental arts. A new Rome

arose in the depths of the forests of Austrasia--palaces,

gates, bridges, baths, galleries, theatres, churches,--for the

erection of which the mosaics and marbles of Italy were laid

under tribute, and workmen summoned from all parts of Europe.

It was there that an extensive library was gathered, there

that the school of the palace was made permanent, there that

foreign envoys were pompously welcomed, there that the monarch

perfected his plans for the introduction of Roman letters and

the improvement of music."

P. Godwin, History of France:

Ancient Gaul, book 4, chapter 17.

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

See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.

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

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

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE,

The Congress and Treaty which ended the War of the Austrian

Succession (1748).

The War of the Austrian Succession, which raged in Europe, and

on the ocean, and in India and America, from 1740 to 1748 (see

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, 1740-1741, and after), was brought

to an end in the latter year by a Congress of all the

belligerents which met at Aix-la-Chapelle, in April, and which

concluded its labors on the 18th of October following. "The

influence of England and Holland ... forced the peace upon

Austria and Sardinia, though both were bitterly aggrieved by

its conditions. France agreed to restore every conquest she

had made during the war, to abandon the cause of the Stuarts,

and expel the Pretender from her soil; to demolish, in

accordance with earlier treaties, the fortifications of

Dunkirk on the side of the sea, while retaining those on the

side of the land, and to retire from the conquest without

acquiring any fresh territory or any pecuniary compensation.

England in like manner restored the few conquests she had

made, and submitted to the somewhat humiliating condition of

sending hostages to Paris as a security for the restoration of

Cape Breton. ... The disputed boundary between Canada and Nova

Scotia, which had been a source of constant difficulty with

France, was left altogether undefined. The Assiento treaty for

trade with the Spanish colonies was confirmed for the four

years it had still to run; but no real compensation was

obtained for a war expenditure which is said to have exceeded

sixty-four millions, and which had raised the funded and

unfunded debt to more than seventy-eight millions. Of the

other Powers, Holland, Genoa, and the little state of Modena

retained their territory as before the war, and Genoa remained

mistress of the Duchy of Finale, which had been ceded to the king

of Sardinia by the Treaty of Worms, and which it had been a

main object of his later policy to secure. Austria obtained a

recognition of the election of the Emperor, a general

guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction, and the restoration of

everything she had lost in the Netherlands, but she gained no

additional territory. She was compelled to confirm the cession

of Silesia and Glatz to Prussia, to abandon her Italian

conquests, and even to cede a considerable part of her former

Italian dominions. To the bitter indignation of Maria Theresa,

the Duchies of Parma, Placentia and Guastella passed to Don

Philip of Spain, to revert, however, to their former

possessors if Don Philip mounted the Spanish throne, or died

without male issue. The King of Sardinia also obtained from

Austria the territorial cessions enumerated In the Treaty of

Worms [see ITALY: A. D. 1743], with the important exceptions

of Placentia, which passed to Don Philip, and of Finale, which

remained with the Genoese.

{22}

For the loss of these he obtained no compensation. Frederick

[the Great, of Prussia] obtained a general guarantee for the

possession of his newly acquired territory, and a long list of

old treaties was formally confirmed. Thus small were the

changes effected in Europe by so much bloodshed and treachery,

by nearly nine years of wasteful and desolating war. The

design of the dismemberment of Austria had failed, but no

vexed questions had been set at rest. ... Of all the ambitious

projects that had been conceived during the war, that of

Frederick alone was substantially realized."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of England, 18th Century,

chapter 3.

"Thus ended the War of the Austrian succession. In its origin

and its motives one of the most wicked of all the many

conflicts which ambition and perfidy have provoked in Europe,

it excites a peculiarly mournful interest by the gross

inequality in the rewards and penalties which fortune assigned

to the leading actors. Prussia, Spain and Sardinia were all

endowed out of the estates of the house of Hapsburg. But the

electoral house of Bavaria, the most sincere and the most

deserving of all the claimants to that vast inheritance, not

only received no increase of territory, but even nearly lost

its own patrimonial possessions. ... The most trying problem

is still that offered by the misfortunes of the Queen of

Hungary [Maria Theresa]. ... The verdict of history, as

expressed by the public opinion, and by the vast majority of

writers, in every country except Prussia, upholds the justice

of the queen's cause and condemns the coalition that was

formed against her."

H. Tuttle, History of Prussia, 1745-1756, chapter 2.

ALSO IN

W. Russell, History of Modern Europe, part 2, letter 30.

W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria,

chapter 108 (volume 3).

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

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

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

AKARNANIAN LEAGUE, The.

"Of the Akarnanian League, formed by one of the least

important, but at the same time one of the most estimable

peoples in Greece ... our knowledge is only fragmentary. The

boundaries of Akarnania fluctuated, but we always find the

people spoken of as a political whole. ... Thucydides speaks,

by implication at least, of the Akarnanian League as an

institution of old standing in his time. The Akarnanians had,

in early times, occupied the hill of Olpai as a place for

judicial proceedings common to the whole nation. Thus the

supreme court of the Akarnanian Union held its sittings, not

in a town, but in a mountain fortress. But in Thucydides' own

time Stratos had attained its position as the greatest city of

Akarnania, and probably the federal assemblies were already

held there. ... Of the constitution of the League we know but

little. Ambassadors were sent by the federal body, and

probably, just as in the Achaian League, it would have been

held to be a breach of the federal tie if any single city had

entered on diplomatic intercourse with other powers. As in

Achaia, too, there stood at the head of the League a General

with high authority. ... The existence of coins bearing the

name of the whole Akarnanian nation shows that there was unity

enough to admit of a federal coinage, though coins of

particular cities also occur."

E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government.,

chapter 4, section 1.

AKARNANIANS (Acarnanians).

The Akarnanians formed "a link of transition" between the

ancient Greeks and their barbarous or non-Hellenic neighbours

in the Epirus and beyond. "They occupied the territory between

the river Acheloûs, the Ionian sea and the Ambrakian gulf:

they were Greeks and admitted as such to contend at the

Pan-Hellenic games, yet they were also closely connected with

the Amphilochi and Agræi, who were not Greeks. In manners,

sentiments and intelligence, they were half-Hellenic and

half-Epirotic,--like the Ætolians and the Ozolian Lokrians.

Even down to the time of Thucydides, these nations were

subdivided into numerous petty communities, lived in

unfortified villages, were frequently in the habit of

plundering each other, and never permitted themselves to be

unarmed. ... Notwithstanding this state of disunion and

insecurity, however, the Akarnanians maintained a loose

political league among themselves. ... The Akarnanians appear

to have produced many prophets. They traced up their mythical

ancestry, as well as that of their neighbours the

Amphilochians, to the most renowned prophetic family among the

Grecian heroes,--Amphiaraus, with his sons Alkmæôn and

Ampilochus: Akarnan, the eponymous hero of the nation, and

other eponymous heroes of the separate towns, were supposed to

be the sons of Alkmæôn. They are spoken of, together with the

Ætolians, as mere rude shepherds, by the lyric poet Alkman,

and so they seem to have continued with little alteration

until the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, when we hear of

them, for the first time, as allies of Athens and as bitter

enemies of the Corinthian colonies on their coast. The contact

of those colonies, however, and the large spread of Akarnanian

accessible coast, could not fail to produce some effect in

socializing and improving the people. And it is probable that

this effect would have been more sensibly felt, had not the

Akarnanians been kept back by the fatal neighbourhood of the

Ætolians, with whom they were in perpetual feud,--a people the

most unprincipled and unimprovable of all who bore the

Hellenic name, and whose habitual faithlessness stood in

marked contrast with the rectitude and steadfastness of the

Akarnanian character."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 24.

AKBAR (called The Great), Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India,

A. D. 1556-1605.

AKHALZIKH, Siege and capture of (1828).

See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

AKKAD.--AKKADIANS.

See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.

AKKARON.

See PHILISTINES.

AKROKERAUNIAN PROMONTORY.

See KORKYRA.

ALABAMA:

The Aboriginal Inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APALACHES: MUSKHOGEE FAMILY;

CHEROKEES.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1539-1542.

Traversed by Hernando de Soto.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1629.

Embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1663.

Embraced in the Carolina grant to Monk, Shaftesbury, and others.

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

{23}

ALABAMA: A. D. 1702-1711.

French occupation and first settlement.

The founding of Mobile.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1732.

Mostly embraced in the new province of Georgia.

See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1763.

Cession and delivery to Great Britain.

Partly embraced in West Florida.

See SEVEN YEARS' WAR;

and FLORIDA: A. D. 1763:

and NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1779-1781.

Reconquest of West Florida by the Spaniards.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1779-1781.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1783.

Mostly covered by the English cession to the United States.

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

ALABAMA: A. D. 1783-1787.

Partly in dispute with Spain.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1798-1804.

All but the West Florida District embraced in Mississippi Territory.

See MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1798-1804.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1803.

Portion acquired by the Louisiana purchase.

See LOUISIANA: A.D. 1798-1803.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1813.

Possession of Mobile and West Florida taken from the Spaniards.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1813-1814.

The Creek War.

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

ALABAMA: A. D. 1817-1819.

Organized as a Territory.

Constituted a State, and admitted to the Union.

"By an act of Congress dated March 1, 1817, Mississippi

Territory was divided. Another act, bearing the date March 3,

thereafter, organized the western [? eastern] portion into a

Territory, to be known as Alabama, and with the boundaries as

they now exist. ... By an act approved March 2, 1819, congress

authorized the inhabitants of the Territory of Alabama to form

a state constitution, 'and that said Territory, when formed

into a State, shall be admitted into the Union upon the same

footing as the original States.' ... The joint resolution of

congress admitting Alabama into the Union was approved by

President Monroe, December 14, 1819."

W. Brewer, Alabama, chapter 5.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1861 (January).

Secession from the Union.

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

ALABAMA: A. D. 1862.

General Mitchell's Expedition.

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

ALABAMA: A. D. 1864 (August).

The Battle of Mobile Bay.

Capture of Confederate forts and fleet.

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

ALABAMA: A. D. 1865 (March-April).

The Fall of Mobile.

Wilson's Raid.

End of the Rebellion.

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

ALABAMA: A. D. 1865-1868.

Reconstruction.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865 (MAY-JULY), to 1868-1870.

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

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1861-1862.

In their Origin.

The Earlier Confederate cruisers.

Precursors of the Alabama.

The commissioning of privateers, and of more officially

commanded cruisers, in the American civil war, by the

government of the Southern Confederacy, was begun early in the

progress of the movement of rebellion, pursuant to a

proclamation issued by Jefferson Davis on the 17th of April,

1861. "Before the close of July, 1861, more than 20 of those

depredators were afloat, and had captured millions of property

belonging to American citizens. The most formidable and

notorious of the sea-going ships of this character, were the

Nashville, Captain R. B. Pegram, a Virginian, who had

abandoned his flag, and the Sumter [a regularly commissioned

war vessel], Captain Raphael Semmes. The former was a

side-wheel steamer, carried a crew of eighty men, and was

armed with two long 12-pounder rifled cannon. Her career was

short, but quite successful. She was finally destroyed by the

Montauk, Captain Worden, in the Ogeechee River. The career of

the Sumter, which had been a New Orleans and Havana packet

steamer named Marquis de Habana, was also short, but much more

active and destructive. She had a crew of sixty-five men and

twenty-five marines, and was heavily armed. She ran the

blockade at the mouth of the Mississippi River on the 30th of

June, and was pursued some distance by the Brooklyn. She ran

among the West India islands and on the Spanish Main, and soon

made prizes of many vessels bearing the American flag. She was

everywhere received in British Colonial ports with great

favor, and was afforded every facility for her piratical

operations. She became the terror of the American merchant

service, and everywhere eluded National vessels of war sent

out in pursuit of her. At length she crossed the ocean, and at

the close of 1861 was compelled to seek shelter under British

guns at Gibraltar, where she was watched by the Tuscarora.

Early in the year 1862 she was sold, and thus ended her

piratical career. Encouraged by the practical friendship of

the British evinced for these corsairs, and the substantial

aid they were receiving from British subjects in various ways,

especially through blockade-runners, the conspirators

determined to procure from those friends some powerful

piratical craft, and made arrangements for the purchase and

construction of vessels for that purpose. Mr. Laird, a

ship-builder at Liverpool and member of the British

Parliament, was the largest contractor in the business, and,

in defiance of every obstacle, succeeded in getting pirate

ships to sea. The first of these ships that went to sea was

the Oreto, ostensibly built for a house in Palermo, Sicily.

Mr. Adams, the American minister in London, was so well

satisfied from information received that she was designed for

the Confederates, that he called the attention of the British

government to the matter so early as the 18th of February,

1862. But nothing effective was done, and she was completed

and allowed to depart from British waters. She went first to

Nassau, and on the 4th of September suddenly appeared off

Mobile harbor, flying the British flag and pennants. The

blockading squadron there was in charge of Commander George H.

Preble, who had been specially instructed not to give offense

to foreign nations while enforcing the blockade. He believed

the Oreto to be a British vessel, and while deliberating a few

minutes as to what he should do, she passed out of range of

his guns, and entered the harbor with a rich freight. For his

seeming remissness Commander Preble was summarily dismissed

from the service without a hearing--an act which subsequent

events seemed to show was cruel injustice. Late in December

the Oreto escaped from Mobile, fully armed for a piratical

cruise, under the command of John Newland Maffit. ... The name

of the Oreto was changed to that of Florida."

B. J. Lossing, Field Book of the Civil War,

volume 2, chapter 21.

{24}

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

R. Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat, chapter 9-26.

ALSO IN

J. Davis, Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government,

chapter 30-31 (volume 2).

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1862-1864.

The Alabama, her career and her fate.

"The Alabama [the second cruiser built in England for the

Confederates] ... is thus described by Semmes, her commander:

'She was of about 900 tons burden, 230 feet in length, 32 feet

in breadth, 20 feet in depth, and drew, when provisioned and

coaled for cruise, 15 feet of water. She was

barkentine-rigged, with long lower masts, which enabled her to

carry large fore and aft sails, as jibs and try-sails. ... Her

engine was of 300 horse-power, and she had attached an

apparatus for condensing from the vapor of sea-water all the

fresh water that her crew might require. ... Her armament

consisted of eight guns.' ... The Alabama was built and, from

the outset, was 'intended for a Confederate vessel of war.'

The contract for her construction was signed by Captain

Bullock on the one part and Messrs. Laird on the other.' ...

On the 15th of May [1862] she was launched under the name of

the 290. Her officers were in England awaiting her completion,

and were paid their salaries 'monthly, about the first of the

month, at Fraser, Trenholm & Co.'s office in Liverpool.' The

purpose for which this vessel was being constructed was

notorious in Liverpool. Before she was launched she became an

object of suspicion with the Consul of the United States at

that port, and she was the subject of constant correspondence

on his part with his Government and with Mr. Adams. ... Early

in the history of this cruiser the point was taken by the

British authorities--a point maintained throughout the

struggle--that they would originate nothing themselves for

the maintenance and performance of their international duties,

and that they would listen to no representations from the

officials of the United States which did not furnish technical

evidence for a criminal prosecution under the Foreign

Enlistment Act. ... At last Mr. Dudley [the Consul of the

United States at Liverpool] succeeded in finding the desired

proof. On the 21st day of July, he laid it in the form of

affidavits before the Collector at Liverpool in compliance

with the intimations which Mr. Adams had received from Earl

Russell. These affidavits were on the same day transmitted by

the Collector to the Board of Customs at London, with a

request for instructions by telegraph, as the ship appeared to

be ready for sea and might leave any hour. ... It ... appears

that notwithstanding this official information from the

Collector, the papers were not considered by the law advisers

until the 28th, and that the case appeared to them to be so

clear that they gave their advice upon it that evening. Under

these circumstances, the delay of eight days after the 21st in

the order for the detention of the vessel was, in the opinion

of the United States, gross negligence on the part of Her

Majesty's Government. On the 29th the Secretary of the

Commission of the Customs received a telegram from Liverpool

saying that the vessel 290 came out of dock last night, and

left the port this morning.' ... After leaving the dock she

proceeded slowly down the Mersey.' Both the Lairds were on

board, and also Bullock. ... The 290 slowly steamed on to

Moelfra Bay, on the coast of Anglesey, where she remained 'all

that night, all the next day, and the next night.' No effort

was made to seize her. ... When the Alabama left Moelfra Bay

her crew numbered about 90 men. She ran part way down the

Irish Channel, then round the north coast of Ireland, only

stopping near the Giant's Causeway. She then made for

Terceira, one of the Azores, which she reached on the 10th of

August. On 18th of August, while she was at Terceira, a sail

was observed making for the anchorage. It proved to be the

'Agrippina of London, Captain McQueen, having on board six

guns, with ammunition, coals, stores, &c., for the Alabama.'

Preparations were immediately made to transfer this important

cargo. On the afternoon of the 20th, while employed

discharging the bark, the screw-steamer Bahama, Captain

Tessier (the same that had taken the armament to the Florida,

whose insurgent ownership and character were well known in

Liverpool), arrived, 'having on board Commander Raphael Semmes

and officers of the Confederate States steamer Sumter.' There

were also taken from this steamer two 32-pounders and some

stores, which occupied all the remainder of that day and a

part of the next. The 22d and 23d of August were taken up in

transferring coal from the Agrippina to the Alabama. It was

not until Sunday (the 24th) that the insurgents' flag was

hoisted. Bullock and those who were not going in the 290 went

back to the Bahama, and the Alabama, now first known under

that name, went off with '26 officers and 85 men.'"

The Case of the United States before the Tribunal of

Arbitration at Geneva (42d Congress, 2d Session,

Senate Ex. Doc., No. 31, pages 146-151).

The Alabama "arrived at Porto Praya on the 19th August.

Shortly thereafter Capt. Raphael Semmes assumed command.

Hoisting the Confederate flag, she cruised and captured

several vessels in the vicinity of Flores. Cruising to the

westward, and making several captures, she approached within

200 miles of New York; thence going southward, arrived, on the

18th November, at Port Royal, Martinique. On the night of the

19th she escaped from the harbour and the Federal steamer San

Jacinto, and on the 20th November was at Blanquilla. On the

7th December she captured the steamer Ariel in the passage

between Cuba and St. Domingo. On January 11th, 1863, she sunk

the Federal gunboat Hatteras off Galveston, and on the 30th

arrived at Jamaica. Cruising to the eastward, and making many

captures, she arrived on the 10th April, at Fernando de

Noronha, 'and on the 11th May at Bahia, where, on the 13th,

she was joined by the Confederate steamer Georgia. Cruising

near the line, thence southward towards the Cape of Good Hope,

numerous captures were made. On the 29th July she anchored in

Saldanha Bay, South Africa, and near there on the 5th August,

was joined by the Confederate bark Tuscaloosa, Commander Low.

In September, 1863, she was at St. Simon's Bay, and in October

was in the Straits of Sunda, and up to January 20, 1864,

cruised in the Bay of Bengal and vicinity, visiting

Singapore, and making a number of very valuable captures,

including the Highlander, Sonora, etc.

{25}

From this point she cruised on her homeward track via Cape of

Good Hope, capturing the bark Tycoon and ship Rockingham, and

arrived at Cherbourg, France, in June, 1864, where she

repaired. A Federal steamer, the Kearsarge, was lying off the

harbour. Capt. Semmes might easily have evaded this enemy; the

business of his vessel was that of a privateer; and her value

to the Confederacy was out of all comparison with a single

vessel of the enemy. ... But Capt. Semmes had been twitted

with the name of 'pirate;' and he was easily persuaded to

attempt an éclat for the Southern Confederacy by a naval fight

within sight of the French coast, which contest, it was

calculated, would prove the Alabama a legitimate war vessel,

and give such an exhibition of Confederate belligerency as

possibly to revive the question of 'recognition' in Paris and

London. These were the secret motives of the gratuitous fight

with which Capt. Semmes obliged the enemy off the port of

Cherbourg. The Alabama carried one 7-inch Blakely rifled gun,

one 8-inch smooth-bore pivot gun, and six 32-pounders,

smooth-bore, in broadside; the Kearsarge carried four

broadside 32-pounders, two 11-inch and one 28-pound rifle. The

two vessels were thus about equal in match and armament; and

their tonnage was about the same."

E. A. Pollard, The Lost Cause, pages 549.

Captain Winslow, commanding the United States Steamer

Kearsarge, in a report to the Secretary of the Navy written on

the afternoon of the day of his battle with the Alabama, June

19, 1864, said: "I have the honor to inform the department

that the day subsequent to the arrival of the Kearsarge off

this port, on the 24th [14th] instant, I received a note from

Captain Semmes, begging that the Kearsarge would not depart,

as he intended to fight her, and would delay her but a day or

two. According to this notice, the Alabama left the port of

Cherbourg this morning at about half past nine o'clock. At

twenty minutes past ten A. M., we discovered her steering

towards us. Fearing the question of jurisdiction might arise,

we steamed to sea until a distance of six or seven miles was

attained from the Cherbourg break-water, when we rounded to

and commenced steaming for the Alabama. As we approached her,

within about 1,200 yards, she opened fire, we receiving two or

three broadsides before a shot was returned. The action

continued, the respective steamers making a circle round and

round at a distance of about 900 yards from each other. At the

expiration of an hour the Alabama struck, going down in about

twenty minutes afterward, carrying many persons with her." In

a report two days later, Captain Winslow gave the following

particulars: "Toward the close of the action between the

Alabama and this vessel, all available sail was made on the

former for the purpose of again reaching Cherbourg. When the

object was apparent, the Kearsarge was steered across the bow

of the Alabama for a raking fire; but before reaching this

point the Alabama struck. Uncertain whether Captain Semmes was

not using some ruse, the Kearsarge was stopped. It was seen,

shortly afterward, that the Alabama was lowering her boats,

and an officer came alongside in one of them to say that they

had surrendered, and were fast sinking, and begging that boats

would be despatched immediately for saving life. The two boats

not disabled were at once lowered, and as it was apparent the

Alabama was settling, this officer was permitted to leave in

his boat to afford assistance. An English yacht, the

Deerhound, had approached near the Kearsarge at this time,

when I hailed and begged the commander to run down to the

Alabama, as she was fast sinking, and we had but two boats,

and assist in picking up the men. He answered affirmatively,

and steamed toward the Alabama, but the latter sank almost

immediately. The Deerhound, however, sent her boats and was

actively engaged, aided by several others which had come from

shore.' These boats were busy in bringing the wounded and

others to the Kearsarge; whom we were trying to make as

comfortable as possible, when it was reported to me that the

Deerhound was moving off. I could not believe that the

commander of that vessel could be guilty of so disgraceful an

act as taking our prisoners off, and therefore took no means

to prevent it, but continued to keep our boats at work

rescuing the men in the water. I am sorry to say that I was

mistaken. The Deerhound made off with Captain Semmes and

others, and also the very officer who had come on board to

surrender."--In a still later report Captain Winslow gave the

following facts: "The fire of the Alabama, although it is stated

she discharged 370 or more shell and shot, was not of serious

damage to the Kearsarge. Some 13 or 14 of these had taken

effect in and about the hull, and 16 or 17 about the masts and

rigging. The casualties were small, only three persons having

been wounded. ... The fire of the Kearsarge, although only 173

projectiles had been discharged, according to the prisoners'

accounts, was terrific. One shot alone had killed and wounded

18 men, and disabled a gun. Another had entered the

coal-bunkers, exploding, and completely blocking up the engine

room; and Captain Semmes states that shot and shell had taken

effect in the sides of his vessel, tearing large holes by

explosion, and his men were everywhere knocked down."

Rebellion Record, volume 9, pages 221-225.

ALSO IN

J. R. Soley, The Blockade and the Cruisers (The Navy in

the Civil War, volume 1), chapter 7.

J. R. Soley, J. McI. Kell and J. M. Browne, The

Confederate Cruisers (Battles and Leaders, volume 3).

R. Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat, chapter 29-55.

J. D. Bullock, Secret Service of the Confederate States

in Europe, volume 1, chapter 5.

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1862-1865.

Other Confederate cruisers.

"A score of other Confederate cruisers roamed the seas, to

prey upon United States commerce, but none of them became

quite so famous as the Sumter and the Alabama. They included

the Shenandoah, which made 38 captures, the Florida, which

made 36, the Tallahassee, which made 27, the Tacony, which

made 15, and the Georgia, which made 10. The Florida was

captured in the harbor of Bahia, Brazil, in October, 1864, by

a United States man-of·war [the Wachusett: commander Collins],

in violation of the neutrality of the port. For this the

United States Government apologized to Brazil and ordered the

restoration of the Florida to the harbor where she was

captured. But in Hampton Roads she met with an accident and

sank. It was generally believed that the apparent accident was

contrived with the connivance, if not by direct order, of the

Government. Most of these cruisers were built in British

shipyards."

R. Johnson, Short History of the War of Secession,

chapter 24.

{26}

The last of the destroyers of American commerce, the

Shenandoah, was a British merchant ship--the Sea King--built

for the Bombay trade, but purchased by the Confederate agent,

Captain Bullock, armed with six guns, and commissioned

(October, 1865) under her new name. In June, 1865, the

Shenandoah, after a voyage to Australia, in the course of

which she destroyed a dozen merchant ships, made her

appearance in the Northern Sea, near Behring Strait, where she

fell in with the New Bedford whaling fleet. "In the course of

one week, from the 21st to the 28th, twenty-five whalers were

captured, of which four were ransomed, and the remaining 21

were burned. The loss on these 21 whalers was estimated at

upwards of $3,000,000, and considering that it occurred ...

two months after the Confederacy had virtually passed out of

existence, it may be characterized as the most useless act of

hostility that occurred during the whole war." The captain of

the Shenandoah had news on the 23d of the fall of Richmond;

yet after that time he destroyed 15 vessels. On his way

southward he received information, August 2d, of the final

collapse of the Confederacy. He then sailed for Liverpool, and

surrendered his vessel to the British Government, which delivered

her to the United States.

J. R. Soley, The Confederate Cruisers (Battles and

Leaders, volume 4).

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1862-1869.

Definition of the indemnity claims of the United States

against Great Britain.

First stages of the Negotiation.

The rejected Johnson-Clarendon Treaty.

"A review of the history of the negotiations between the two

Governments prior to the correspondence between Sir Edward

Thornton and Mr. Fish, will show ... what was intended by

these words, 'generically known as the Alabama Claims,' used

on each side in that correspondence. The correspondence

between the two Governments was opened by Mr. Adams on the

20th of November, 1862 (less than four months after the escape

of the Alabama), in a note to Earl Russell, written under

instructions from the Government of the United States. In this

note Mr. Adams submitted evidence of the acts of the Alabama,

and stated: 'I have the honor to inform Your Lordship of the

directions which I have received from my Government to solicit

redress for the national and private injuries thus sustained.'

... Lord Russell met this notice on the 19th of December,

1862, by a denial of any liability for any injuries growing

out of the acts of the Alabama. ... As new losses from time to

time were suffered by individuals during the war, they were

brought to the notice of Her Majesty's Government, and were

lodged with the national and individual claims already

preferred; but argumentative discussion on the issues involved

was by common consent deferred. ... The fact that the first

claim preferred grew out of the acts of the Alabama explains

how it was that all the claims growing out of the acts of all

the vessels came to be 'generically known as the Alabama

claims.' On the 7th of April, 1865, the war being virtually

over, Mr. Adams renewed the discussion. He transmitted to Earl

Russell an official report showing the number and tonnage of

American vessels transferred to the British flag during the

war. He said: 'The United States commerce is rapidly vanishing

from the face of the ocean, and that of Great Britain is

multiplying in nearly the same ratio.' 'This process is going

on by reason of the action of British subjects in cooperation

with emissaries of the insurgents, who have supplied from the

ports of Her Majesty's Kingdom all the materials, such as

vessels, armament, supplies, and men, indispensable to the

effective prosecution of this result on the ocean.' ... He

stated that he 'was under the painful necessity of announcing

that his Government cannot avoid entailing upon the Government

of Great Britain the responsibility for this damage.' Lord

Russell ... said in reply, 'I can never admit that the duties

of Great Britain toward the United States are to be measured

by the losses which the trade and commerce of the United

States have sustained. ... Referring to the offer of

arbitration, made on the 26th day of October, 1863, Lord

Russell, in the same note, said: 'Her Majesty's Government

must decline either to make reparation and compensation for

the captures made by the Alabama, or to refer the question to

any foreign State.' This terminated the first stage of the

negotiations between the two Governments. ... In the summer of

1866 a change of Ministry took place in England, and Lord

Stanley became Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the

place of Lord Clarendon. He took an early opportunity to give

an intimation in the House of Commons that, should the

rejected claims be revived, the new Cabinet was not prepared

to say what answer might be given them; in other words, that,

should an opportunity be offered, Lord Russell's refusal might

possibly be reconsidered. Mr. Seward met these overtures by

instructing Mr. Adams, on the 27th of August, 1866, 'to call

Lord Stanley's attention in a respectful but earnest manner,'

to 'a summary of claims of citizens of the United States, for

damages which were suffered by them during the period of the

civil war,' and to say that the Government of the United

States, while it thus insists upon these particular claims, is

neither desirous nor willing to assume an attitude unkind and

unconciliatory toward Great Britain. ... Lord Stanley met this

overture by a communication to Sir Frederick Bruce, in which

he denied the liability of Great Britain, and assented to a

reference, 'provided that a fitting Arbitrator can be found,

and that an agreement can be come to as to the points to which

the arbitration shall apply.' ... As the first result of these

negotiations, a convention known as the Stanley-Johnson

convention was signed at London on the 10th of November, 1868.

It proved to be unacceptable to the Government of the United

States. Negotiations were at once resumed, and resulted on the

14th of January, 1869, in the Treaty known as the

Johnson-Clarendon convention [having been negotiated by Mr.

Reverdy Johnson, who had succeeded Mr. Adams as United States

Minister to Great Britain]. This latter convention provided

for the organization of a mixed commission with jurisdiction

over 'all claims on the part of citizens of the United States

upon the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, including the

so-called Alabama claims, and all claims on the part of

subjects of Her Britannic Majesty upon the Government of the

United States which may have been presented to either

government for its interposition with the other since the 26th

July, 1853, and which yet remain unsettled.'" The

Johnson-Clarendon treaty, when submitted to the Senate, was

rejected by that body, in April, "because, although it made

provision for the part of the Alabama claims which consisted

of claims for individual losses, the provision for the more

extensive national losses was not satisfactory to the Senate."

The Argument of the United States delivered to the

Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, June 15, 1872, Division

13, section 2.

{27}

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1869-1871.

Renewed Negotiations.

Appointment and meeting of the Joint High Commission.

The action of the Senate in rejecting the Johnson-Clarendon

treaty was taken in April, 1869, a few weeks after President

Grant entered upon his office. At this time "the condition of

Europe was such as to induce the British Ministers to take

into consideration the foreign relations of Great Britain;

and, as Lord Granville, the British Minister of Foreign

Affairs, has himself stated in the House of Lords, they saw

cause to look with solicitude on the uneasy relations of the

British Government with the United States, and the

inconvenience thereof in case of possible complications in

Europe. Thus impelled, the Government dispatched to Washington

a gentleman who enjoyed the confidence of both Cabinets, Sir John

Rose, to ascertain whether overtures for reopening

negotiations would be received by the President in spirit and

terms acceptable to Great Britain. ... Sir John Rose found the

United States disposed to meet with perfect correspondence of

good-will the advances of the British Government. Accordingly,

on the 26th of January, 1871, the British Government, through

Sir Edward Thornton, finally proposed to the American

Government the appointment of a joint High Commission to hold

its sessions at Washington, and there devise means to settle

the various pending questions between the two Governments

affecting the British possessions in North America. To this

overture Mr. Fish replied that the President would with

pleasure appoint, as invited, Commissioners on the part of the

United States, provided the deliberations of the Commissioners

should be extended to other differences,--that is to say, to

include the differences growing out of incidents of the late

Civil War. ... The British Government promptly accepted this

proposal for enlarging the sphere of the negotiation." The

joint High Commission was speedily constituted, as proposed,

by appointment of the two governments, and the promptitude of

proceeding was such that the British commissioners landed at

New York in twenty-seven days after Sir Edward Thornton's

suggestion of January 26th was made. They sailed without

waiting for their commissions, which were forwarded to them by

special messenger. The High Commission was made up as follows:

"On the part of the United States were five persons,--Hamilton

Fish, Robert C. Schenck, Samuel Nelson, Ebenezer Rockwood

Hoar, and George H. Williams,--eminently fit representatives

of the diplomacy, the bench, the bar, and the legislature of

the United States: on the part of Great Britain, Earl De Grey

and Ripon, President of the Queen's Council; Sir Stafford

Northcote, Ex-Minister and actual Member of the House of

Commons; Sir Edward Thornton, the universally respected

British Minister at Washington; Sir John [A.] Macdonald, the

able and eloquent Premier of the Canadian Dominion; and, in

revival of the good old time, when learning was equal to any

other title of public honor, the Universities in the person of

Professor Montague Bernard. ... In the face of many

difficulties, the Commissioners, on the 8th of May, 1871,

completed a treaty [known as the Treaty of Washington], which

received the prompt approval of their respective Governments."

C. Cushing, The Treaty of Washington,

pages 18-20, and 11-13.

ALSO IN

A. Lang, Life, Letters, and Diaries of Sir Stafford

Northcote, First Earl of Iddesleigh, chapter 12 (volume 2).

A. Badeau, Grant in Peace, chapter 25.

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1871.

The Treaty of Washington.

The treaty signed at Washington on the 8th day of May, 1871,

and the ratifications of which were exchanged at London on the

17th day of the following June, set forth its principal

agreement in the first two articles as follows: "Whereas

differences have arisen between the Government of the United

States and the Government of Her Brittanic Majesty, and still

exist, growing out of the acts committed by the several

vessels which have given rise to the claims generically known

as the 'Alabama Claims;' and whereas Her Britannic Majesty has

authorized Her High Commissioners and Plenipotentiaries to

express in a friendly spirit, the regret felt by Her Majesty's

Government for the escape, under whatever circumstances, of

the Alabama and other vessels from British ports, and for the

depredations committed by those vessels: Now, in order to

remove and adjust all complaints and claims on the part of the

United States and to provide for the speedy settlement of such

claims which are not admitted by Her Britannic Majesty's

Government, the high contracting parties agree that all the

said claims, growing out of acts committed by the aforesaid

vessels, and generically known as the 'Alabama Claims,' shall

be referred to a tribunal of arbitration to be composed of

five Arbitrators, to be appointed in the following manner,

that is to say: One shall be named by the President of the

United States; one shall be named by Her Britannic Majesty;

His Majesty the King of Italy shall be requested to name one;

the President of the Swiss Confederation shall be requested to

name one; and His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil shall be

requested to name one. ... The Arbitrators shall meet at

Geneva, in Switzerland, at the earliest convenient day after

they shall have been named, and shall proceed impartially and

carefully to examine and decide all questions that shall be

laid before them on the part of the Governments of the United

States and Her Britannic Majesty respectively. All questions

considered by the tribunal, including the final award, shall

be decided by a majority of all the Arbitrators. Each of the

high contracting parties shall also name one person to attend

the tribunal as its Agent to represent it generally in all

matters connected with the arbitration." Articles 3, 4 and 5

of the treaty specify the mode in which each party shall

submit its case. Article 6 declares that, "In deciding the

matters submitted to the Arbitrators, they shall be governed

by the following three rules, which are agreed upon by the

high contracting parties as rules to be taken as applicable to

the case, and by such principles of international law not

inconsistent therewith as the Arbitrators shall determine to

have been applicable to the case:

{28}

A neutral Government is bound--First, to use due diligence to

prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping, within its

jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to

believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a

Power with which it is at peace; and also to use like

diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of

any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such

vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part,

within such jurisdiction, to warlike use. Secondly, not to

permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports

or waters as the base of naval operations against the other,

or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military

supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men. Thirdly to

exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and, as to

all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation

of the foregoing obligations and duties. Her Britannic Majesty

has commanded her High Commissioners and Plenipotentiaries to

declare that Her Majesty's Government cannot assent to the

foregoing rules as a statement of principles of international

law which were in force at the time when the claims mentioned

in Article 1 arose, but that Her Majesty's Government, in

order to evince its desire of strengthening the friendly

relations between the two countries and of making satisfactory

provision for the future, agrees that in deciding the

questions between the two countries arising out of those

claims, the Arbitrators should assume that Her Majesty's

Government had undertaken to act upon the principles set forth

in these rules. And the high contracting parties agree to

observe these rules as between themselves in future, and to

bring them to the knowledge of other maritime powers, and to

invite them to accede to them." Articles 7 to 17, inclusive,

relate to the procedure of the tribunal of arbitration, and

provide for the determination of claims, by assessors and

commissioners, in case the Arbitrators should find any

liability on the part of Great Britain and should not award a

sum in gross to be paid in settlement thereof. Articles 18 to

25 relate to the Fisheries. By Article 18 it is agreed that in

addition to the liberty secured to American fishermen by the

convention of 1818, "of taking, curing and drying fish on

certain coasts of the British North American colonies therein

defined, the inhabitants of the United States shall have, in

common with the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, the liberty

for [a period of ten years, and two years further after notice

given by either party of its wish to terminate the

arrangement] ... to take fish of every kind, except shell

fish, on the sea-coasts and shores, and in the bays, harbours

and creeks, of the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia and New

Brunswick, and the colony of Prince Edward's Island, and of

the several islands thereunto adjacent, without being

restricted to any distance from the shore, with permission to

land upon the said coasts and shores and islands, and also

upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their

nets and curing their fish; provided that, in so doing, they

do not interfere with the rights of private property, or with

British fishermen, in the peaceable use of any part of the

said coasts in their occupancy for the same purpose. It is

understood that the above-mentioned liberty applies solely to

the sea-fishery, and that the salmon and shad fisheries, and

all other fisheries in rivers and the mouths of rivers, are

hereby reserved exclusively for British fishermen." Article 19

secures to British subjects the corresponding rights of

fishing, &c., on the eastern sea-coasts and shores of the

United States north of the 39th parallel of north latitude.

Article 20 reserves from these stipulations the places that

were reserved from the common right of fishing under the first

article of the treaty of June 5, 1854. Article 21 provides for

the reciprocal admission of fish and fish oil into each

country from the other, free of duty (excepting fish of the

inland lakes and fish preserved in oil). Article 22 provides

that, "Inasmuch as it is asserted by the Government of Her

Britannic Majesty that the privileges accorded to the citizens

of the United States under Article XVIII of this treaty are of

greater value than those accorded by Articles XIX and XXI of

this treaty to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, and this

assertion is not admitted by the Government of the United

States, it is further agreed that Commissioners shall be

appointed to determine ... the amount of any compensation

which in their opinion, ought to be paid by the Government of

the United States to the Government of Her Britannic Majesty."

Article 23 provides for the appointment of such Commissioners,

one by the President of the United States, one by Her

Britannic Majesty, and the third by the President and Her

Majesty conjointly; or, failing of agreement within three

months, the third Commissioner to be named by the Austrian

Minister at London. The Commissioners to meet at Halifax, and

their procedure to be as prescribed and regulated by Articles

24 and 25. Articles 26 to 31 define certain reciprocal

privileges accorded by each government to the subjects of the

other, including the navigation of the St. Lawrence, Yukon,

Porcupine and Stikine Rivers, Lake Michigan, and the WeIland,

St. Lawrence and St. Clair Flats canals; and the

transportation of goods in bond through the territory of one

country into the other without payment of duties. Article 32

extends the provisions of Articles 18 to 25 of the treaty to

Newfoundland if all parties concerned enact the necessary

laws, but not otherwise. Article 33 limits the duration of

Articles 18 to 25 and Article 30, to ten years from the date

of their going into effect, and "further until the expiration

of two years after either of the two high contracting parties

shall have given notice to the other of its wish to terminate

the same." The remaining articles of the treaty provide for

submitting to the arbitration of the Emperor of Germany the

Northwestern water-boundary question (in the channel between

Vancouver's Island and the continent)--to complete the

settlement of Northwestern boundary disputes.

Treaties and Conventions between the U. S. and other

Powers (ed. of 1889), pages 478-493.

ALSO IN

C. Cushing, The Treaty of Washington, appendix

{29}

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1871-1872.

The Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, and its Award.

"The appointment of Arbitrators took place in due course, and

with the ready good-will of the three neutral governments. The

United States appointed Mr. Charles Francis Adams; Great

Britain appointed Sir Alexander Cockburn; the King of Italy

named Count Frederic Sclopis; the President of the Swiss

Confederation, Mr. Jacob Stæmpfii; and the Emperor of Brazil,

the Baron d'Itajubá. Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis was appointed

Agent of the United States, and Lord Tenterden of Great

Britain. The Tribunal was organized for the reception of the

case of each party, and held its first conference [at Geneva,

Switzerland] on the 15th of December, 1871," Count Sclopis

being chosen to preside. "The printed Case of the United

States, with accompanying documents, was filed by Mr. Bancroft

Davis, and the printed Case of Great Britain, with documents,

by Lord Tenterden. The Tribunal made regulation for the filing

of the respective Counter-Cases on or before the 15th day of

April next ensuing, as required by the Treaty; and for the

convening of a special meeting of the Tribunal, if occasion

should require; and then, at a second meeting, on the next

day, they adjourned until the 15th of June next ensuing,

subject to a prior call by the Secretary, if there should be

occasion." The sessions of the Tribunal were resumed on the

15th of June, 1872, according to the adjournment, and were

continued until the 14th of September following, when the

decision and award were announced, and were signed by all the

Arbitrators except the British representative, Sir Alexander

Cockburn, who dissented. It was found by the Tribunal that the

British Government had "failed to use due diligence in the

performance of its neutral obligations" with respect to the

cruisers Alabama and Florida, and the several tenders of those

vessels; and also with respect to the Shenandoah after her

departure from Melbourne, February 18, 1865, but not before that

date. With respect to the Georgia, the Sumter, the Nashville,

the Tallahassee and the Chickamauga, it was the finding of the

Tribunal that Great Britain had not failed to perform the

duties of a neutral power. So far as relates to the vessels

called the Sallie, the Jefferson Davis, the Music, the Boston,

and the V. H. Joy, it was the decision of the Tribunal that

they ought to be excluded from consideration for want of

evidence. "So far as relates to the particulars of the

indemnity claimed by the United States, the costs of pursuit

of Confederate cruisers" are declared to be "not, in the

judgment of the Tribunal, properly distinguishable from the

general expenses of the war carried on by the United States,"

and "there is no ground for awarding to the United States any

sum by way of indemnity under this head." A similar decision

put aside the whole consideration of claims for "prospective

earnings." Finally, the award was rendered in the following

language: "Whereas, in order to arrive at an equitable

compensation for the damages which have been sustained, it is

necessary to set aside all double claims for the same losses,

and all claims for 'gross freights' so far as they exceed 'net

freights;' and whereas it is just and reasonable to allow

interest at a reasonable rate; and whereas, in accordance with

the spirit and letter of the Treaty of Washington, it is

preferable to adopt the form of adjudication of a sum in

gross, rather than to refer the subject of compensation for

further discussion and deliberation to a Board of Assessors,

as provided by Article X of the said Treaty: The Tribunal,

making use of the authority conferred upon it by Article VII

of the said Treaty, by a majority of four voices to one,

awards to the United States the sum of fifteen millions five

hundred thousand Dollars in gold as the indemnity to be paid

by Great Britain to the United States for the satisfaction of

all the claims referred to the consideration of the Tribunal,

conformably to the provisions contained in Article VII of the

aforesaid Treaty." It should be stated that the so-called

"indirect claims" of the United States, for consequential

losses and damages, growing out of the encouragement of the

Southern Rebellion, the prolongation of the war, &c., were

dropped from consideration at the outset of the session of the

Tribunal, in June, the Arbitrators agreeing then in a

statement of opinion to the effect that "these claims do not

constitute, upon the principles of international law

applicable to such cases, good foundation for an award of

compensation or computation of damages between nations." This

declaration was accepted by the United States as decisive of

the question, and the hearing proceeded accordingly.

C. Cushing, The Treaty of Washington.

ALSO IN

F. Wharton, Digest of the International Law of

the U. S., chapter 21 (volume 3).

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

ALACAB, OR TOLOSO, Battle of (1212).

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

ALADSHA, Battles of (1877).

See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

ALAMANCE, Battle Of(1771).

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

ALAMANNI.

See ALEMANNI.

ALAMO, The massacre of the (1836).

See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.

ALAMOOT, OR ALAMOUT, The castle of.

The stronghold of the "Old Man of the Mountain," or Sheikh of

the terrible order of the Assassins, in northern Persia. Its

name signifies "the Eagle's nest," or "the Vulture's nest."

See ASSASSINS.

ALANS, OR ALANI, The.

"The Alani are first mentioned by Dionysius the geographer (B.

C. 30-10) who joins them with the Daci and the Tauri, and

again places them between the latter and the Agathyrsi. A

similar position (in the south of Russia in Europe, the modern

Ukraine) is assigned to them by Pliny and Josephus. Seneca

places them further west upon the Ister. Ptolemy has two

bodies of Alani, one in the position above described, the

other in Scythia within the Imaus, north and partly east of

the Caspian. It must have been from these last, the

successors, and, according to some, the descendants of the

ancient Massagetæ, that the Alani came who attacked Pacorus

and Tiridates [in Media and Armenia, A. D. 75]. ... The result

seems to have been that the invaders, after ravaging and

harrying Media and Armenia at their pleasure, carried off a

vast number of prisoners and an enormous booty into their own

country."

G. Rawlinson, Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 17.

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,

chapter 6, note H.

"The first of this [the Tartar] race known to the

Romans were the Alani. In the fourth century they pitched

their tents in the country between the Volga and the Tanais,

at an equal distance from the Black Sea and the Caspian."

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

{30}

ALANS: A. D. 376.

Conquest by the Huns.

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

ALANS: A. D. 406-409.

Final Invasion of Gaul.

See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.

ALANS: A. D. 409-414.

Settlement in Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

ALANS: A. D. 429.

With the Vandals in Africa.

See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.

ALANS: A. D. 451.

At the Battle of Chalons.

See HUNS: A. D. 451.

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

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

See ALMOHADES.

ALARIC'S RAVAGES IN GREECE AND CONQUEST OF ROME.

See GOTHS: A. D. 395; 400-403,

and ROME: A. D. 408-410.

ALARODIANS.--IBERIANS.--COLCHIANS.

"The Alarodians of Herodotus, joined with the Sapeires ... are

almost certainly the inhabitants of Armenia, whose Semitic

name was Urarda, or Ararat. 'Alarud,' indeed, is a mere

variant form of 'Ararud,' the l and r being undistinguishable

in the old Persian, and 'Ararud' serves determinately to

connect the Ararat of Scripture with the Urarda, or Urartha of

the Inscriptions. ... The name of Ararat is constantly used in

Scripture, but always to denote a country rather than a

particular mountain. ... The connexion ... of Urarda with the

Babylonian tribe of Akkad is proved by the application in the

inscriptions of the ethnic title of Burbur (?) to the Armenian

king ... ; but there is nothing to prove whether the Burbur or

Akkad of Babylonia descended in a very remote age from the

mountains to colonize the plains, or whether the Urardians

were refugees of a later period driven northward by the

growing power of the Semites. The former supposition, however,

is most in conformity with Scripture, and incidentally with the

tenor of the inscriptions."

H. C. Rawlinson, History of Herodotus,

book 7, appendix 3.

"The broad and rich valley of the Kur, which corresponds

closely with the modern Russian province of Georgia, was

[anciently] in the possession of a people called by Herodotus

Saspeires or Sapeires, whom we may identify with the Iberians

of later writers. Adjoining upon them towards the south,

probably in the country about Erivan, and so in the

neighbourhood of Ararat, were the Alarodians, whose name must

be connected with that of the great mountain. On the other

side of the Sapeirian country, in the tracts now known as

Mingrelia and Imeritia, regions of a wonderful beauty and

fertility, were the Colchians,--dependents, but not exactly

subjects, of Persia."

G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Persia, chapter 1.

ALASKA: A. D. 1867.

Purchase by the United States.

As early as 1859 there were unofficial communications between

the Russian and American governments, on the subject of the

sale of Alaska by the former to the latter. Russia was more

than willing to part with a piece of territory which she found

difficulty in defending, in war; and the interests connected

with the fisheries and the fur-trade in the north-west were

disposed to promote the transfer. In March, 1867, definite

negotiations on the subject were opened by the Russian

minister at Washington, and on the 23d of that month he

received from Secretary Seward an offer, subject to the

President's approval, of $7,200,000, on condition that the

cession be "free and unencumbered by any reservations,

privileges, franchises, grants, or possessions by any

associated companies, whether corporate or incorporate,

Russian, or any other." "Two days later an answer was

returned, stating that the minister believed himself

authorized to accept these terms. On the 29th final

instructions were received by cable from St. Petersburg. On

the same day a note was addressed by the minister to the

secretary of state, informing him that the tsar consented to

the cession of Russian America for the stipulated sum of

$7,200,000 in gold. At four o'clock the next morning the

treaty was signed by the two parties without further phrase or

negotiation. In May the treaty was ratified, and on June 20,

1867, the usual proclamation was issued by the president of

the United States." On the 18th of October, 1867, the formal

transfer of the territory was made, at Sitka, General Rousseau

taking possession in the name of the Government of the United

States.

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 28,

chapter 28.

ALSO IN

W. H. Dall, Alaska and its Resources, part 2, chapter 2.

For some account of the aboriginal inhabitants,

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY and ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

ALATOONA, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864

(SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).

ALBA.

Alban Mount.

"Cantons ... having their rendezvous in some stronghold, and

including a certain number of clanships, form the primitive

political unities with which Italian history begins. At what

period, and to what extent, such cantons were formed in

Latium, cannot be determined with precision; nor is it a

matter of special historical interest. The isolated Alban

range, that natural stronghold of Latium, which offered to

settlers the most wholesome air, the freshest springs, and the

most secure position, would doubtless be first occupied by the

new comers. Here accordingly, along the narrow plateau above

Palazzuola, between the Alban lake (Lago di Castello) and the

Alban mount (Monte Cavo) extended the town of Alba, which was

universally regarded as the primitive seat of the Latin stock,

and the mother-city of Rome, as well as of all the other Old

Latin communities. Here, too, on the slopes lay the very

ancient Latin canton-centres of Lanuvium, Aricia, and

Tusculum. ... All these cantons were in primitive times

politically sovereign, and each of them was governed by its

prince with the co-operation of the council of elders and the

assembly of warriors. Nevertheless the feeling of fellowship

based on community of descent and of language not only

pervaded the whole of them, but manifested itself in an

important religious and political institution--the perpetual

league of the collective Latin cantons. The presidency

belonged originally, according to the universal Italian as

well as Hellenic usage, to that canton within whose bounds lay

the meeting-place of the league; in this case it was the canton

of Alba. ... The communities entitled to participate in the

league were in the beginning thirty. ... The rendezvous of

this union was, like the Pambœotia and the Panionia among the

similar confederacies of the Greeks, the 'Latin festival'

(feriæ Latinæ) at which, on the Mount of Alba, upon a day

annually appointed by the chief magistrate for the purpose, an

ox was offered in sacrifice by the assembled Latin stock to

the 'Latin god' (Jupiter Latiaris)."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 1, chapter 3.

ALSO IN

Sir W. Gell, Topography of Rome, volume 1.

{31}

ALBA DE TORMES, Battle of.

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

ALBAIS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

ALBAN, Kingdom of.

See ALBION;

also, SCOTLAND: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.

ALBANI, The.

See BRITAIN, TRIBES OF CELTIC.

ALBANIANS: Ancient.

See EPIRUS and ILLYRIANS.

ALBANIANS: Mediæval.

"From the settlement of the Servian Sclavonians within the

bounds of the empire [during the reign of Heraclius, first

half of the seventh century], we may ... venture to date the

earliest encroachments of the Illyrian or Albanian race on the

Hellenic population. The Albanians or Arnauts, who are now

called by themselves Skiptars, are supposed to be remains of

the great Thracian race which, under various names, and more

particularly as Paionians, Epirots and Macedonians, take an

important part in early Grecian history. No distinct trace of

the period at which they began to be co-proprietors of Greece

with the Hellenic race can be found in history. ... It seems

very difficult to trace back the history of the Greek nation

without suspecting that the germs of their modern condition,

like those of their neighbours, are to be sought in the

singular events which occurred in the reign of Heraclius."

G. Finlay, Greece Under the Romans, chapter 4, section 6.

ALBANIANS: A. D. 1443-1467.

Scanderbeg's War with the Turks.

"John Castriot, Lord of Emalthia (the modern district of

Moghlene) [in Epirus or Albania] had submitted, like the other

petty despots of those regions, to Amurath early in his reign,

and had placed his four sons in the Sultan's hands as hostages

for his fidelity. Three of them died young. The fourth, whose

name was George, pleased the Sultan by his beauty, strength

and intelligence. Amurath caused him to be brought up in the

Mahometan creed; and, when he was only eighteen, conferred on

him the government of one of the Sanjaks of the empire. The

young Albanian proved his courage and skill in many exploits

under Amurath's eye, and received from him the name of

Iskanderbeg, the lord Alexander. When John Castriot died,

Amurath took possession of his principalities and kept the son

constantly employed in distant wars. Scanderbeg brooded over

this injury; and when the Turkish armies were routed by

Hunyades in the campaign of 1443, Scanderbeg determined to

escape from their side and assume forcible possession of his

patrimony. He suddenly entered the tent of the Sultan's chief

secretary, and forced that functionary, with the poniard at

his throat, to write and seal a formal order to the Turkish

commander of the strong city of Croia, in Albania, to deliver

that place and the adjacent territory to Scanderbeg, as the

Sultan's viceroy. He then stabbed the secretary and hastened

to Croia, where his strategem gained him instant admittance

and submission. He now publicly abjured the Mahometan faith,

and declared his intention of defending the creed of his

forefathers, and restoring the independence of his native

land. The Christian population flocked readily to his banner

and the Turks were massacred without mercy. For nearly

twenty-five years Scanderbeg contended against all the power

of the Ottomans, though directed by the skill of Amurath and

his successor Mahomet, the conqueror of Constantinople."

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

"Scanderbeg died a fugitive at Lissus on the Venetian

territory [A. D. 1467]. His sepulchre was soon violated by the

Turkish conquerors; but the janizaries, who wore his bones

enchased in a bracelet, declared by this superstitious amulet

their involuntary reverence for his valour. ... His infant son

was saved from the national shipwreck; the Castriots were

invested with a Neapolitan dukedom, and their blood continues

to flow in the noblest families of the realm."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,  chapter 67.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

ALSO IN

A. Lamartine, History of Turkey, book 11, sections 11-25.

ALBANIANS: A. D. 1694-1696.

Conquests by the Venetians.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

----------ALBANIANS:  End----------

ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1623.

The first Settlement.

In 1614, the year after the first Dutch traders had

established their operations on Manhattan Island, they built a

trading house, which they called Fort Nassau, on Castle

Island, in the Hudson River, a little below the site of the

present city of Albany. Three years later this small fort was

carried away by a flood and the island abandoned. In 1623 a

more important fortification, named Fort Orange, was erected

on the site afterwards covered by the business part of Albany.

That year, "about eighteen families settled themselves at Fort

Orange, under Adriaen Joris, who 'staid with them all winter,'

after sending his ship home to Holland in charge of his son.

As soon as the colonists had built themselves 'some huts of

bark' around the fort, the Mahikanders or River Indians

[Mohegans], the Mohawks, the Oneidas, the Onondagas, the

Cayugas, and the Senecas, with the Mahawawa or Ottawawa

Indians, 'came and made covenants of friendship ... and

desired that they might come and have a constant free trade

with them, which was concluded upon.'"

J. R. Brodhead, History of the State of N. Y., volume 1,

pages 55 and 151.

ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1630.-

Embraced in the land-purchase of Patroon Van Rensselaer.

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

ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

Occupied and named by the English.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

Again occupied by the Dutch.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1754.

The Colonial Congress and its plans of Union.

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

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

ALBANY AND SCHENECTADY RAILROAD OPENING.

See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

ALBANY REGENCY, The.

See NEW YORK; A. D. 1823.

ALBEMARLE, The Ram, and her destruction.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (APRIL-MAY: NORTH

CAROLINA), and (OCTOBER: N. CAROLINA).

ALBERONI, Cardinal, The Spanish Ministry of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;

and ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

{32}

ALBERT,

King of Sweden, A. D. 1365-1388.

Albert, Elector of Brandenburg, A. D. 1470-1486.

Albert I., Duke of Austria and

King of Germany, A. D. 1298-1308.

Albert II., Duke of Austria, King of Hungary and

Bohemia, A. D. 1437-1440;

King of Germany, A. D. 1438-1440.

ALBERTA, The District of.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.

ALBERTINE LINE OF SAXONY.

See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553.

ALBICI, The.

A Gallic tribe which occupied the hills above Massilia

(Marseilles) and who are described as a savage people even in

the time of Cæsar, when they helped the Massiliots to defend

their city against him.

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

ALBIGENSES, OR ALBIGEOIS, The.

"Nothing is more curious in Christian history than the

vitality of the Manichean opinions. That wild, half poetic,

half rationalistic theory of Christianity, ... appears almost

suddenly in the 12th century, in living, almost irresistible

power, first in its intermediate settlement in Bulgaria, and

on the borders of the Greek Empire, then in Italy, in France,

in Germany, in the remoter West, at the foot of the Pyrenees.

... The chief seat of these opinions was the south of France.

Innocent III., on his accession, found not only these daring

insurgents scattered in the cities of Italy, even, as it were,

at his own gates (among his first acts was to subdue the

Paterines of Viterbo), he found a whole province, a realm, in

some respects the richest and noblest of his spiritual domain,

absolutely dissevered from his Empire, in almost universal

revolt from Latin Christianity. ... In no [other] European

country had the clergy so entirely, or it should seem so

deservedly, forfeited its authority. In none had the Church

more absolutely ceased to perform its proper functions."

H. H. Milman, History of Latin Christianity,

book 9, chapter 8.

"By mere chance, the sects scattered in South France received

the common name of Albigenses, from one of the districts where

the agents of the church who came to combat them found them

mostly to abound,--the district around the town of Alba, or

Alby; and by this common name they were well known from the

commencement of the thirteenth century. Under this general

denomination parties of different tenets were comprehended

together, but the Catharists seem to have constituted a

predominant element among the people thus designated."

A. Neander, General History of the Christian Religion

and Church, 5th per., division 2, section 4, part 3.

"Of the sectaries who shared the errors of Gnosticism and

Manichæism and opposed the Catholic Church and her hierarchy,

the Albigenses were the most thorough and radical. Their

errors were, indeed, partly Gnostic and partly Manichæan, but

the latter was the more prominent and fully developed. They

received their name from a district of Languedoc, inhabited by

the Albigeois and surrounding the town of Albi. They are

called Cathari and Patarini in the acts of the Council of

Tours (A. D. 1163), and in those of the third Lateran,

Publiciani (i. e., Pauliciani). Like the Cathari, they also

held that the evil spirit created all visible things."

Johannes Baptist Alzog,

Manual of Universal Church History,

period 2, epoch 2, part 1, chapter 3, section 236.

https://archive.org/details/manualofuniversa02alzo

"The imputations of irreligion, heresy, and shameless

debauchery, which have been cast with so much bitterness on

the Albigenses by their persecutors, and which have been so

zealously denied by their apologists, are probably not ill

founded, if the word Albigenses be employed as synonymous with

the words Provençaux or Languedocians; for they were

apparently a race among whom the hallowed charities of

domestic life, and the reverence due to divine ordinances and

the homage due to divine truth, were often impaired, and not

seldom extinguished, by ribald jests, by infidel scoffings,

and by heart-hardening impurities. Like other voluptuaries,

the Provençaux (as their remaining literature attests) were

accustomed to find matter for merriment in vices which would

have moved wise men to tears. But if by the word Albigenses be

meant the Vaudois, or those followers (or associates) of Peter

Waldo who revived the doctrines against which the Church of

Rome directed her censures, then the accusation of

dissoluteness of manners may be safely rejected as altogether

calumnious, and the charge of heresy may be considered, if not

as entirely unfounded, yet as a cruel and injurious

exaggeration."

Sir J. Stephen, Lectures on the History of France,

lecture 7.

ALSO IN L. Mariotti, Frà Dolcino and his Times.

See, also, Paulicians, and Catharists.

ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1209.

The First Crusade.

"Pope Innocent III., in organizing the persecution of the

Catharins [or Catharists], the Patarins, and the Pauvres de

Lyons, exercised a spirit, and displayed a genius similar to

those which had already elevated him to almost universal

dominion; which had enabled him to dictate at once to Italy

and to Germany; to control the kings of France, of Spain, and

of England; to overthrow the Greek Empire, and to substitute

in its stead a Latin dynasty at Constantinople. In the zeal of

the Cistercian Order, and of their Abbot, Arnaud Amalric; in

the fiery and unwearied preaching of the first Inquisitor, the

Spanish Missionary, Dominic; in the remorseless activity of

Foulquet, Bishop of Toulouse; and above all, in the strong and

unpitying arm of Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester,

Innocent found ready instruments for his purpose. Thus aided;

he excommunicated Raymond of Toulouse [A. D. 1207], as Chief

of the Heretics, and he promised remission of sins, and all

the privileges which had hitherto been exclusively conferred

on adventurers in Palestine, to the champions who should

enroll themselves as Crusaders in the far more easy enterprise

of a Holy War against the Albigenses. In the first invasion of

his territories [A. D. 1209], Raymond VI. gave way before the

terrors excited by the 300,000 fanatics who precipitated

themselves on Languedoc; and loudly declaring his personal

freedom from heresy, he surrendered his chief castles,

underwent a humiliating penance, and took the cross against

his own subjects. The brave resistance of his nephew Raymond

Roger, Viscount of Bezières, deserved but did not obtain

success. When the crusaders surrounded his capital, which was

occupied by a mixed population of the two Religions, a

question was raised how, in the approaching sack, the

Catholics should be distinguished from the Heretics. 'Kill

them all,' was the ferocious reply of Amalric; 'the Lord will

easily know His own.' In compliance with this advice, not one

human being within the walls was permitted to survive;

{33}

and the tale of slaughter has been variously estimated, by

those who have perhaps exaggerated the numbers, at 60,000, but

even in the extenuating despatch, which the Abbot himself

addressed to the Pope, at not fewer than 15,000. Raymond Roger

was not included in this fearful massacre, and he repulsed two

attacks upon Carcassonne, before a treacherous breach of faith

placed him at the disposal of de Montfort, by whom he was

poisoned after a short imprisonment. The removal of that young

and gallant Prince was indeed most important to the ulterior

project of his captor, who aimed at permanent establishment in

the South. The family of de Montfort had ranked among the

nobles of France for more than two centuries; and it is traced

by some writers through an illegitimate channel even to the

throne: but the possessions of Simon himself were scanty;

necessity had compelled him to sell the County of Evreux to

Philippe Auguste; and the English Earldom of Leicester which he

inherited maternally, and the Lordship of a Castle about ten

leagues distant from Paris, formed the whole of his revenues."

E. Smedley, History of France, chapter 4.

ALSO IN

J. C. L. de Sismondi, History of the Crusades against

the Albigenses, chapter 1.

H. H. Milman, History of Latin Christianity,

book 9, chapter 8.

J. Alzog, Manual of Universal Church History, period 2,

epoch 2, part 1, chapter 3

https://archive.org/details/manualofuniversa02alzo.

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

ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1210-1213.

The Second Crusade.

"The conquest of the Viscounty of Beziers had rather inflamed

than satiated the cupidity of De Montfort and the fanaticism

of Amalric [legate of the Pope] and of the monks of Citeaux.

Raymond, Count of Toulouse, still possessed the fairest part

of Languedoc, and was still suspected or accused of affording

shelter, if not countenance, to his heretical subjects. ...

The unhappy Raymond was ... again excommunicated from the

Christian Church, and his dominions offered as a reward to the

champions who should execute her sentence against him. To earn

that reward De Montfort, at the head of a new host of

Crusaders, attracted by the promise of earthly spoils and of

heavenly blessedness, once more marched through the devoted

land [A. D. 1210], and with him advanced Amalric. At each

successive conquest, slaughter, rapine, and woes such as may

not be described tracked and polluted their steps. Heretics,

or those suspected of heresy, wherever they were found, were

compelled by the legate to ascend vast piles of burning

faggots. ... At length the Crusaders reached and laid siege to

the city of Toulouse. ... Throwing himself into the place,

Raymond ... succeeded in repulsing De Montfort and Amalric. It

was, however, but a temporary respite, and the prelude to a

fearful destruction. From beyond the Pyrenees, at the head of

1,000 knights, Pedro of Arragon had marched to the rescue of

Raymond, his kinsman, and of the counts of Foix and of

Comminges, and of the Viscount of Béarn, his vassals; and

their united forces came into communication with each other at

Muret, a little town which is about three leagues distant from

Toulouse. There, also, on the 12th of September [A. D. 1213],

at the head of the champions of the Cross, and attended by

seven bishops, appeared Simon de Montfort in full military

array. The battle which followed was fierce, short and

decisive. ... Don Pedro was numbered with the slain. His army,

deprived of his command, broke and dispersed, and the whole of

the infantry of Raymond and his allies were either put to the

sword, or swept a way by the current of the Garonne. Toulouse

immediately surrendered, and the whole of the dominions of

Raymond submitted to the conquerors. At a council subsequently

held at Montpellier, composed of five archbishops and

twenty-eight bishops, De Montfort was unanimously acknowledged

as prince of the fief and city of Toulouse, and of the other

counties conquered by the Crusaders under his command."

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

ALSO IN

J. C. L. de Sismondi, History of Crusades against the

Albigenses, chapter 2.

ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229.

The Renewed Crusades.

Dissolution of the County of Toulouse.

Pacification of Languedoc.

"The cruel spirit of De Montfort would not allow him to rest

quiet in his new Empire. Violence and persecution marked his

rule; he sought to destroy the Provençal population by the

sword or the stake, nor could he bring himself to tolerate the

liberties of the citizens of Toulouse. In 1217 the Toulousans

again revolted, and war once more broke out betwixt Count

Raymond and Simon de Montfort. The latter formed the siege of

the capital, and was engaged in repelling a sally, when a

stone from one of the walls struck him and put an end to his

existence. ... Amaury de Montfort, son of Simon, offered to

cede to the king all his rights in Languedoc, which he was

unable to defend against the old house of Toulouse. Philip

[Augustus] hesitated to accept the important cession, and left

the rival houses to the continuance of a struggle carried

feebly on by either side." King Philip died in 1223 and was

succeeded by a son, Louis VIII., who had none of his father's

reluctance to join in the grasping persecution of the

unfortunate people of the south. Amaury de Montfort had been

fairly driven out of old Simon de Montfort's conquests, and he

now sold them to King Louis for the office of constable of

France. "A new crusade was preached against the Albigenses;

and Louis marched towards Languedoc at the head of a

formidable army in the spring of the year 1226. The town of

Avignon had proferred to the crusaders the facilities of

crossing the Rhone under her walls, but refused entry within

them to such a host. Louis having arrived at Avignon, insisted

on passing through the town: the Avignonais shut their gates,

and defied the monarch, who instantly formed the siege. One of

the rich municipalities of the south was almost a match for

the king of France. He was kept three months under its walls;

his army a prey to famine, to disease and to the assaults of a

brave garrison. The crusaders lost 20,000 men. The people of

Avignon at length submitted, but on no dishonourable terms.

This was the only resistance that Louis experienced in

Languedoc. ... All submitted. Louis retired from his facile

conquest; he himself, and the chiefs of his army stricken by

an epidemy which had prevailed in the conquered regions. The

monarch's feeble frame could not resist it; he expired at

Montpensier, in Auvergne, in November, 1226." Louis VIII. was

succeeded by his young son, Louis IX. (Saint Louis), then a

boy, under the regency of his energetic and capable mother,

Blanche of Castile.

{34}

"The termination of the war with the Albigenses, and

the pacification, or it might be called the acquisition, of

Languedoc, was the chief act of Queen Blanche's regency. Louis

VIII. had overrun the country without resistance in his last

campaign; still, at his departure, Raymond VI. again appeared,

collected soldiers and continued to struggle against the royal

lieutenant. For upward of two years he maintained himself; the

attention of Blanche being occupied by the league of the

barons against her. The successes of Raymond VII., accompanied

by cruelties, awakened the vindictive zeal of the pope.

Languedoc was threatened with another crusade; Raymond was

willing to treat, and make considerable cessions, in order to

avoid such extremities. In April, 1229, a treaty was signed:

in it the rights of De Montfort were passed over. About

two-thirds of the domains of the count of Toulouse were ceded

to the king of France; the remainder was to fall, after

Raymond's death, to his daughter Jeanne, who by the same

treaty was to marry one of the royal princes: heirs failing

them, it was to revert to the crown [which it did in 1271]. On

these terms, with the humiliating addition of a public

penance, Raymond VII. once more was allowed peaceable

possession of Toulouse, and of the part of his domains

reserved to him. Alphonse, brother of Louis IX., married

Jeanne of Toulouse soon after, and took the title of count of

Poitiers; that province being ceded to him in apanage. Robert,

another brother, was made count of Artois at the same time.

Louis himself married Margaret, the eldest daughter of Raymond

Berenger, count of Provence."

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

"The struggle ended in a vast increase of the power of the

French crown, at the expense alike of the house of Toulouse

and of the house of Aragon. The dominions of the count of

Toulouse were divided. A number of fiefs, Beziers, Narbonne,

Nimes, Albi, and some other districts were at once annexed to

the crown. The capital itself and its county passed to the

crown fifty years later. ... The name of Toulouse, except as

the name of the city itself, now passed away, and the new

acquisitions of France came in the end to be known by the name

of the tongue which was common to them with Aquitaine and

Imperial Burgundy [Provence]. Under the name of Languedoc they

became one of the greatest and most valuable provinces of the

French kingdom."

E. A. Freeman, History Geography of Europe, chapter 9.

The brutality and destructiveness of the Crusades.

"The Church of the Albigenses had been drowned in blood. These

supposed heretics had been swept away from the soil of France.

The rest of the Languedocian people had been overwhelmed with

calamity, slaughter, and devastation. The estimates

transmitted to us of the numbers of the invaders and of the

slain are such as almost surpass belief. We can neither verify

nor correct them; but we certainly know that, during a long

succession of years, Languedoc had been invaded by armies more

numerous than had ever before been brought together in

European warfare since the fall of the Roman empire. We know

that these hosts were composed of men inflamed by bigotry and

unrestrained by discipline; that they had neither military pay

nor magazines; that they provided for all their wants by the

sword, living at the expense of the country, and seizing at

their pleasure both the harvests of the peasants and the

merchandise of the citizens. More than three-fourths of the

landed proprietors had been despoiled of their fiefs and

castles. In hundreds of villages, every inhabitant had been

massacred. ... Since the sack of Rome by the Vandals, the

European world had never mourned over a national disaster so

wide in its extent or so fearful in its character."

Sir J. Stephen, Lectures on the History of France,

lecture 7.

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

ALBION.

"The most ancient name known to have been given to this island

[Britain] is that of Albion. ... There is, however, another

allusion to Britain which seems to carry us much further back,

though it has usually been ill understood. It occurs in the

story of the labours of Hercules, who, after securing the cows

of Geryon, comes from Spain to Liguria, where he is attacked

by two giants, whom he kills before making his way to Italy.

Now, according to Pomponius Mela, the names of the giants were

Albiona and Bergyon, which one may, without much hesitation,

restore to the forms of Albion and Iberion, representing,

undoubtedly, Britain and Ireland, the position of which in the

sea is most appropriately symbolized by the story making them

sons of Neptune or the sea-god. ... Even in the time of Pliny,

Albion, as the name of the island, had fallen out of use with

Latin authors; but not so with the Greeks, or with the Celts

themselves, at any rate those of the Goidelic branch; for they

are probably right who suppose that we have but the same word

in the Irish and Scotch Gælic Alba, genitive Alban, the

kingdom of Alban or Scotland beyond the Forth. Albion would be

a form of the name according to the Brythonic pronunciation of

it. ... It would thus appear that the name Albion is one that

has retreated to a corner of the island, to the whole of which

it once applied."

J. Rhys, Celtic Britain, chapter 6.

ALSO IN E. Guest, Origines Celticae, chapter 1.

See SCOTLAND: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.

ALBIS, The.

The ancient name of the river Elbe.

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

ALCALDE.--ALGUAZIL.--CORREGIDOR.

"The word alcalde is from the Arabic 'al cadi,' the judge or

governor. ... Alcalde mayor signifies a judge, learned in the

law, who exercises [in Spain] ordinary jurisdiction, civil and

criminal, in a town or district." In the Spanish colonies the

Alcalde mayor was the chief judge. "Irving (Columbus, ii.

331) writes erroneously alguazil mayor, evidently confounding

the two offices. ... An alguacil mayor, was a chief constable

or high sheriff." "Corregidor, a magistrate having civil and

criminal jurisdiction in the first instance ('nisi prius')

and gubernatorial inspection in the political and economical

government in all the towns of the district assigned to him."

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,

volume 1, pages 297 and 250, foot-notes.

ALCANIZ, Battle of.

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

ALCANTARA, Battle of the (1580).

See PORTUGAL; A. D. 1579-1580.

{35}

ALCANTARA, Knights of.

"Towards the close of Alfonso's reign [Alfonso VIII. of

Castile and Leon, who called himself 'the Emperor,'

A. D. 1126-1157], may be assigned the origin of the

military order of Alcantara. Two cavaliers of Salamanca, don

Suero and don Gomez, left that city with the design of

choosing and fortifying some strong natural frontier, whence

they could not only arrest the continual incursions of the

Moors, but make hostile irruptions themselves into the

territories of the misbelievers. Proceeding along the banks of

the Coales, they fell in with a hermit, Amando by name, who

encouraged them in their patriotic design and recommended the

neighbouring hermitage of St. Julian as an excellent site for

a fortress. Having examined and approved the situation, they

applied to the bishop of Salamanca for permission to occupy

the place: that permission was readily granted: with his

assistance, and that of the hermit Amando, the two cavaliers

erected a castle around the hermitage. They were now joined by

other nobles and by more adventurers, all eager to acquire

fame and wealth in this life, glory in the next. Hence the

foundation of an order which, under the name, first, of St.

Julian, and subsequently of Alcantara, rendered good service

alike to king and church."

S. A. Dunham, History of Spain and Portugal, book 3,

section 2, chapter 1, division. 2.

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

See MAROCCO: THE ARAB CONQUEST AND SINCE.

ALCIBIADES, The career of.

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

and ATHENS: B. C. 415, and 413-411.

ALCLYDE.

Rhydderch, a Cumbrian prince of the sixth century who was the

victor in a civil conflict, "fixed his headquarters on a rock

in the Clyde, called in the Welsh Alclud [previously a Roman

town known as Theodosia], whence it was known to the English

for a time as Alclyde; but the Goidels called it Dunbrettan,

or the fortress of the Brythons, which has prevailed in the

slightly modified form of Dumbarton. ... Alclyde was more than

once destroyed by the Northmen."

J. Rhys; Celtic Britain, chapter 4.

See, also, CUMBRIA.

ALCMÆONIDS, The curse and banishment of the.

See ATHENS: B. C. 612-595.

ALCOLEA, Battle of (1868).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.

ALDIE, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863

(JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA).

ALDINE PRESS, The.

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

ALEMANNIA: The Mediæval Duchy.

See GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.

ALEMANNI, OR ALAMANNI: A. D. 213.

Origin and first appearance.

"Under Antoninus, the Son of Severus, a new and more severe

war once more (A. D. 213) broke out in Raetia. This also was

waged against the Chatti; but by their side a second people is

named, which we here meet for the first time--the Alamanni.

Whence they came, we known not. According to a Roman writing a

little later, they were a conflux of mixed elements; the

appellation also seems to point to a league of communities, as

well as the fact that, afterwards, the different tribes

comprehended under this name stand forth--more than is the

case among the other great Germanic peoples--in their separate

character, and the Juthungi, the Lentienses, and other

Alamannic peoples not seldom act independently. But that it is

not the Germans of this region who here emerge, allied under the

new name and strengthened by the alliance, is shown as well by

the naming of the Alamanni along side of the Chatti, as by the

mention of the unwonted skilfulness of the Alamanni in

equestrian combat. On the contrary, it was certainly, in the

main, hordes coming on from the East that lent new strength to

the almost extinguished German resistance on the Rhine; it is

not improbable that the powerful Semnones, in earlier times

dwelling on the middle Elbe, of whom there is no further

mention after the end of the second century, furnished a

strong contingent to the Alamanni."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 4.

"The standard quotation respecting the derivation of the name

from 'al'='all' and m-n= man', so that the word (somewhat

exceptionably) denotes 'men of all sorts,' is from Agathias,

who quotes Asinius Quadratus. ... Notwithstanding this, I

think it is an open question, whether the name may not have

been applied by the truer and more unequivocal Germans of

Suabia and Franconia, to certain less definitely Germanic

allies from Wurtemberg and Baden,--parts of the Decumates

Agri--parts which may have supplied a Gallic, a Gallo-Roman,

or even a Slavonic element to the confederacy; in which case,

a name so German as to have given the present French and

Italian name for Germany, may, originally, have applied to a

population other than Germanic. I know the apparently

paradoxical elements in this view; but I also know that, in

the way of etymology, it is quite as safe to translate 'all'

by 'alii' as by 'omnes': and I cannot help thinking that the

'al-' in Ale-manni is the 'al-' in 'alir-arto' (a foreigner

or man of another sort), 'eli-benzo' (an alien), and

'ali-land' (captivity in foreign land).--Grimm, ii.

628.--Rechsalterth, page 359. And still more satisfied am I that

the 'al-' in Al-emanni is the 'al-' in

Alsatia='el-sass'='ali-satz'='foreign settlement.' In other

words, the prefix in question is more probably the 'al-' in

'el-se', than the 'al-' in 'all.' Little, however, of

importance turns on this. The locality of the Alemanni was the

parts about the Limes Romanus, a boundary which, in the time

of Alexander Severus, Niebuhr thinks they first broke through.

Hence they were the Marchmen of the frontier, whoever those

Marchmen were. Other such Marchmen were the Suevi; unless,

indeed, we consider the two names as synonymous. Zeuss admits

that, between the Suevi of Suabia, and the Alemanni, no

tangible difference can be found."

R. G. Lathan, The Germania of Tacitus; Epilegomena,

section 11.

ALSO IN T. Smith, Arminius, part 2, chapter 1.

See also, SUEVI, and BAVARIANS.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 259.

Invasion of Gaul and Italy.

The Alemanni, "hovering on the frontiers of the Empire ...

increased the general disorder that ensued after the death of

Decius. They inflicted severe wounds on the rich provinces of

Gaul; they were the first who removed the veil that covered

the feeble majesty of Italy. A numerous body of the Alemanni

penetrated across the Danube and through the Rhætian Alps into

the plains of Lombardy, advanced as far as Ravenna and

displayed the victorious banners of barbarians almost in sight

of Rome [A. D. 259]. The insult and the danger

rekindled in the senate some sparks of their ancient virtue.

Both the Emperors were engaged in far distant wars--Valerian

in the East and Galienus on the Rhine." The senators, however,

succeeded in confronting the audacious invaders with a force

which checked their advance, and they "retired into Germany

laden with spoil."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,  chapter 10.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

{36}

ALEMANNI: A. D. 270.

Invasion of Italy.

Italy was invaded by the Alemanni, for the second time, in the

reign of Anrelian, A. D. 270. They ravaged the provinces from

the Danube to the Po, and were retreating, laden with spoils,

when the vigorous Emperor intercepted them, on the banks of

the former river. Half the host was permitted to cross the

Danube; the other half was surprised and surrounded. But these

last, unable to regain their own country, broke through the

Roman lines at their rear and sped into Italy again, spreading

havoc as they went. It was only after three great

battles,--one near Placentia, in which the Romans were almost

beaten, another on the Metaurus (where Hasdrubal was

defeated), and a third near Pavia,--that the Germanic

invaders were destroyed.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,  chapter 11.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

ALEMANNI: A. D. 355-361.

Repulse by Julian.

See GAUL: A. D. 355-361.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 365-367.

Invasion of Gaul.

The Alemanni invaded Gaul in 365, committing widespread

ravages and carrying away into the forests of Germany great

spoil and many captives. The next winter they crossed the

Rhine, again, in still greater numbers, defeated the Roman

forces and captured the standards of the Herulian and Batavian

auxiliaries. But Valentinian was now Emperor, and he adopted

energetic measures. His lieutenant Jovinus overcame the

invaders in a great battle fought near Chalons and drove them

back to their own side of the river boundary. Two years later,

the Emperor, himself, passed the Rhine and inflicted a

memorable chastisement on the Alemanni. At the same time he

strengthened the frontier defences, and, by diplomatic arts,

fomented quarrels between the Alemanni and their neighbors,

the Burgundians, which weakened both.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,  chapter 25.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

ALEMANNI: A. D. 378.

Defeat by Gratian.

On learning that the young Emperor Gratian was preparing to

lead the military force of Gaul and the West to the help of

his uncle and colleague, Valens, against the Goths, the

Alemanni swarmed across the Rhine into Gaul. Gratian instantly

recalled the legions that were marching to Pannonia and

encountered the German invaders in a great battle fought near

Argentaria (modern Colmar) in the month of May, A. D. 378. The

Alemanni were routed with such slaughter that no more than

5,000 out of 40,000 to 70,000, are said to have escaped.

Gratian afterwards crossed the Rhine and humbled his

troublesome neighbors in their own country.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,  chapter 26.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.

Overthrow by the Franks.

"In the year 496 A. D. the Salians [Salian Franks] began that

career of conquest which they followed up with scarcely any

intermission until the death of their warrior king. The

Alemanni, extending themselves from their original seats on

the right bank of the Rhine, between the Main and the Danube,

had pushed forward into Germanica Prima, where they came into

collision with the Frankish subjects of King Sigebert of

Cologne. Clovis flew to the assistance of his kinsman and

defeated the Alemanni in a great battle in the neighbourhood

of Zülpich [called, commonly, the battle of Tolbiac]. He then

established a considerable number of his Franks in the

territory of the Alemanni, the traces of whose residence are

found in the names of Franconia and Frankfort."

V. C. Perry, The Franks, chapter 2.

"Clovis had been intending to cross the Rhine, but the hosts

of the Alamanni came upon him, as it seems, unexpectedly and

forced a battle on the left bank of the river. He seemed to be

overmatched, and the horror of an impending defeat

overshadowed the Frankish king. Then, in his despair, he

bethought himself of the God of Clotilda [his queen, a

Burgundian Christian princess, of the orthodox or Catholic

faith]. Raising his eyes to heaven, he said: 'Oh Jesus Christ,

whom Clotilda declares to be the Son of the living God, who

art said to give help to those who are in trouble and who

trust in Thee, I humbly beseech Thy succour! I have called on

my gods and they are far from my help. If Thou wilt deliver me

from mine enemies, I will believe in Thee, and be baptised in

Thy name.' At this moment, a sudden change was seen in the

fortunes of the Franks. The Alamanni began to waver, they

turned, they fled. Their king, according to one account was

slain; and the nation seems to have accepted Clovis as its

over-lord." The following Christmas day Clovis was baptised at

Reims and 3,000 of his warriors followed the royal example.

"In the early years of the new century, probably about 503 or

504, Clovis was again at war with his old enemies, the

Alamanni. ... Clovis moved his army into their territories and

won a victory much more decisive, though less famous than that

of 496. This time the angry king would make no such easy terms

as he had done before. From their pleasant dwellings by the

Main and the Neckar, from all the valley of the Middle Rhine,

the terrified Alamanni were forced to flee. Their place was

taken by Frankish settlers, from whom all this district

received in the Middle Ages the name of the Duchy of Francia,

or, at a rather later date, that of the Circle of Franconia.

The Alamanni, with their wives and children, a broken and

dispirited host, moved southward to the shores of the Lake of

Constance and entered the old Roman province of Rhætia. Here

they were on what was held to be, in a sense, Italian ground;

and the arm of Theodoric, as ruler of Italy, as successor to

the Emperors of the West, was stretched forth to protect them.

... Eastern Switzerland, Western Tyrol, Southern Baden and

Würtemberg and Southwestern Bavaria probably formed this new

Alamannis, which will figure in later history as the 'Ducatus

Alamanniæ,' or the Circle of Swabia."

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 4, chapter 9.

ALSO IN

P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul,

book 3, chapter 11.

See, also, SUEVI: A. D. 460-500;

and FRANKS: A. D. 481-511.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 528-729.

Struggles against the Frank Dominion.

See GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 547.

Final subjection to the Franks.

See BAVARIA: A. D. 547.

{37}

ALEPPO: A. D. 638-969.

Taken by the Arab followers of Mahomet in 638, this city was

recovered by the Byzantines in 969.

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

ALEPPO: A. D. 1260.

Destruction by the Mongols.

The Mongols, under Khulagu, or Houlagou, brother of Mangu

Khan, having overrun Mesopotamia and extinguished the

Caliphate at Bagdad, crossed the Euphrates in the spring of

1260 and advanced to Aleppo. The city was taken after a siege

of seven days and given up for five days to pillage and

slaughter. "When the carnage ceased, the streets were cumbered

with corpses. ... It is said that 100,000 women and children

were sold as slaves. The walls of Aleppo were razed, its

mosques destroyed, and its gardens ravaged." Damascus

submitted and was spared. Khulagu was meditating, it is said,

the conquest of Jerusalem, when news of the death of the Great

Khan called him to the East.

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

ALEPPO: A. D. 1401.

Sack and Massacre by Timour.

See TIMOUR.

ALESIA, Siege of, by Cæsar.

See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.

ALESSANDRIA: The creation of the city (1168).

See ITALY: A. D. 1174--1183.

ALEUTS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMO.

ALEXANDER

ALEXANDER the Great, B. C. 334-323.

Conquests and Empire.

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

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

Alexander, Prince of Bulgaria.--Abduction and Abdication.

See BULGARIA: A. D. 1878-1886..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alexander V., Pope, A. D. 1409-1410

(elected by the Council of Pisa).

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

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

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

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

ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 332.

The Founding of the City.

"When Alexander reached the Egyptian military station at the

little town or village of Rhakotis, he saw with the quick eye

of a great commander how to turn this petty settlement into a

great city, and to make its roadstead, out of which ships

could be blown by a change of wind, into a double harbour

roomy enough to shelter the navies of the world. All that was

needed was to join the island by a mole to the continent. The

site was admirably secure and convenient, a narrow strip of

land between the Mediterranean and the great inland Lake

Mareotis. The whole northern side faced the two harbours,

which were bounded east and west by the mole, and beyond by

the long, narrow rocky island of Pharos, stretching parallel

with the coast. On the south was the inland port of Lake

Mareotis. The length of the city was more than three miles,

the breadth more than three-quarters of a mile; the mole was

above three-quarters of a mile long and six hundred feet

broad; its breadth is now doubled, owing to the silting up of

the sand. Modern Alexandria until lately only occupied the

mole, and was a great town in a corner of the space which

Alexander, with large provision for the future, measured out.

The form of the new city was ruled by that of the site, but

the fancy of Alexander designed it in the shape of a

Macedonian cloak or chlamys, such as a national hero wears on

the coins of the kings of Macedon, his ancestors. The

situation is excellent for commerce. Alexandria, with the best

Egyptian harbour on the Mediterranean, and the inland port

connected with the Nile streams and canals, was the natural

emporium of the Indian trade. Port Said is superior now,

because of its grand artificial port and the advantage for

steamships of an unbroken sea route."

R. S. Poole, Cities of Egypt, chapter 12.--

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

and EGYPT: B. C. 332.

ALEXANDRIA: Reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, B. C. 282-246.

Greatness and splendor of the City.

Its Commerce.

Its Libraries.

Its Museum.

Its Schools.

Ptolemy Philadelphus, son of Ptolemy Soter, succeeded to the

throne of Egypt in 282 B. C. when his father retired from it

in his favor, and reigned until 246 B. C. "Alexandria, founded

by the great conqueror, increased and beautified by Ptolemy

Soter, was now far the greatest city of Alexander's Empire. It

was the first of those new foundations which are a marked

feature in Hellenism; there were many others of great size and

importance--above all, Antioch, then Seleucia on the Tigris,

then Nicomedia, Nicæa, Apamea, which lasted; besides such as

Lysimacheia, Antigoneia, and others, which early disappeared.

... Alexandria was the model for all the rest. The

intersection of two great principal thoroughfares, adorned

with colonnades for the footways, formed the centre point, the

omphalos of the city. The other streets were at right angles

with these thoroughfares, so that the whole place was quite

regular. Counting its old part, Rhakotis, which was still the

habitation of native Egyptians, Alexandria had five quarters,

one at least devoted to Jews who had originally settled there

in great numbers. The mixed population there of Macedonians,

Greeks, Jews, and Egyptians gave a peculiarly complex and

variable character to the population. Let us not forget the

vast number of strangers from all parts of the world whom

trade and politics brought there. It was the great mart where

the wealth of Europe and of Asia changed hands. Alexander had

opened the sea-way by exploring the coasts of Media and

Persia. Caravans from the head of the Persian Gulf, and ships

on the Red Sea, brought all the wonders of Ceylon and China,

as well as of Further India, to Alexandria. There, too, the

wealth of Spain and Gaul, the produce of Italy and Macedonia,

the amber of the Baltic and the salt fish of Pontus, the

silver of Spain and the copper of Cyprus, the timber of

Macedonia and Crete, the pottery and oil of Greece--a thousand

imports from all the Mediterranean--came to be exchanged for

the spices of Arabia, the splendid birds and embroideries of

India and Ceylon, the gold and ivory of Africa, the antelopes,

the apes, the leopards, the elephants of tropical climes.

Hence the enormous wealth of the Lagidæ, for in addition to

the marvellous fertility and great population--it is said to

have been seven millions--of Egypt, they made all the profits

of this enormous carrying trade.

{38}

We gain a good idea of what the splendours of the capital were

by the very full account preserved to us by Athenæus of the

great feast which inaugurated the reign of Philadelphus. ...

All this seems idle pomp, and the doing of an idle sybarite.

Philadelphus was anything but that. ... It was he who opened

up the Egyptian trade with Italy, and made Puteoli the great

port for ships from Alexandria, which it remained for

centuries. It was he who explored Ethiopia and the southern

parts of Africa, and brought back not only the curious fauna

to his zoological gardens, but the first knowledge of the

Troglodytes for men of science. The cultivation of science and

of letters too was so remarkably one of his pursuits that the

progress of the Alexandria of his day forms an epoch in the

world's history, and we must separate his University and its

professors from this summary, and devote to them a separate

section. ... The history of the organization of the University

and its staff is covered with almost impenetrable mist. For

the Museum and Library were in the strictest sense what we

should now call an University, and one, too, of the Oxford

type, where learned men were invited to take Fellowships, and

spend their learned leisure close to observatories in science,

and a great library of books. Like the mediæval universities,

this endowment of research naturally turned into an engine for

teaching, as all who desired knowledge flocked to such a

centre, and persuaded the Fellow to become a Tutor. The model

came from Athens. There the schools, beginning with the

Academy of Plato, had a fixed property--a home with its

surrounding garden, and in order to make this foundation sure,

it was made a shrine where the Muses were worshipped, and

where the head of the school, or a priest appointed, performed

stated sacrifices. This, then, being held in trust by the

successors of the donor, who bequeathed it; to them, was a

property which it would have been sacrilegious to invade, and

so the title Museum arose for a school of learning. Demetrius

the Phalerean, the friend and protector of Theophrastus,

brought this idea with him to Alexandria, when his namesake

drove him into exile [see GREECE: B. C. 307-197] and it was no

doubt his advice to the first Ptolemy which originated the

great foundation, though Philadelphus, who again exiled

Demetrius, gets the credit of it. The pupil of Aristotle

moreover impressed on the king the necessity of storing up in

one central repository all that the world knew or could

produce, in order to ascertain the laws of things from a

proper analysis of detail. Hence was founded not only the

great library, which in those days had a thousand times the

value a great library has now, but also observatories,

zoological gardens, collections of exotic plants, and of other

new and strange things brought by exploring expeditions from

the furthest regions of Arabia and Africa. This library and

museum proved indeed a home for the Muses, and about it a most

brilliant group of students in literature and science was

formed. The successive librarians were Zenodotus, the

grammarian or critic; Callimachus, to whose poems we shall

presently return; Eratosthenes, the astronomer, who originated

the process by which the size of the earth is determined

to-day; Appollonius the Rhodian, disciple and enemy of

Callimachus; Aristophanes of Byzantium, founder of a school of

philological criticism; and Aristarchus of Samos, reputed to

have been the greatest critic of ancient times. The study of

the text of Homer was the chief labour of Zenodotus,

Aristophanes, and Aristarchus, and it was Aristarchus who

mainly fixed the form in which the Iliad and Odyssey remain to

this day. ... The vast collections of the library and museum

actually determined the whole character of the literature of

Alexandria. One word sums it all up--erudition, whether in

philosophy, in criticism, in science, even in poetry. Strange

to say, they neglected not only oratory, for which there was

no scope, but history, and this we may attribute to the fact

that history before Alexander had no charms for Hellenism.

Mythical lore, on the other hand, strange uses and curious

words, were departments of research dear to them. In science

they did great things, so did they in geography. ... But were

they original in nothing? Did they add nothing of their own to

the splendid record of Greek literature? In the next

generation came the art of criticism, which Aristarchus

developed into a real science, and of that we may speak in its

place; but even in this generation we may claim for them the

credit of three original, or nearly original, developments in

literature--the pastoral idyll, as we have it in Theocritus;

the elegy, as we have it in the Roman imitators of Philetas

and Callimachus; and the romance, or love story, the parent of

our modern novels. All these had early prototypes in the folk

songs of Sicily, in the love songs of Mimnermus and of

Antimachus, in the tales of Miletus, but still the revival was

fairly to be called original. Of these the pastoral idyll was

far the most remarkable, and laid hold upon the world for

ever."

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

"There were two Libraries of Alexandria under the Ptolemies,

the larger one in the quarter called the Bruchium, and the

smaller one, named 'the daughter,' in the Serapeum, which was

situated in the quarter called Rhacotis. The former was

totally destroyed in the conflagration of the Bruchium during

Cæsar's Alexandrian War [see below: B. C. 48-47]; but the

latter, which was of great value, remained uninjured (see

Matter, Histoire de l'École d'Alexandrie, volume 1, page 133

seg., 237 seq.) It is not stated by any ancient writer

where the collection of Pergamus [see PERGAMUM] was placed,

which Antony gave to Cleopatra (Plutarch, Anton., c. 58); but

it is most probable that it was deposited in the Bruchium, as

that quarter of the city was now without a library, and the

queen was anxious to repair the ravages occasioned by the

civil war. If this supposition is correct, two Alexandrian

libraries continued to exist after the time of Cæsar, and this

is rendered still more probable by the fact that during the

first three centuries of the Christian era the Bruchium was

still the literary quarter of Alexandria. But a great change

took place in the time of Aurelian. This Emperor, in

suppressing the revolt of Firmus in Egypt, A. D. 273 [see

below: A. D. 273] is said to have destroyed the Bruchium; and

though this statement is hardly to be taken literally, the

Bruchium ceased from this time to be included within the walls

of Alexandria, and was regarded only as a suburb of the city.

{39}

Whether the great library in the Bruchium with the museum and

its other literary establishments, perished at this time, we

do not know; but the Serapeum for the next century takes its

place as the literary quarter of Alexandria, and becomes the

chief library in the city. Hence later writers erroneously

speak of the Serapeum as if it had been from the beginning the

great Alexandrian library. ... Gibbon seems to think that the

whole of the Serapeum was destroyed [A. D. 389, by order of

the Emperor Theodosius--see below]; but this was not the case.

It would appear that it was only the sanctuary of the god that

was levelled with the ground, and that the library, the halls

and other buildings in the consecrated ground remained

standing long afterwards."

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

chapter 28. Notes by Dr. William Smith.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

Concerning the reputed final destruction of the Library by the

Moslems,

See below: A. D. 641-646.

ALSO IN

O. Delepierre, Historical Difficulties, chapter 3.

S. Sharpe, History of Egypt, chapters 7, 8 and 12.

See, also, NEOPLATONICS.

ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.

Cæsar and Cleopatra.

The Rising against the Romans.

The Siege.

Destruction of the great Library.

Roman victory.

From the battle field of Pharsalia (see ROME: B. C. 48)

Pompeius fled to Alexandria in Egypt; and was treacherously

murdered as he stepped on shore. Cæsar arrived a few days

afterwards, in close pursuit, and shed tears, it is said, on

being shown his rival's mangled head. He had brought scarcely

more than 3,000 of his soldiers with him, and he found Egypt

in a turbulent state of civil war. The throne was in dispute

between children of the late king, Ptolemæus Auletes.

Cleopatra, the elder daughter, and Ptolemæus, a son, were at

war with one another, and Arsinoë, a younger daughter, was

ready to put forward claims (see EGYPT: B. C. 80-48).

Notwithstanding the insignificance of his force, Cæsar did not

hesitate to assume to occupy Alexandria and to adjudicate the

dispute. But the fascinations of Cleopatra (then twenty years

of age) soon made him her partisan, and her scarcely disguised

lover. This aggravated the irritation which was caused in

Alexandria by the presence of Cæsar's troops, and a furious

rising of the city was provoked. He fortified himself in the

great palace, which he had taken possession of, and which

commanded the causeway to the island, Pharos, thereby

commanding the port. Destroying a large part of the city in

that neighborhood, he made his position exceedingly strong. At

the same time he seized and burned the royal fleet, and thus

caused a conflagration in which the greater of the two

priceless libraries of Alexandria--the library of the

Museum--was, much of it, consumed. [See above: B. C. 282-246.]

By such measures Cæsar withstood, for several months, a siege

conducted on the part of the Alexandrians with great

determination and animosity. It was not until March, B. C. 47,

that he was relieved from his dangerous situation, by the

arrival of a faithful ally, in the person of Mithridates, king

of Pergamus, who led an army into Egypt, reduced Pelusium, and

crossed the Nile at the head of the Delta. Ptolemæus advanced

with his troops to meet this new invader and was followed and

overtaken by Cæsar. In the battle which then occurred the

Egyptian army was utterly routed and Ptolemæus perished in the

Nile. Cleopatra was then married, after the Egyptian fashion,

to a younger brother, and established on the throne, while

Arsinoë was sent a prisoner to Rome.

A. Hirtius, The Alexandrian War.

ALSO IN

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 5, chapter 20.

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 18.

S. Sharpe, History of Egypt, chapter 12.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 116.

Destruction of the Jews.

See JEWS: A. D. 116.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 215.

Massacre by Caracalla.

"Caracalla was the common enemy of mankind. He left the

capital (and he never returned to it) about a year after the

murder of Geta [A. D. 213]. The rest of his reign [four years]

was spent in the several provinces of the Empire, particularly

those of the East, and every province was, by turns, the scene

of his rapine and cruelty. ... In the midst of peace, and upon

the slightest provocation, he issued his commands at

Alexandria, Egypt [A. D. 215], for a general massacre. From a

secure post in the temple of Serapis, he viewed and directed

the slaughter of many thousand citizens, as well as strangers,

without distinguishing either the number or the crime of the

sufferers."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,  chapter 6.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 260-272.

Tumults of the Third Century.

"The people of Alexandria, a various mixture of nations,

united the vanity and inconstancy of the Greeks with the

superstition and obstinacy of the Egyptians. The most trifling

occasion, a transient scarcity of flesh or lentils, the

neglect of an accustomed salutation, a mistake of precedency

in the public baths, or even a religious dispute, were at any

time sufficient to kindle a sedition among that vast

multitude, whose resentments were furious and implacable.

After the captivity of Valerian [the Roman Emperor, made

prisoner by Sapor, king of Persia, A. D. 260] and the

insolence of his son had relaxed the authority of the laws,

the Alexandrians abandoned themselves to the ungoverned rage

of their passions, and their unhappy country was the theatre

of a civil war, which continued (with a few short and

suspicious truces) above twelve years. All intercourse was cut

off between the several quarters of the afflicted city, every

street was polluted with blood, every building of strength

converted into a citadel; nor did the tumult subside till a

considerable part of Alexandria was irretrievably ruined. The

spacious and magnificent district of Bruchion, with its

palaces and museum, the residence of the kings and

philosophers of Egypt, is described, above a century

afterwards, as already reduced to its present state of dreary

solitude."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,  chapter 10.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 273.

Destruction of the Bruchium by Aurelian.

After subduing Palmyra and its Queen Zenobia, A. D. 272, the

Emperor Aurelian was called into Egypt to put down a rebellion

there, headed by one Firmus, a friend and ally of the

Palmyrene queen. Firmus had great wealth, derived from trade,

and from the paper-manufacture of Egypt, which was mostly in

his hands. He was defeated and put to death. "To Aurelian's

war against Firmus, or to that of Probus a little before in

Egypt, may be referred the destruction of Bruchium, a great

quarter of Alexandria, which according to Ammianus

Marcellinus, was ruined under Aurelian and remained deserted

everafter."

J. B. L. Crevier, History of the Roman Emperors,

book 27.

{40}

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.

Siege by Diocletian.

A general revolt of the African provinces of the Roman Empire

occurred A. D. 296. The barbarous tribes of Ethiopia and the

desert were brought into alliance with the provincials of

Egypt, Cyrenaica, Carthage and Mauritania, and the flame of

war was universal. Both the emperors of the time, Diocletian

and Maximian, were called to the African field. "Diocletian,

on his side, opened the campaign in Egypt by the siege of

Alexandria, cut off the aqueducts which conveyed the waters of

the Nile into every quarter of that immense city, and,

rendering his camp impregnable to the sallies of the besieged

multitude, he pushed his reiterated attacks with caution and

vigor. After a siege of eight months, Alexandria, wasted by

the sword and by fire, implored the clemency of the conqueror,

but it experienced the full extent of his severity. Many

thousands of the citizens perished in a promiscuous slaughter,

and there were few obnoxious persons in Egypt who escaped a

sentence either of death or at least of exile. The fate of

Busiris and of Coptos was still more melancholy than that of

Alexandria; those proud cities ... were utterly destroyed."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,  chapter 13.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 365.

Great Earthquake.

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

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 389.

Destruction of the Serapeum.

"After the edicts of Theodosius had severely prohibited the

sacrifices of the pagans, they were still tolerated in the

city and temple of Serapis. ... The archepiscopal throne of

Alexandria was filled by Theophilus, the perpetual enemy of

peace and virtue; a bold, bad man, whose hands were

alternately polluted with gold and with blood. His pious

indignation was excited by the honours of Serapis. ... The

votaries of Serapis, whose strength and numbers were much

inferior to those of their antagonists, rose in arms [A. D.

389] at the instigation of the philosopher Olympius, who

exhorted them to die in the defence of the altars of the gods.

These pagan fanatics fortified themselves in the temple, or

rather fortress, of Serapis; repelled the besiegers by daring

sallies and a resolute defence; and, by the inhuman cruelties

which they exercised on their Christian prisoners, obtained

the last consolation of despair. The efforts of the prudent

magistrate were usefully exerted for the establishment of a

truce till the answer of Theodosius should determine the fate

of Serapis." The judgment of the emperor condemned the great

temple to destruction and it was reduced to a heap of ruins.

"The valuable library of Alexandria was pillaged or destroyed;

and, near twenty years afterwards, the appearance of the empty

shelves excited the regret and indignation of every spectator

whose mind was not totally darkened by religious

prejudice."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 28.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

Gibbon's statement as to the destruction of the great library

in the Serapeum is called in question by his learned

annotator, Dr. Smith.

See above: B. C. 282-246.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 413-415.

The Patriarch Cyril and his Mobs.

"His voice [that of Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, A. D.

412-444] inflamed or appeased the passions of the multitude:

his commands were blindly obeyed by his numerous and fanatic

parabolani, familiarized in their daily office with scenes of

death; and the præfects of Egypt were awed or provoked by the

temporal power of these Christian pontiffs. Ardent in the

prosecution of heresy, Cyril auspiciously opened his reign by

oppressing the Novatians, the most innocent and harmless of

the sectaries. ... The toleration, and even the privileges of

the Jews, who had multiplied to the number of 40,000, were

secured by the laws of the Cæsars and Ptolemies, and a long

prescription of 700 years since the foundation of Alexandria.

Without any legal sentence, without any royal mandate, the

patriarch, at the dawn of day, led a seditious multitude to

the attack of the synagogues. Unarmed and unprepared, the Jews

were incapable of resistance; their houses of prayer were

levelled with the ground, and the episcopal warrior, after

rewarding his troops with the plunder of their goods, expelled

from the city the remnant of the misbelieving nation. Perhaps

he might plead the insolence of their prosperity, and their

deadly hatred of the Christians, whose blood they had recently

shed in a malicious or accidental tumult. Such crimes would

have deserved the animadversions of the magistrate; but in

this promiscuous outrage the innocent were confounded with the

guilty."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 47.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

"Before long the adherents of the archbishop were guilty of a

more atrocious and unprovoked crime, of the guilt of which a

deep suspicion attached to Cyril. All Alexandria respected,

honoured, took pride in the celebrated Hypatia. She was a

woman of extraordinary learning; in her was centred the

lingering knowledge of that Alexandrian Platonism cultivated

by Plotinus and his school. Her beauty was equal to her

learning; her modesty commended both. ... Hypatia lived in

great intimacy with the præfect Orestes; the only charge

whispered against her was that she encouraged him in his

hostility to the patriarch. ... Some of Cyril's ferocious

partisans seized this woman, dragged her from her chariot, and

with the most revolting indecency tore her clothes off and then

rent her limb from limb."

H. H. Milman, History of Latin Christianity,

book 2, chapter 3.

ALSO IN

C. Kingsley, Hypatia.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 616.

Taken by Chosroes.

See EGYPT: A. D. 616-628.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 641-646.

The Moslem Conquest.

The precise date of events in the Moslem conquest of Egypt, by

Amru, lieutenant of the Caliph Omar, is uncertain. Sir William

Muir fixes the first surrender of Alexandria to Amru in A. D.

641. After that it was reoccupied by the Byzantines either

once or twice, on occasions of neglect by the Arabs, as they

pursued their conquests elsewhere. The probability seems to be

that this occurred only once, in 646. It seems also probable,

as remarked by Sir W. Muir, that the two sieges on the taking

and retaking of the city--641 and 646--have been much confused

in the scanty accounts which have come down to us. On the

first occasion Alexandria would appear to have been generously

treated; while, on the second, it suffered pillage and its

fortifications were destroyed. How far there is truth in the

commonly accepted story of the deliberate burning of the great

Alexandrian Library--or so much of it as had escaped

destruction at the hands of Roman generals and Christian

patriarchs--is a question still in dispute. Gibbon discredited

the story, and Sir William Muir, the latest of students in

Mahometan history, declines even the mention of it in his

narrative of the conquest of Egypt. But other historians of

repute maintain the probable accuracy of the tale told by

Abulpharagus--that Caliph Omar ordered the destruction of the

Library, on the ground that, if the books in it agreed with

the Koran they were useless, if they disagreed with it they

were pernicious.

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

{41}

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 815-823.

Occupied by piratical Saracens from Spain.

See CRETE: A. D. 823.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1798.

Captured by the French under Bonaparte.

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

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1801-1802.

Battle of French and English.

Restoration to the Turks.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1807.

Surrendered to the English.

The brief occupation and humiliating capitulation.

See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1840.

Bombardment by the English.

See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1882.

Bombardment by the English fleet.

Massacre of Europeans.

Destruction.

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

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

ALEXANDRIA, LA., The Burning of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864

(MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).

ALEXANDRIA, VA., A. D. 1861 (May).

Occupation by Union troops.

Murder of Colonel Ellsworth.

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

ALEXANDRIAN TALENT.

See TALENT.

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

ALEXIUS I. (Comnenus),

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

Alexius II. (Comnenus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or

Greek), A. D. 1181-1183.

Alexius III. (Angelus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or

Greek), A. D. 1195-1203

Alexius IV. (Angelus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or

Greek), A. D. 1203-1204

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

A. D. 1204.

ALFONSO

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

Alfonso I., King of Castile, A. D. 1072-1109;

and VI. of Leon, A. D. 1065-1109.

Alfonso I., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo,

A. D. 739-757.

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

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

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

Alfonso II., King of Leon and the Asturias,

or Oviedo, A. D. 791-842.

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

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

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

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

Alfonso III., King of Leon and the Asturias,

or Oviedo, A. D. 866-910.

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

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

Alfonso IV., King of Leon and the Asturias,

or Oviedo, A. D. 925-930.

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

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

I. of Naples, A. D. 1443-1458.

Alfonso V., King of Leon and the Asturias,

or Oviedo, A. D. 9919-1027.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

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

ALGIERS AND ALGERIA.

"The term Algiers literally signifies 'the island,' and was

derived from the original construction of its harbour, one

side of which was separated from the land."

M. Russell, History of the Barbary States, page 314.

For history, see BARBARY STATES.

ALGIHED, The.

The term by which a war is proclaimed among the Mahometans to

be a Holy War.

ALGONKINS, OR ALGONQUINS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONKIN FAMILY.

ALGUAZIL.

See ALCALDE.

ALHAMA, The taking of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

ALHAMBRA, The building of the.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.

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

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

See ROME: B. C. 390-347.

ALIBAMUS, OR ALIBAMONS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEE FAMILY.

ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS, The.

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

ALIGARH, Battle of (1803).

See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

ALIWAL, Battle of (1846).

See INDIA: A D. 1845-1849.

ALJUBAROTA, Battle of (1385).

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1383-1385,

and SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.

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

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.

ALKMAR, Battle of.

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

"ALL THE TALENTS," The Ministry of.

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

ALLEGHANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS.

ALLEMAGNE.

The French name for Germany, derived from the confederation of

the Alemanni.

See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.

ALLEN, Ethan, and the Green Mountain Boys.

See VERMONT, A. D. 1749-1774.

And the Capture of Fort Ticonderoga.

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

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

See GERMANY: A.. D. 1640-1645.

ALLERTON Isaac, and the Plymouth Colony.

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

ALLIANCE, The Farmers'.

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

{42}

ALLOBROGES, Conquest of the.

The Allobroges (see ÆDUI; also GAULS) having sheltered the

chiefs of the Salyes, when the latter succumbed to the Romans,

and having refused to deliver them up, the proconsul Cn.

Domitius marched his army toward their country, B. C. 121. The

Allobroges advanced to meet him and were defeated at

Vindalium, near the junction of the Sorgues with the Rhone,

and not far from Avignon, having 20,000 men slain and 3,000

taken prisoners. The Arverni, who were the allies of the

Allobroges, then took the field, crossing the Cevennes

mountains and the river Rhone with a vast host, to attack the

small Roman army of 30,000 men, which had passed under the

command of Q. Fabius Maximus Æmilianus. On the 8th of August,

B. C. 121, the Gaulish horde encountered the legions of Rome,

at a point near the junction of the Isere and the Rhone, and

were routed with such enormous slaughter that 150,000 are said

to have been slain or drowned. This battle settled the fate of

the Allobroges, who surrendered to Rome without further

struggle; but the Arverni were not pursued. The final conquest

of that people was reserved for Cæsar.

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

ALMA, Battle of the.

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

ALMAGROS AND PIZARROS, The quarrel of the.

See PERU: A. D. 1533-1548.

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

See SPAIN: A. D. 1707.

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

See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

ALMOHADES, The.

The empire of the Almoravides, in Morocco and Spain, which

originated in a Moslem missionary movement, was overturned in

the middle of the twelfth century by a movement of somewhat

similar nature. The agitating cause of the revolution was a

religious teacher named Mahomet ben Abdallah, who rose in the

reign of Ali (successor to the great Almoravide prince,

Joseph), who gained the odor of sanctity at Morocco and who

took the title of Al Mehdi, or El Mahdi, the Leader, "giving

himself out for the person whom many Mahometans expect under

that title. As before, the sect grew into an army, and the

army grew into an empire. The new dynasty were called

Almohades from Al Mehdi, and by his appointment a certain

Abdelmumen was elected Caliph and Commander of the Faithful.

Under his vigorous guidance the new kingdom rapidly grew, till

the Almohades obtained quite the upper hand in Africa, and in

1146 they too passed into Spain. Under Abdelmumen and his

successors, Joseph and Jacob Almansor, the Almohades entirely

supplanted the Almoravides, and became more formidable foes

than they had been to the rising Christian powers. Jacob

Almansor won in 1195 the terrible battle of Alarcos against

Alfonso of Castile, and carried his conquests deep into that

kingdom. His fame spread through the whole Moslem world. ...

With Jacob Almansor perished the glory of the Almohade. His

successor, Mahomet, lost in 1211 [June 16] the great battle of

Alacab or Tolosa against Alfonso, and that day may be said to

have decided the fate of Mahometanism in Spain. The Almohade

dynasty gradually declined. ... The Almohades, like the

Ommiads and the Almoravides, vanish from history amidst a

scene of confusion the details of which it were hopeless to

attempt to remember."

E. A. Freeman, History and Conquests of the Saracens,

lecture 5.

ALSO IN

H. Coppée, Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,

book 8, chapter 4

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

ALMONACID, Battle of.

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

ALMORAVIDES, The.

During the confusions of the 11th century in the Moslem world,

a missionary from Kairwan--one Abdallah--preaching the faith

of Islam to a wild tribe in Western North Africa, created a

religious movement which "naturally led to a political one."

"The tribe now called themselves Almoravides, or more properly

Morabethah, which appears to mean followers of the Marabout or

religious teacher. Abdallah does not appear to have himself

claimed more than a religious authority, but their princes

Zachariah and Abu Bekr were completely guided by his counsels.

After his death Abu Bekr founded in 1070 the city of Morocco.

There he left as his lieutenant his cousin Joseph, who grew so

powerful that Abu Bekr, by a wonderful exercise of moderation,

abdicated in his favour, to avoid a probable civil war. This

Joseph, when he had become lord of most part of Western

Africa, was requested, or caused himself to be requested, to

assume the title of Emir al Momenin, Commander of the

Faithful. As a loyal subject of the Caliph of Bagdad, he

shrank from such sacrilegious usurpation, but he did not

scruple to style himself Emir Al Muslemin, Commander of the

Moslems. ... The Almoravide Joseph passed over into Spain,

like another Tarik; he vanquished Alfonso [the Christian

prince of the rising kingdom of Castile] at Zalacca [Oct. 23,

A. D. 1086] and then converted the greater portion of

Mahometan Spain into an appendage to his own kingdom of

Morocco. The chief portion to escape was the kingdom of

Zaragossa, the great out-post of the Saracens in northeastern

Spain. ... The great cities of Andalusia were all brought

under a degrading submission to the Almoravides. Their dynasty

however was not of long duration, and it fell in turn [A. D.

1147] before one whose origin was strikingly similar to their

own" [the Almohades].

E. A. Freeman, History and Conquests of the Saracens,

lecture 5.

ALSO IN

H. Coppée, Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors, book 8,

chapter 2 and 4.

See, also, PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

ALOD.--ALODIAL

"It may be questioned whether any etymological connexion

exists between the words odal and alod, but their

signification applied to land is the same: the alod is the

hereditary estate derived from primitive occupation; for which

the owner owes no service except the personal obligation to

appear in the host and in the council. ... The land held in

full ownership might be either an ethel, an inherited or

otherwise acquired portion of original allotment; or an estate

created by legal process out of public land. Both these are

included in the more common term alod; but the former looks

for its evidence in the pedigree of its owner or in the

witness of the community, while the latter can produce the

charter or· book by which it is created, and is called

bocland. As the primitive allotments gradually lost their

historical character, as the primitive modes of transfer

became obsolete, and the use of written records took their

place, the ethel is lost sight of in the bookland. All the

land that is not so accounted for is folcland, or public

land."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, c

hapter 3, section 24, and chapter 5, section 36.

{43}

"Alodial lands are commonly opposed to beneficiary or feudal;

the former being strictly proprietary, while the latter

depended upon a superior. In this sense the word is of

continual recurrence in ancient histories, laws and

instruments. It sometimes, however, bears the sense of

inheritance. . . . Hence, in the charters of the eleventh

century, hereditary fiefs are frequently termed alodia."

H. Hallam, Middle Ages, chapter 2, part 1, note.

ALSO IN

J. M. Kemble, The Saxon in England, book 1, chapter 11.

See, also, FOLCLAND.

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

ALPHONSO.

See ALFONSO.

ALSACE.--ALSATIA:

The Name.

See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.

ALSACE: A. D. 843-870.

Included in the Kingdom of Lorraine.

See LORRAINE: A. D. 843-870.

ALSACE: 10th Century.

Joined to the Empire.

See LORRAINE: A. D. 911-980.

ALSACE: 10th Century.

Origin of the House of Hapsburg.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246--1282.

ALSACE: A. D. 1525.

Revolt of the Peasants.

See   GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.

ALSACE: A. D. 1621-1622.

Invasions by Mansfeld and his predatory army.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

ALSACE: A. D. 1636-1639.

Invasion and conquest by Duke Bernhard of Weimar.

Richelieu's appropriation of the conquest for France.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

ALSACE: A. D. 1648.

Cession to France in the Peace of Westphalia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

ALSACE: A. D. 1659.

Renunciation of the claims of the King of Spain.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

ALSACE: A. D. 1674-1678.

Ravaged in the Campaigns of Turenne and Condé.

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

ALSACE: A. D. 1679-1681.

Complete Absorption in France.

Assumption of entire Sovereignty by Louis XIV.

Encroachments of the Chamber of Reannexation.

Seizure of Strasburg.

Overthrow of its independence as an Imperial City.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

ALSACE: A. D. 1744.

Invasion by the Austrians.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744.

ALSACE: A. D. 1871.

Ceded to the German Empire by France.

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

ALSACE: 1871-1879.

Organization of government as   a German Impanel Province.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1871-1879.

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

ALTA CALIFORNIA.--Upper California.

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1543-1781.

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

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

ALTENHOVEN, Battle of (1793).

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

ALTHING, The.

See THING;

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

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

ALTIS, The.

See OLYMPIC FESTIVAL.

ALTMARCK.

See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1142-1152.

ALTONA: A. D. 1713.

Burned by the Swedes.

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

ALTOPASCIO, Battle of (1325).

See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

ALVA IN THE NETHERLANDS.

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

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

AMAHUACA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

AMALASONTHA, Queen of the Ostrogoths.

See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

AMALEKITES, The.

"The Amalekites were usually regarded as a branch of the

Edomites or 'Red-skins'. Amalek, like Kenaz, the father of the

Kenizzites or 'Hunters,' was the grandson of Esau (Gen. 36:

12, 16). He thus belonged to the group of nations,--Edomites,

Ammonites, and Moabites,--who stood in a relation of close

kinship to Israel. But they had preceded the Israelites in

dispossessing the older inhabitants of the land, and

establishing themselves in their place. The Edomites had

partly destroyed, partly amalgamated the Horites of Mount Seir

(Deuteronomy 2: 12); the Moabites had done the same to the Emim,

'a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim' (Deuteronomy

2: 10), while the Ammonites had extirpated and succeeded to

the Rephaim or 'Giants,' who in that part of the country were

termed Zamzummim (Deuteronomy 2: 20; Gen. 14: 5). Edom however

stood in a closer relation to Israel than its two more

northerly neighbours. ... Separate from the Edomites or

Amalekites were the Kenites or wandering 'smiths.' They formed

an important Guild in an age when the art of metallurgy was

confined to a few. In the time of Saul we hear of them as

camping among the Amalekites (1. Samuel 15: 6.) ... The

Kenites ... did not constitute a race, or even a tribe. They

were, at most, a caste. But they had originally come, like the

Israelites or the Edomites, from those barren regions of

Northern Arabia which were peopled by the Menti of the

Egyptian inscriptions. Racially, therefore, we may regard them

as allied to the descendants of Abraham. While the Kenites and

Amalekites were thus Semitic in their origin, the Hivites or

'Villagers' are specially associated with Amorites."

A. H. Sayce, Races of the Old Testament, chapter 6.

ALSO IN

H. Ewald, History of Israel, book 1, section 4.

See, also, ARABIA.

AMALFI.

"It was the singular fate of this city to have filled up the

interval between two periods of civilization, in neither of

which she was destined to be distinguished. Scarcely known

before the end of the sixth century, Amalfi ran a brilliant

career, as a free and trading republic [see ROME: A. D.

554-800], which was checked by the arms of a conqueror in the

middle of the twelfth. ... There must be, I suspect, some

exaggeration about the commerce and opulence of Amalfi, in the

only age when she possessed any at all."

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

{44}

"Amalfi and Atrani lie close together in two ... ravines, the

mountains almost arching over them, and the sea washing their

very house-walls. ... It is not easy to imagine the time when

Amalfi and Atrani were one town, with docks and arsenals and

harbourage for their associated fleets, and when these little

communities were second in importance to no naval power of

Christian Europe. The Byzantine Empire lost its hold on Italy

during the eighth century; and after this time the history of

Calabria is mainly concerned with the republics of Naples and

Amalfi, their conflict with the Lombard dukes of Benevento,

their opposition to the Saracens, and their final subjugation

by the Norman conquerors of Sicily. Between the year 839 A.

D., when Amalfi freed itself from the control of Naples and

the yoke of Benevento, and the year 1131, when Roger of

Hauteville incorporated the republic in his kingdom of the Two

Sicilies, this city was the foremost naval and commercial port

of Italy. The burghers of Amalfi elected their own doge;

founded the Hospital of Jerusalem, whence sprang the knightly

order of S. John; gave their name to the richest quarter in

Palermo; and owned trading establishments or factories in all

the chief cities of the Levant. Their gold coinage of 'tari'

formed the standard of currency before the Florentines had

stamped the lily and S. John upon the Tuscan florin. Their

shipping regulations supplied Europe with a code of maritime

laws. Their scholars, in the darkest depths of the dark ages,

prized and conned a famous copy of the Pandects of Justinian,

and their seamen deserved the fame of having first used, if

they did not actually invent, the compass. ... The republic

had grown and flourished on the decay of the Greek Empire.

When the hard-handed race of Hauteville absorbed the heritage

of Greeks and Lombards and Saracens in Southern Italy [see

ITALY (Southern): A. D. 1000-1090], these adventurers

succeeded in annexing Amalfi. But it was not their interest to

extinguish the state. On the contrary, they relied for

assistance upon the navies and the armies of the little

commonwealth. New powers had meanwhile arisen in the North of

Italy, who were jealous of rivalry upon the open seas; and

when the Neapolitans resisted King Roger in 1135, they called

Pisa to their aid, and sent her fleet to destroy Amalfi. The

ships of Amalfi were on guard with Roger's navy in the Bay of

Naples. The armed citizens were, under Roger's orders, at

Aversa. Meanwhile the home of the republic lay defenceless on

its mountain-girdled seaboard. The Pisans sailed into the

harbour, sacked the city and carried off the famous Pandects

of Justinian as a trophy. Two years later they returned, to

complete the work of devastation. Amalfi never recovered from

the injuries and the humiliation of these two attacks. It was

ever thus that the Italians, like the children of the dragon's

teeth which Cadmus sowed, consumed each other."

J. A. Symonds, Sketches and Studies in Italy,

pages 2-4.

AMALINGS, OR AMALS.

The royal race of the ancient Ostragoths, as the Balthi or

Balthings were of the Visigoths, both claiming a descent from

the gods.

AMAZIGH, The.

See LIBYANS.

AMAZONS.

"The Amazons, daughters of Arês and Harmonia, are both early

creations, and frequent reproductions, of the ancient epic.

... A nation of courageous, hardy and indefatigable women,

dwelling apart from men, permitting only a short temporary

intercourse for the purpose of renovating their numbers, and

burning out their right breast with a view of enabling

themselves to draw the bow freely,--this was at once a general

type stimulating to the fancy of the poet, and a theme

eminently popular with his hearers. Nor was it at all

repugnant to the faith of the latter--who had no recorded

facts to guide them, and no other standard of credibility as

to the past except such poetical narratives themselves--to

conceive communities of Amazons as having actually existed in

anterior time. Accordingly we find these warlike females

constantly reappearing in the ancient poems, and universally

accepted as past realities. In the Iliad, when Priam wishes to

illustrate emphatically the most numerous host in which he

ever found himself included, he tells us that it was assembled

in Phrygia, on the banks of the Sangarius, for the purpose of

resisting the formidable Amazons. When Bellerophon is to be

employed on a deadly and perilous undertaking, by those who

indirectly wish to procure his death, he is despatched against

the Amazons. ... The Argonautic heroes find the Amazons on the

river Thermôdon in their expedition along the southern coast

of the Euxine. To the same spot Hêrakles goes to attack them,

in the performance of the ninth labour imposed upon him by

Eurystheus, for the purpose of procuring the girdle of the

Amazonian queen, Hippolyte; and we are told that they had not

yet recovered from the losses sustained in this severe

aggression when Theseus also assaulted and defeated them,

carrying off their queen Antiopê. This injury they avenged by

invading Attica ... and penetrated even into Athens itself:

where the final battle, hard-fought and at one time doubtful,

by which Thêseus crushed them, was fought--in the very heart

of the city. Attic antiquaries confidently pointed out the

exact position of the two contending armies. ... No portion of

the ante-historical epic appears to have been more deeply

worked into the national mind of Greece than this invasion and

defeat of the Amazons. ... Their proper territory was asserted

to be the town and plain of Themiskyra, near the Grecian

colony of Amisus, on the river Thermôdon [northern Asia

Minor], a region called after their name by Roman historians

and geographers. ... Some authors placed them in Libya or

Ethiopia."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 11.

AMAZONS RIVER, Discovery and Naming of the.

The mouth of the great river of South America was discovered

in 1500 by Pinzon, or Pinçon (see AMERICA: A. D. 1499-1500),

who called it 'Santa Maria de la Mar Dulce' (Saint Mary of the

Fresh-Water Sea). "This was the first name given to the river,

except that older and better one of the Indians, 'Parana,' the

Sea; afterwards it was Marañon and Rio das Amazonas, from the

female warriors that were supposed to live near its banks. ...

After Pinçon's time, there were others who saw the fresh-water

sea, but no one was hardy enough to venture into it. The honor

of its real discovery was reserved for Francisco de Orellana;

and he explored it, not from the east, but from the west, in

one of the most daring voyages that was ever recorded. It was

accident rather than design that led him to it. After ...

Pizarro had conquered Peru, he sent his brother Gonzalo, with

340 Spanish soldiers, and 4,000 Indians, to explore the great

forest east of Quito, 'where there were cinnamon trees.' The

expedition started late in 1539, and it was two years before

the starved and ragged survivors returned to Quito. In the

course of their wanderings they had struck the river Coco;

building here a brigantine, they followed down the current, a

part of them in the vessel, a part on shore.

{45}

After a while they met some Indians, who told them of a rich

country ten days' journey beyond--a country of gold, and with

plenty of provisions. Gonzalo placed Orellana in command of

the brigantine, and ordered him, with 50 soldiers, to go on to

this gold-land, and return with a load of provisions. Orellana

arrived at the mouth of the Coco in three days, but found no

provisions; 'and he considered that if he should return with

this news to Pizarro, he would not reach him in a year, on

account of the strong current, and that if he remained where

he was, he would be of no use to the one or to the other. Not

knowing how long Gonzalo Pizarro would take to reach the

place, without consulting anyone he set sail and prosecuted

his voyage onward, intending to ignore Gonzalo, to reach

Spain, and obtain that government for himself.' Down the Napo

and the Amazons, for seven months, these Spaniards floated to

the Atlantic. At times they suffered terribly from hunger:

'There was nothing to eat but the skins which formed their

girdles, and the leather of their shoes, boiled with a few

herbs.' When they did get food they were often obliged to

fight hard for it; and again they were attacked by thousands

of naked Indians, who came in canoes against the Spanish

vessel. At some Indian villages, however, they were kindly

received and well fed, so they could rest while building a new

and stronger vessel. ... On the 26th of August, 1541, Orellana

and his men sailed out to the blue water 'without either

pilot, compass, or anything useful for navigation; nor did

they know what direction they should take.' Following the

coast, they passed inside of the island of Trinidad, and so at

length reached Cubagua in September. From the king of Spain

Orellana received a grant of the land he had discovered; but

he died while returning to it, and his company was dispersed.

It was not a very reliable account of the river that was given

by Orellana and his chronicler, Padre Carbajal. So Herrera

tells their story of the warrior females, and very properly

adds: 'Every reader may believe as much as he likes.'"

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

In chapter 18 of this same work "The Amazon Myth" is discussed at

length, with the reports and opinions of numerous travellers,

both early and recent, concerning it.--Mr. Southey had so much

respect for the memory of Orellana that he made an effort to

restore that bold but unprincipled discoverer's name to the

great river. "He discarded Maranon, as having too much

resemblance to Maranham, and Amazon, as being founded upon

fiction and at the same time inconvenient. Accordingly, in his

map, and in all his references to the great river he

denominates it Orellana. This decision of the poet-laureate of

Great Britain has not proved authoritative in Brazil. O

Amazonas is the universal appellation of the great river among

those who float upon its waters and who live upon its banks.

... Pará, the aboriginal name of this river, was more

appropriate than any other. It signifies 'the father of

waters.' ... The origin of the name and mystery concerning the

female warriors, I think, has been solved within the last few

years by the intrepid Mr. Wallace. ... Mr. Wallace, I think,

shows conclusively that Friar Gaspar [Carbajal] and his

companions saw Indian male warriors who were attired in

habiliments such as Europeans would attribute to women. ... I

am strongly of the opinion that the story of the Amazons has

arisen from these feminine-looking warriors encountered by the

early voyagers."

J. C. Fletcher and D. P. Kidder, Brazil and the

Brazilians, chapter 27.

ALSO IN

A. R. Wallace, Travels on the Amazon and Rio Negro,

chapter 17.

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

AMAZULUS, OR ZULUS.-The Zulu War.

See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS;

and the same: A. D. 1877-1879.

AMBACTI.

"The Celtic aristocracy [of Gaul] ... developed the system of

retainers, that is, the privilege of the nobility to surround

themselves with a number of hired mounted servants--the

ambacti as they were called--and thereby to form a state

within a state; and, resting on the support of these troops of

their own, they defied the legal authorities and the common

levy and practically broke up the commonwealth. ... This

remarkable word [ambacti] must have been in use as early as

the sixth century of Rome among the Celts in the valley of the

Po. ... It is not merely Celtic, however, but also German, the

root of our 'Amt,' as indeed the retainer-system itself is

common to the Celts and the Germans. It would be of great

historical importance to ascertain whether the word--and

therefore the thing--came to the Celts from the Germans or to

the Germans from the Celts. If, as is usually supposed, the

word is originally German and primarily signified the servant

standing in battle 'against the back' ('and '=against,

'bak'=back) of his master, this is not wholly irreconcilable

with the singularly early occurrence of the word among the

Celts. ... It is ... probable that the Celts, in Italy as in

Gaul, employed Germans chiefly as those hired

servants-at-arms. The 'Swiss guard' would therefore in that

case be some thousands of years older than people suppose."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome,

book 5, chapter 7, and foot-note.

AMBARRI, The.

A small tribe in Gaul which occupied anciently a district

between the Saone, the Rhone and the Ain.

Napoleon III., History of Cæsar, book 3, chapter 2, note.

AMBIANI, The.

See BELGÆ.

AMBITUS.

Bribery at elections was termed ambitus among the Romans, and

many unavailing laws were enacted to check it.

W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 9.

AMBIVARETI, The.

A tribe in ancient Gaul which occupied the left bank of the

Meuse, to the south of the marsh of Peel.

Napoleon III., History of Cæsar,

book 3, chapter 2, note.

AMBLEVE, Battle of (716.)

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

AMBOISE, Conspiracy or Tumult of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.

AMBOISE, Edict of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.

AMBOYNA, Massacre of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

AMBRACIA (Ambrakia).

See KORKYRA.

AMBRONES, The.

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

AMBROSIAN CHURCH.--AMBROSIAN CHANT.

See MILAN: A. D. 374-397.

AMEIXAL, OR ESTREMOS, Battle of (1663).

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.

{46}

AMERICA, The Name.

See below: A. D. 1500-1514.

AMERICA, Prehistoric.

"Widely scattered throughout the United States, from sea to

sea, artificial mounds are discovered, which may be enumerated

by the thousands or hundreds of thousands. They vary greatly

in size; some are so small that a half-dozen laborers with

shovels might construct one of them in a day, while others

cover acres and are scores of feet in height. These mounds

were observed by the earliest explorers and pioneers of the

country. They did not attract great attention, however, until

the science of archæology demanded their investigation. Then

they were assumed to furnish evidence of a race of people

older than the Indian tribes. Pseud-archæologists descanted on

the Mound-builders that once inhabited the land, and they told

of swarming populations who had reached a high condition of

culture, erecting temples, practicing arts in the metals, and

using hieroglyphs. So the Mound-builders formed the theme of

many an essay on the wonders of ancient civilization. The

research of the past ten or fifteen years has put this subject

in a proper light. First, the annals of the Columbian epoch

have been carefully studied, and it is found that some of the

mounds have been constructed in historical time, while early

explorers and settlers found many actually used by tribes of

North American Indians; so we know that many of them were

builders of mounds. Again, hundreds and thousands of these

mounds have been carefully examined, and the works of art

found therein have been collected and assembled in museums. At

the same time, the works of art of the Indian tribes, as they

were produced before modification by European culture, have

been assembled in the same museums, and the two classes of

collections have been carefully compared. All this has been

done with the greatest painstaking, and the Mound-builder's

arts and the Indian's arts are found to be substantially

identical. No fragment of evidence remains to support the

figment of theory that there was an ancient race of

Mound-builders superior in culture to the North American

Indians. ... That some of these mounds were built and used in

modern times is proved in another way. They often contain

articles manifestly made by white men, such as glass beads and

copper ornaments. ... So it chances that to-day unskilled

archæologists are collecting many beautiful things in copper,

stone, and shell which were made by white men and traded to

the Indians. Now, some of these things are found in the

mounds; and bird pipes, elephant pipes, banner stones, copper

spear heads and knives, and machine-made wampum are collected

in quantities and sold at high prices to wealthy amateurs. ...

The study of these mounds, historically and archæologically,

proves that they were used for a variety of purposes. Some

were for sepulture, and such are the most common and widely

scattered. Others were used as artificial hills on which to

build communal houses. ... Some of the very large mounds were

sites of large communal houses in which entire tribes dwelt.

There is still a third class ... constructed as places for

public assembly. ... But to explain the mounds and their uses

would expand this article into a book. It is enough to say

that the Mound-builders were the Indian tribes discovered by

white men. It may well be that some of the mounds were erected

by tribes extinct when Columbus first saw these shores, but

they were kindred in culture to the peoples that still

existed. In the southwestern portion of the United States,

conditions of aridity prevail. Forests are few and are found

only at great heights. ... The tribes lived in the plains and

valleys below, while the highlands were their hunting grounds.

The arid lands below were often naked of vegetation; and the

ledges and cliffs that stand athwart the lands, and the canyon

walls that inclose the streams, were everywhere quarries of

loose rock, lying in blocks ready to the builder's hand. Hence

these people learned to build their dwellings of stone; and

they had large communal houses, even larger than the

structures of wood made by the tribes of the east and north.

Many of these stone pueblos are still occupied, but the ruins

are scattered wide over a region of country embracing a little

of California and Nevada, much of Utah, most of Colorado, the

whole of New Mexico and Arizona, and far southward toward the

Isthmus. ... No ruin has been discovered where evidences of a

higher culture are found than exists in modern times at Zuni,

Oraibi, or Laguna. The earliest may have been built thousands

of years ago, but they were built by the ancestors of existing

tribes and their congeners. A careful study of these ruins,

made during the last twenty years, abundantly demonstrates

that the pueblo culture began with rude structures of stone

and brush, and gradually developed, until at the time of the

exploration of the country by the Spaniards, beginning about

1540, it had reached its highest phase. Zuni [in New Mexico]

has been built since, and it is among the largest and best

villages ever established within the territory of the United

States without the aid of ideas derived from civilized men."

With regard to the ruins of dwellings found sheltered in the

craters of extinct volcanoes, or on the shelves of cliffs, or

otherwise contrived, the conclusion to which all recent

archæological study tends is the same. "All the stone pueblo

ruins, all the clay ruins, all the cliff dwellings, all the

crater villages, all the cavate chambers, and all the

tufa-block houses are fully accounted for without resort to

hypothetical peoples inhabiting the country anterior to the

Indian tribes. ... Pre-Columbian culture was indigenous; it

began at the lowest stage of savagery and developed to the

highest, and was in many places passing into barbarism when

the good queen sold her jewels."

Major J. W. Powell, Prehistoric Man in America;

in "The Forum," January, 1890.

"The writer believes ... that the majority of American

archæologists now sees no sufficient reason for supposing that

any mysterious superior race has ever lived in any portion of

our continent. They find no archæological evidence proving

that at the time of its discovery any tribe had reached a

stage of culture that can properly be called civilization.

Even if we accept the exaggerated statements of the Spanish

conquerors, the most intelligent and advanced peoples found

here were only semi-barbarians, in the stage of transition

from the stone to the bronze age, possessing no written

language, or what can properly be styled an alphabet, and not

yet having even learned the use of beasts of burden."

H. W. Haynes, Prehistoric Archæology of North America

(volume 1, chapter 6, of "Narrative and Critical History of

America").

{47}

"It may be premised ... that the Spanish adventurers who

thronged to the New World after its discovery found the same

race of Red Indians in the West India Islands, in Central and

South America, in Florida and in Mexico. In their mode of life

and means of subsistence, in their weapons, arts, usages and

customs, in their institutions, and in their mental and

physical characteristics, they were the same people in

different stages of advancement. ... There was neither a

political society, nor a state, nor any civilization in

America when it was discovered; and excluding the Eskimos, but

one race of Indians, the Red Race."

L. H. Morgan, Houses and House-life of the American

Aborigines: (Contributions to North American Ethnology,

v, 5.), chapter 10.

"We have in this country the conclusive evidence of the

existence of man before the time of the glaciers, and from the

primitive conditions of that time, he has lived here and

developed, through stages which correspond in many particulars

to the Homeric age of Greece."

F. W. Putnam, Report, Peabody Museum of Archæology,

1886.

ALSO IN

L. Carr, The Mounds of the Mississippi Valley.

C. Thomas, Burial Mounds of the Northern Sections of the

United States: Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,

1883-84.

Marquis de Nadaillac, Prehistoric America.

J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 1.

See, also, MEXICO; PERU;

and AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS, CHEROKEES, and MAYAS.

AMERICA: 10th-11th Centuries.

Supposed Discoveries by the Northmen.

The fact that the Northmen knew of the existence of the

Western Continent prior to the age of Columbus, was

prominently brought before the people of this country in the

year 1837, when the Royal Society of Northern Antiquaries at

Copenhagen published their work on the Antiquities of North

America, under the editorial supervision of the great

Icelandic scholar, Professor Rafn. But we are not to suppose

that the first general account of these voyages was then

given, for it has always been known that the history of

certain early voyages to America by the Northmen were

preserved in the libraries of Denmark and Iceland. ... Yet,

owing to the fact that the Icelandic language, though simple

in construction and easy of acquisition, was a tongue not

understood by scholars, the subject has until recent years

been suffered to lie in the background, and permitted, through

a want of interest, to share in a measure the treatment meted

out to vague and uncertain reports. ... It now remains to give

the reader some general account of the contents of the

narratives which relate more or less to the discovery of the

western continent. ... The first extracts given are very

brief. They are taken from the 'Landanama Book,' and relate to

the report in general circulation, which indicated one

Gunniborn as the discoverer of Greenland, an event which has

been fixed at the year 876. ... The next narrative relates to

the rediscovery of Greenland by the outlaw, Eric the Red, in

983, who there passed three years in exile, and afterwards

returned to Iceland. About the year 986, he brought out to

Greenland a considerable colony of settlers, who fixed their

abode at Brattahlid, in Ericsfiord. Then follow two versions

of the voyage of Biarne Heriulfson, who, in the same year,

986, when sailing for Greenland, was driven away during a

storm, and saw a new land at the southward, which he did not

visit. Next is given three accounts of the voyage of Leif, son

of Eric the Red, who in the year 1000 sailed from Brattahlid

to find the land which Biarne saw. Two of these accounts are

hardly more than notices of the voyage, but the third is of

considerable length, and details the successes of Leif, who

found and explored this new land, where he spent the winter,

returning to Greenland the following spring [having named

different regions which he visited Helluland, Markland and

Vinland, the latter name indicative of the finding of grapes].

After this follows the voyage of Thorvald Ericson, brother of

Leif, who sailed to Vinland from Greenland, which was the

point of departure in all these voyages. This expedition was

begun in 1002, and it cost him his life, as an arrow from one

of the natives pierced his side, causing death. Thorstein, his

brother, went to seek Vinland, with the intention of bringing

home his body, but failed in the attempt. The most

distinguished explorer was Thorfinn Karlsefne, the Hopeful, an

Icelander whose genealogy runs back in the old Northern

annals, through Danish, Swedish, and even Scotch and Irish

ancestors, some of whom were of royal blood. In the year 1006

he went to Greenland, where he met Gudrid, widow of Thorstein,

whom he married. Accompanied by his wife, who urged him to the

undertaking, he sailed to Vinland in the spring of 1007, with

three vessels and 160 men, where he remained three years. Here

his son Snorre was born. He afterwards became the founder of a

great family in Iceland, which gave the island several of its

first bishops. Thorfinn finally left Vinland because he found

it difficult to sustain himself against the attacks of the

natives. The next to undertake a voyage was a wicked woman

named Freydis, a sister to Leif Ericson, who went to Vinland

in 1011, where she lived for a time with her two ships, in the

same places occupied by Leif and Thorfinn. Before she

returned, she caused the crew of one ship to be cruelly

murdered, assisting in the butchery with her own hands. After

this we have what are called the Minor Narratives, which are

not essential.

B. F. De Costa, Pre-Columban Discovery of America,

General Introduction.

By those who accept fully the claims made for the Northmen, as

discoverers of the American continent in the voyages believed

to be authentically narrated in these sagas, the Helluland of

Leif is commonly identified with Newfoundland, Markland with

Nova Scotia, and Vinland with various parts of New England.

Massachusetts Bay, Cape Cod, Nantucket Island, Martha's

Vineyard, Buzzard's Bay, Narragansett Bay, Mount Hope Bay,

Long Island Sound, and New York Bay are among the localities

supposed to be recognized in the Norse narratives, or marked

by some traces of the presence of the Viking explorers. Professor

Gustav Storm, the most recent of the Scandinavian

investigators of this subject, finds the Helluland of the

sagas in Labrador or Northern Newfoundland, Markland in

Newfoundland, and Vinland in Nova Scotia and Cape Breton

Island.

G. Storm, Studies of the Vineland Voyages.

{48}

"The only discredit which has been thrown upon the story of

the Vinland voyages, in the eyes either of scholars or of the

general public, has arisen from the eager credulity with which

ingenious antiquarians have now and then tried to prove more

than facts will warrant. ... Archælogical remains of the

Northmen abound in Greenland, all the way from Immartinek to

near Cape Farewell; the existence of one such relic on the

North American continent has never yet been proved. Not a

single vestige of the Northmen's presence here, at all worthy

of credence, has ever been found. ... The most convincing

proof that the Northmen never founded a colony in America,

south of Davis Strait, is furnished by the total absence of

horses, cattle and other domestic animals from the soil of

North America until they were brought hither by the Spanish,

French and English settlers."

J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 2.

"What Leif and Karlsefne knew they experienced," writes Professor

Justin Winsor, "and what the sagas tell us they underwent,

must have just the difference between a crisp narrative of

personal adventure and the oft-repeated and embellished story

of a fireside narrator, since the traditions of the Norse

voyages were not put in the shape of records till about two

centuries had elapsed, and we have no earlier manuscript of

such a record than one made nearly two hundred years later

still. ... A blending of history and myth prompts Horn to say

that 'some of the sagas were doubtless originally based on

facts, but the telling and retelling have changed them into

pure myths.' The unsympathetic stranger sees this in stories

that the patriotic Scandinavians are over-anxious to make

appear as genuine chronicles. ... The weight of probability is

in favor of a Northman descent upon the coast of the American

mainland at some point, or at several, somewhere to the south

of Greenland; but the evidence is hardly that which attaches

to well established historical records. ... There is not a

single item of all the evidence thus advanced from time to

time which can be said to connect by archæological traces the

presence of the Northmen on the soil of North America south of

Davis' Straits." Of other imagined pre-Columban discoveries of

America, by the Welsh, by the Arabs, by the Basques, &c., the

possibilities and probabilities are critically discussed by

Professor Winsor in the same connection.

J. Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 1, chapter 2, and Critical Notes to the same.

ALSO IN

Bryant and Gay, Popular History of the United States,

chapter 3.

E. F. Slafter, Editor,

Voyages of the Northmen to America (Prince Society, 1877).

E. F. Slafter, Editor,

Discovery of America by the Northmen (N. H. History

Society, 1888).

N. L. Beamish, Discovery of America by the

Northmen.

A. J. Weise, Discoveries of America, chapter 1.

AMERICA: A. D. 1484-1492.

The great project of Columbus, and the sources of its inspiration.

His seven years' suit at the Spanish Court.

His departure from Palos.

"All attempts to diminish the glory of Columbus' achievement

by proving a previous discovery whose results were known to

him have signally failed. ... Columbus originated no new

theory respecting the earth's form or size, though a popular

idea has always prevailed, notwithstanding the statements of

the best writers to the contrary, that he is entitled to the

glory of the theory as well as to that of the execution of the

project. He was not in advance of his age, entertained no new

theories, believed no more than did Prince Henry, his

predecessor, or Toscanelli, his contemporary; nor was he the

first to conceive the possibility of reaching the east by

sailing west. He was however the first to act in accordance

with existing beliefs. The Northmen in their voyages had

entertained no ideas of a New World, or of an Asia to the

West. To knowledge of theoretical geography, Columbus added

the skill of a practical navigator, and the iron will to

overcome obstacles. He sailed west, reached Asia as he

believed, and proved old theories correct. There seem to be

two undecided points in that matter, neither of which can ever

be settled. First, did his experience in the Portuguese

voyages, the perusal of some old author, or a hint from one of

the few men acquainted with old traditions, first suggest to

Columbus his project? ... Second, to what extent did his

voyage to the north [made in 1477, probably with an English

merchantman from Bristol, in which voyage he is believed to

have visited Iceland] influence his plan? There is no

evidence, but a strong probability, that he heard in that

voyage of the existence of land in the west. ... Still, his

visit to the north was in 1477, several years after the first

formation of his plan, and any information gained at the time

could only have been confirmatory rather than suggestive."

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 1,

summary appendix to chapter 1.

"Of the works of learned men, that which, according to

Ferdinand Columbus, had most weight with his father, was the

'Cosmographia' of Cardinal Aliaco. Columbus was also confirmed

in his views of the existence of a western passage to the

Indies by Paulo Toscanelli, the Florentine philosopher, to

whom much credit is due for the encouragement he afforded to

the enterprise. That the notices, however, of western lands

were not such as to have much weight with other men, is

sufficiently proved by the difficulty which Columbus had in

contending with adverse geographers and men of science in

general, of whom he says he never was able to convince any

one. After a new world had been discovered, many scattered

indications were then found to have foreshown it. One thing

which cannot be denied to Columbus is that he worked out his

own idea himself. ... He first applied himself to his

countrymen, the Genoese, who would have nothing to say to his

scheme. He then tried the Portuguese, who listened to what he

had to say, but with bad faith sought to anticipate him by

sending out a caravel with instructions founded upon his plan.

... Columbus, disgusted at the treatment he had received from

the Portuguese Court, quitted Lisbon, and, after visiting

Genoa, as it appears, went to see what favour he could meet

with in Spain, arriving at Palos in the year 1485." The story

of the long suit of Columbus at the Court of Ferdinand and

Isabella; of his discouragement and departure, with intent to

go to France; of his recall by command of Queen Isabella; of

the tedious hearings and negotiations that now took place; of

the lofty demands adhered to by the confident Genoese, who

required "to be made an admiral at once, to be appointed

viceroy of the countries he should discover, and to have an

eighth of the profits of the expedition;" of his second

rebuff, his second departure for France, and second recall by

Isabella, who finally put her heart into the enterprise and

persuaded her more skeptical consort to assent to it--the

story of those seven years of the struggle of Columbus to

obtain means for his voyage is familiar to all readers.

{49}

"The agreement between Columbus and their Catholic highnesses

was signed at Santa Fe on the 17th of April, 1492; and

Columbus went to Palos to make preparation for his voyage,

bearing with him an order that the two vessels which that city

furnished annually to the crown for three months should be

placed at his disposal. ... The Pinzons, rich men and skilful

mariners of Palos, joined in the undertaking, subscribing an

eighth of the expenses; and thus, by these united exertions,

three vessels were manned with 90 mariners, and provisioned

for a year. At length all the preparations were complete, and

on a Friday (not inauspicious in this case), the 3d of August,

1492, after they had all confessed and received the sacrament,

they set sail from the bar of Saltes, making for the Canary

Islands."

Sir A. Helps, The Spanish Conquest in America, book 2,

chapter 1.

ALSO IN

J. Winsor, Christopher Columbus, chapter 5-9, and 20.

AMERICA: A. D. 1492.

The First Voyage of Columbus.

Discovery of the Bahamas, Cuba and Hayti.

The three vessels of Columbus were called the Santa Maria, the

Pinta and the Nina. "All had forecastles and high poops, but

the 'Santa Maria' was the only one that was decked amidships,

and she was called a 'nao' or ship. The other two were

caravelas, a class of small vessels built for speed. The

'Santa Maria,' as I gather from scattered notices in the

letters of Columbus, was of 120 to 130 tons, like a modern

coasting schooner, and she carried 70 men, much crowded. Her

sails were a foresail and a foretop-sail, a sprit-sail, a

main-sail with two bonnets, and maintop sail, a mizzen, and a

boat's sail were occasionally hoisted on the poop. The 'Pinta'

and 'Nina' only had square sails on the foremast and lateen

sails on the main and mizzen. The former was 50 tons, the

latter 40 tons, with crews of 20 men each. On Friday, the 3d

of August, the three little vessels left the haven of Palos,

and this memorable voyage was commenced. ... The expedition

proceeded to the Canary Islands, where the rig of the 'Pinta'

was altered. Her lateen sails were not adapted for running

before the wind, and she was therefore fitted with square

sails, like the 'Santa Maria.' Repairs were completed, the

vessels were filled up with wood and water at Gomera, and the

expedition took its final departure from the island of Gomera,

one of the Canaries, on September 6th, 1492. ... Columbus had

chosen his route most happily, and with that fortunate

prevision which often waits upon genius. From Gomera, by a

course a little south of west, he would run down the trades to

the Bahama Islands. From the parallel of about 30° N. nearly

to the equator there is a zone of perpetual winds--namely, the

north-east trade winds--always moving in the same direction,

as steadily as the current of a river, except where they are

turned aside by local causes, so that the ships of Columbus

were steadily carried to their destination by a law of nature

which, in due time, revealed itself to that close observer of

her secrets. The constancy of the wind was one cause of alarm

among the crews, for they began to murmur that the provisions

would all be exhausted if they had to beat against these

unceasing winds on the return voyage. The next event which

excited alarm among the pilots was the discovery that the

compasses had more than a point of easterly variation. ...

This was observed on the 17th of September, and about 300

miles westward of the meridian of the Azores, when the ships

had been eleven days at sea. Soon afterwards the voyagers

found themselves surrounded by masses of seaweed, in what is

called the Sargasso Sea, and this again aroused their fears.

They thought that the ships would get entangled in the beds of

weed and become immovable, and that the beds marked the limit

of navigation. The cause of this accumulation is well known

now. If bits of cork are put into a basin of water, and a

circular motion given to it, all the corks will be found

crowding together towards the centre of the pool where there

is the least motion. The Atlantic Ocean is just such a basin,

the Gulf Stream is the whirl, and the Sargasso Sea is in the

centre. There Columbus found it, and there it has remained to

this day, moving up and down and changing its position

according to seasons, storms and winds, but never altering its

mean position. ... As day after day passed, and there was no

sign of land, the crews became turbulent and mutinous.

Columbus encouraged them with hopes of reward, while he told

them plainly that he had come to discover India, and that,

with the help of God, he would persevere until he found it. At

length, on the 11th of October, towards ten at night, Columbus

was on the poop and saw a light. ... At two next morning, land

was distinctly seen. ... The island, called by the natives

Guanahani, and by Columbus San Salvador, has now been

ascertained to be Watling Island, one of the Bahamas, 14 miles

long by 6 broad, with a brackish lake in the centre, in 24°

10' 30'' north latitude. ... The difference of latitude

between Gomera and Watling Island is 235 miles. Course, West 5°

South; distance 3,114 miles; average distance made good daily,

85'; voyage 35 days. ... After discovering several smaller

islands the fleet came in sight of Cuba on the 27th October,

and explored part of the northern coast. Columbus believed it

to be Cipango, the island placed on the chart of Toscanelli,

between Europe and Asia. ... Crossing the channel between Cuba

and St. Domingo [or Hayti], they anchored in the harbour of

St. Nicholas Mole on December 4th. The natives came with

presents and the country was enchanting. Columbus ... named

the island 'Española' [or Hispaniola]. But with all this

peaceful beauty around him he was on the eve of disaster." The

Santa Maria was drifted by a strong current upon a sand bank

and hopelessly wrecked. "It was now necessary to leave a small

colony on the island. ... A fort was built and named 'La

Navidad,' 39 men remaining behind supplied with stores and

provisions," and on Friday, January 4, 1493, Columbus began his

homeward voyage. Weathering a dangerous gale, which lasted

several days, his little vessels reached the Azores February 17,

and arrived at Palos March 15, bearing their marvellous news.

C. R. Markham, The Sea Fathers, chapter 2.

C. R. Markham, Life of Columbus, chapter 5.

{50}

The statement above that the island of the Bahamas on which

Columbus first landed, and which he called San Salvador, "has

now been ascertained to be Watling Island" seems hardly

justified. The question between Watling Island, San Salvador

or Cat Island, Samana, or Attwood's Cay, Mariguana, the Grand

Turk, and others is still in dispute. Professor Justin Winsor

says "the weight of modern testimony seems to favor Watling's

Island;" but at the same time he thinks it "probable that men

will never quite agree which of the Bahamas it was upon which

these startled and exultant Europeans first stepped."

J. Winsor, Christopher Columbus, chapter 9.

J. Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 2, chapter 1, note B.

Professor John Fiske, says: "All that can be positively

asserted of Guanahani is that it was one of the Bahamas; there

has been endless discussion as to which one, and the question

is not easy to settle. Perhaps the theory of Captain Gustavus

Fox, of the United States Navy, is on the whole best

supported. Captain Fox maintains that the true Guanahani was

the little Island now known as Samana or Attwood's Cay."

J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 5 (volume 1).

ALSO IN

U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Report, 1880,

appendix 18.

AMERICA: A. D. 1493.

Papal grant of the New World to Spain.

"Spain was at this time connected with the Pope about a most

momentous matter. The Genoese, Cristoforo Colombo, arrived at

the Spanish court in March, 1493, with the astounding news of

the discovery of a new continent. ... Ferdinand and Isabella

thought it wise to secure a title to all that might ensue from

their new discovery. The Pope, as Vicar of Christ, was held to

have authority to dispose of lands inhabited by the heathen;

and by papal Bulls the discoveries of Portugal along the

African coast had been secured. The Portuguese showed signs of

urging claims to the New World, as being already conveyed to

them by the papal grants previously issued in their favour. To

remove all cause of dispute, the Spanish monarchs at once had

recourse to Alexander VI., who issued two Bulls on May 4 and 5

[1493] to determine the respective rights of Spain and

Portugal. In the first, the Pope granted to the Spanish

monarchs and their heirs all lands discovered or hereafter to

be discovered in the western ocean. In the second, he defined

his grant to mean all lands that might be discovered west and

south of an imaginary line, drawn from the North to the South

Pole, at the distance of a hundred leagues westward of the

Azores and Cape de Verd Islands. In the light of our present

knowledge we are amazed at this simple means of disposing of a

vast extent of the earth's surface." Under the Pope's

stupendous patent, Spain was able to claim every part of the

American Continent except the Brazilian coast.

M. Creighton, History of the Papacy during the

Reformation, book 5, chapter 6 (volume 3).

ALSO IN

E. G. Bourne, The Demarcation Line of Pope Alexander VI.

(Yale Review., May, 1892).

J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 6 (volume 1).

J. Gordon, The Bulls distributing America

(American Society of Ch. Dist., volume 4).

See, also, below: A. D. 1494.

AMERICA: A. D. 1493-1496.

The Second Voyage of Columbus.

Discovery of Jamaica and the Caribbees.

Subjugation of Hispaniola.

"The departure of Columbus on his second voyage of discovery

presented a brilliant contrast to his gloomy embarkation at

Palos. On the 25th of September [1493], at the dawn of day the

bay of Cadiz was whitened by his fleet: There were three large

ships of heavy burden and fourteen caravels. ... Before

sunrise the whole fleet was under way." Arrived at the

Canaries on the 1st of October, Columbus purchased there

calves, goats, sheep, hogs, and fowls, with which to stock the

island of Hispaniola; also "seeds of oranges, lemons,

bergamots, melons, and various orchard fruits, which were thus

first introduced into the islands of the west from the

Hesperides or Fortunate Islands of the Old World." It was not

until the 13th of October that the fleet left the Canaries,

and it arrived among the islands since called the Lesser

Antilles or Caribbees, on the evening of November 2. Sailing

through this archipelago, discovering the larger island of

Porto Rico on the way, Columbus reached the eastern extremity

of Hispaniola or Hayti on the 22d of November, and arrived on

the 27th at La Navidad, where he had left a garrison ten

months before. He found nothing but ruin, silence and the

marks of death, and learned, after much inquiry, that his

unfortunate men, losing all discipline after his departure,

had provoked the natives by rapacity and licentiousness until

the latter rose against them and destroyed them. Abandoning

the scene of this disaster, Columbus found an excellent harbor

ten leagues east of Monte Christi and there he began the

founding of a city which he named Isabella. "Isabella at the

present day is quite overgrown with forests, in the midst of

which are still to be seen, partly standing, the pillars of

the church, some remains of the king's storehouses, and part

of the residence of Columbus, all built of hewn stone." While

the foundations of the new city were being laid, Columbus sent

back part of his ships to Spain, and undertook an exploration

of the interior of the island--the mountains of Cibao--where

abundance of gold was promised. Some gold washings were

found--far too scanty to satisfy the expectations of the

Spaniards; and, as want and sickness soon made their

appearance at Isabella, discontent was rife and mutiny afoot

before the year had ended. In April, 1494, Columbus set sail

with three caravels to revisit the coast of Cuba, for a more

extended exploration than he had attempted on the first

discovery. "He supposed it to be a continent, and the extreme

end of Asia, and if so, by following its shores in the

proposed direction he must eventually arrive at Cathay and

those other rich and commercial, though semi-barbarous

countries, described by Mandeville and Marco Polo." Reports of

gold led him southward from Cuba until he discovered the

island which he called Santiago, but which has kept its native

name, Jamaica, signifying the Island of Springs. Disappointed

in the search for gold, he soon returned from Jamaica to Cuba

and sailed along its southern coast to very near the western

extremity, confirming himself and his followers in the belief

that they skirted the shores of Asia and might follow them to

the Red Sea, if their ships and stores were equal to so long a

voyage. "Two or three days' further sail would have carried

Columbus round the extremity of Cuba; would have dispelled his

illusion, and might have given an entirely different course to

his subsequent discoveries. In his present conviction he lived

and died; believing to his last hour that Cuba was the

extremity of the Asiatic continent."

{51}

Returning eastward, he visited Jamaica again and purposed some

further exploration of the Caribbee Islands, when his toils

and anxieties overcame him. "He fell into a deep lethargy,

resembling death itself. His crew, alarmed at this profound

torpor, feared that death was really at hand. They abandoned,

therefore, all further prosecution of the voyage; and

spreading their sails to the east wind so prevalent in those

seas, bore Columbus back, in a state of complete

insensibility, to the harbor of Isabella,"--Sept. 4.

Recovering consciousness, the admiral was rejoiced to find his

brother Bartholomew, from whom he had been separated for

years, and who had been sent out to him from Spain, in command

of three ships. Otherwise there was little to give pleasure to

Columbus when he returned to Isabella. His followers were

again disorganized, again at war with the natives, whom they

plundered and licentiously abused, and a mischief-making

priest had gone back to Spain, along with certain intriguing

officers, to make complaints and set enmities astir at the

court. Involved in war, Columbus prosecuted it relentlessly,

reduced the island to submission and the natives to servitude

and misery by heavy exactions. In March 1496 he returned to

Spain, to defend himself against the machinations of his

enemies, transferring the government of Hispaniola to his

brother Bartholomew.

W. Irving, Life and Voyages of Columbus, books 6-8

(volumes 1-2).

ALSO IN

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,

volume 1, chapter 2.

J. Winsor, Christopher Columbus, chapter 12-14.

AMERICA: A. D. 1494.

The Treaty of Tordesillas.

Amended Partition of the New World between Spain and Portugal.

"When speaking or writing of the conquest of America, it is

generally believed that the only title upon which were based

the conquests of Spain and Portugal was the famous Papal Bull

of partition of the Ocean, of 1493. Few modern authors take

into consideration that this Bull was amended, upon the

petition of the King of Portugal, by the [Treaty of

Tordesillas], signed by both powers in 1494, augmenting the

portion assigned to the Portuguese in the partition made

between them of the Continent of America. The arc of meridian

fixed by this treaty as a dividing line, which gave rise,

owing to the ignorance of the age, to so many diplomatic

congresses and interminable controversies, may now be traced

by any student of elementary mathematics. This line ... runs

along the meridian of 47° 32' 56" west of Greenwich. ... The

name Brazil, or 'tierra del Brazil,' at that time [the middle

of the 16th century] referred only to the part of the

continent producing the dye wood so-called. Nearly two

centuries later the Portuguese advanced toward the South, and

the name Brazil then covered the new possessions they were

acquiring."

L. L. Dominguez, Introduction to "The Conquest of the

River Plate" (Hakluyt Society Publications. No. 81).

AMERICA: A. D. 1497.

Discovery of the North American Continent by John Cabot.

"The achievement of Columbus, revealing the wonderful truth of

which the germ may have existed in the imagination of every

thoughtful mariner, won [in England] the admiration which

belonged to genius that seemed more divine than human; and

'there was great talk of it in all the court of Henry VII.' A

feeling of disappointment remained, that a series of disasters

had defeated the wish of the illustrious Genoese to make his

voyage of essay under the flag of England. It was, therefore,

not difficult for John Cabot, a denizen of Venice, residing at

Bristol, to interest that politic king in plans for discovery.

On the 5th of March, 1496, he obtained under the great seal a

commission empowering himself and his three sons, or either of

them, their heirs, or their deputies, to sail into the

eastern, western, or northern sea with a fleet of five ships,

at their own expense, in search of islands, provinces, or

regions hitherto unseen by Christian people; to affix the

banners of England on city, island, or continent; and, as

vassals of the English crown, to possess and occupy the

territories that might be found. It was further stipulated in

this 'most ancient American State paper of England,' that the

patentees should be strictly bound, on every return, to land

at the port of Bristol, and to pay to the king one-fifth part

of their gains; while the exclusive right of frequenting all

the countries that might be found was reserved to them and to

their assigns' without limit of time. Under this patent,

which, at the first direction of English enterprise toward

America, embodied the worst features of monopoly and

commercial restriction, John Cabot, taking with him his son

Sebastian, embarked in quest of new islands and a passage to

Asia by the north-west. After sailing prosperously, as he

reported, for 700 leagues, on the 24th day of June, early in

the morning, almost fourteen months before Columbus on his

third voyage came in sight of the main, and more than two

years before Amerigo Vespucci sailed west of the Canaries, he

discovered the western continent, probably in the latitude of

about 56° degrees, among the dismal cliffs of Labrador. He ran

along the coast for many leagues, it is said even for 300, and

landed on what he considered to be the territory of the Grand

Cham. But he encountered no human being, although there were

marks that the region was inhabited. He planted on the land a

large cross with the flag of England, and, from affection for

the republic of Venice, he added the banner of St. Mark, which

had never been borne so far before. On his homeward voyage he

saw on his right hand two islands, which for want of

provisions he could not stop to explore. After an absence of

three months the great discoverer re-entered Bristol harbor,

where due honors awaited him. The king gave him money, and

encouraged him to continue his career, The people called him

the great admiral; he dressed in silk; and the English, and

even Venetians who chanced to be at Bristol, ran after him

with such zeal that he could enlist for a new voyage as many

as he pleased. ... On the third day of the month of February

next after his return, 'John Kaboto, Venecian,' accordingly

obtained a power to take up ships for another voyage, at the

rates fixed for those employed in the service of the king, and

once more to set sail with as many companions as would go with

him of their own will. With this license every trace of John

Cabot disappears. He may have died before the summer; but no

one knows certainly the time or the place of his end, and it

has not even been ascertained in what country this finder of a

continent first saw the light."

G. Bancroft, History of the U. S. of Am.      (Author's last Revision), part 1, chapter 1.

{52}

In the Critical Essay appended to a chapter on the voyages of the

Cabots, in the Narrative and Critical History of America,

there is published, for the first time, an English translation

of a dispatch from Raimondo de Soncino, envoy of the Duke of

Milan to Henry VII., written Aug. 24, 1497, and giving an

account of the voyage from which 'Master John Caboto,' 'a

Venetian fellow,' had just returned. This paper was brought to

light in 1865, from the State Archives of Milan. Referring to

the dispatch, and to a letter, also quoted, from the 'Venetian

Calendars,' written Aug. 23, 1497, by Lorenzo Pasqualigo, a

merchant in London, to his brothers in Venice, Mr. Charles

Deane says: "These letters are sufficient to show that North

America was discovered by John Cabot, the name of Sebastian

being nowhere mentioned in them, and that the discovery was

made in 1497. The place which he first sighted is given on the

map of 1544 [a map of Sebastian Cabot, discovered in Germany

in 1843] as the north part of Cape Breton Island, on which is

inscribed 'prima tierra vista,' which was reached, according

to the Legend, on the 24th of June. Pasqualigo, the only one

who mentions it, says he coasted 300 leagues. Mr. Brevoort,

who accepts the statement, thinks he made the periplus of the

Gulf of St. Lawrence, passing out at the Straits of Belle

Isle, and thence home. ... The extensive sailing up and down

the coast described by chroniclers from conversations with

Sebastian Cabot many years afterwards, though apparently told

as occurring on the voyage of discovery--as only one voyage is

ever mentioned--must have taken place on a later voyage."

C. Deane, Narrative and Critical History of America, volume

3, chapter 1, Crit. Essay.

ALSO IN

R. Biddle, Memoir of Sebastian Cabot, chapter 1-8.

AMERICA: A. D. 1497-1498.

The first Voyage of Americus Vespucius.

Misunderstandings and disputes concerning it.

Vindication of the Florentine navigator.

His exploration of 4,000 miles of continental coast.

"Our information concerning Americus Vespucius, from the early

part of the year 1496 until after his return from the

Portuguese to the Spanish service in the latter part of 1504,

rests primarily upon his two famous letters; the one addressed

to his old patron Lorenzo di Pier Francesco de' Medici (a

cousin of Lorenzo the Magnificent) and written in March or

April, 1503, giving an account of his third voyage; the other

addressed to his old school-fellow Piero Soderini [then

Gonfaloniere of Florence] and dated from Lisbon, September 4,

1504, giving a brief account of four voyages which he had made

under various commanders in the capacity of astronomer or

pilot. These letters ... became speedily popular, and many

editions were published, more especially in France, Germany,

and Italy. ... The letter to Soderini gives an account of four

voyages in which the writer took part, the first two in the

service of Spain, the other two in the service of Portugal.

The first expedition sailed from Cadiz May 10, 1497, and

returned October 15, 1498, after having explored a coast so

long as to seem unquestionably that of a continent. This

voyage, as we shall see, was concerned with parts of America

not visited again until 1513 and 1517. It discovered nothing

that was calculated to invest it with much importance in

Spain, though it by no means passed without notice there, as

has often been wrongly asserted. Outside of Spain it came to

attract more attention, but in an unfortunate way, for a

slight but very serious error in proof-reading or editing, in

the most important of the Latin versions, caused it after a

while to be practically identified with the second voyage,

made two years later. This confusion eventually led to most

outrageous imputations upon the good name of Americus, which

it has been left for the present century to remove. The second

voyage of Vespucius was that in which he accompanied Alonso de

Ojeda and Juan de la Costa, from May 20, 1499, to June, 1500.

They explored the northern coast of South America from some

point on what we would now call the north coast of Brazil, as

far as the Pearl Coast visited by Columbus in the preceding

year; and they went beyond, as far as the Gulf of Maracaibo.

Here the squadron seems to have become divided, Ojeda going

over to Hispaniola in September, while Vespucius remained

cruising till February. ... It is certainly much to be

regretted that in the narrative of his first expedition,

Vespucius did not happen to mention the name of the chief

commander. ... However ... he was writing not for us, but for

his friend, and he told Soderini only what he thought would

interest him. ... Of the letter to Soderini the version which

has played the most important part in history is the Latin one

first published at the press of the little college at

Saint-Dié in Lorraine, April 25 (vij Kl' Maij), 1507. ... It

was translated, not from an original text, but from an

intermediate French version, which is lost. Of late years,

however, we have detected, in an excessively rare Italian

text, the original from which the famous Lorraine version was

ultimately derived. ... If now we compare this primitive text

with the Latin of the Lorraine version of 1507, we observe

that, in the latter, one proper name--the Indian name of a

place visited by Americus on his first voyage--has been

altered. In the original it is 'Lariab;' in the Latin it has

become 'Parias.' This looks like an instance of injudicious

editing on the part of the Latin translator, although, of

course, it may be a case of careless proof-reading. Lariab is

a queer-looking word. It is no wonder that a scholar in his

study among the mountains of Lorraine could make nothing of

it. If he had happened to be acquainted with the language of

the Huastecas, who dwelt at that time about the river

Panuco--fierce and dreaded enemies of their southern

neighbours the Aztecs--he would have known that names of

places in that region were apt to end in ab. ... But as such

facts were quite beyond our worthy translator's ken, we cannot

much blame him if he felt that such a word as Lariab needed

doctoring. Parias (Paria) was known to be the native name of a

region on the western shores of the Atlantic, and so Lariab

became Parias. As the distance from the one place to the other

is more than two thousand miles, this little emendation

shifted the scene of the first voyage beyond all recognition,

and cast the whole subject into an outer darkness where there

has been much groaning and gnashing of teeth. Another curious

circumstance came in to confirm this error. On his first

voyage, shortly before arriving at Lariab, Vespucius saw an

Indian town built over the water, 'like Venice.' He counted 44

large wooden houses, 'like barracks,' supported on huge tree-

trunks and communicating with each other by bridges that could

be drawn up in case of danger.

{53}

This may well have been a village of communal houses of the

Chontals on the coast of Tabasco; but such villages were

afterwards seen on the Gulf of Maracaibo, and one of them was

called Venezuela, or 'Little Venice,' a name since spread over

a territory nearly twice as large as France. So the amphibious

town described by Vespucius was incontinently moved to

Maracaibo, as if there could be only one such place, as if

that style of defensive building had not been common enough in

many ages and in many parts of the earth, from ancient

Switzerland to modern Siam. ... Thus in spite of the latitudes

and longitudes distinctly stated by Vespucius in his letter,

did Lariab and the little wooden Venice get shifted from the

Gulf of Mexico to the northern coast of South America. Now

there is no question that Vespucius in his second voyage, with

Ojeda for captain, did sail along that coast, visiting the

gulfs of Paria and Maracaibo. This was in the summer of 1499,

one year after a part of the same coast had been visited by

Columbus. Hence in a later period, long after the actors in

these scenes had been gathered unto their fathers, and when

people had begun to wonder how the New World could ever have

come to be called America instead of Columbia, it was

suggested that the first voyage described by Vespucius must be

merely a clumsy and fictitious duplicate of the second, and

that he invented it and thrust it back from 1499 to 1497, in

order that he might be accredited with 'the discovery of the

continent' one year in advance of his friend Columbus. It was

assumed that he must have written his letter to Soderini with

the base intention of supplanting his friend, and that the

shabby device was successful. This explanation seemed so

simple and intelligible that it became quite generally

adopted, and it held its ground until the subject began to be

critically studied, and Alexander von Humboldt showed, about

sixty years ago, that the first naming of America occurred in

no such way as had been supposed. As soon as we refrain from

projecting our modern knowledge of geography into the past, as

soon as we pause to consider how these great events appeared

to the actors themselves, the absurdity of this accusation

against Americus becomes evident. We arc told that he falsely

pretended to have visited Paria and Maracaibo in 1497, in

order to claim priority over Columbus in the discovery of 'the

continent.' What continent? When Vespucius wrote that letter

to Soderini, neither he nor anybody else suspected that what

we now call America had been discovered. The only continent of

which there could be any question, so far as supplanting

Columbus was concerned, was Asia. But in 1504 Columbus was

generally supposed to have discovered the continent of Asia,

by his new route, in 1492. ... It was M. Varnhagen who first

turned inquiry on this subject in the right direction. ...

Having taken a correct start by simply following the words of

Vespucius himself, from a primitive text, without reference to

any preconceived theories or traditions, M. Varnhagen finds"

that Americus in his first voyage made land on the northern

coast of Honduras; "that he sailed around Yucatan, and found

his aquatic village of communal houses, his little wooden

Venice, on the shore of Tabasco. Thence, after a fight with

the natives in which a few tawny prisoners were captured and

carried on board the caravels, Vespucius seems to have taken a

straight course to the Huasteca country by Tampico, without

touching at points in the region subject or tributary to the

Aztec confederacy. This Tampico country was what Vespucius

understood to be called Lariab. He again gives the latitude

definitely and correctly as 23° N., and he mentions a few

interesting circumstances. He saw the natives roasting a

dreadfully ugly animal," of which he gives what seems to be

"an excellent description of the iguana, the flesh of which is

to this day an important article of food in tropical America.

... After leaving this country of Lariab the ships kept still

to the northwest for a short distance, and then followed the

windings of the coast for 870 leagues. ... After traversing

the 870 leagues of crooked coast, the ships found themselves

'in the finest harbour in the world' [which M. Varnhagen

supposed, at first, to have been in Chesapeake Bay, but

afterwards reached conclusions pointing to the neighbourhood

of Cape Cañaveral, on the Florida coast]. It was in June,

1498, thirteen months since they had started from Spain. ...

They spent seven-and-thirty days in this unrivalled harbour,

preparing for the home voyage, and found the natives very

hospitable. These red men courted the aid of the white

strangers," in an attack which they wished to make upon a

fierce race of cannibals, who inhabited certain islands some

distance out to sea. The Spaniards agreed to the expedition,

and sailed late in August, taking seven of the friendly

Indians for guides. "After a week's voyage they fell in with

the islands, some peopled, others uninhabited, evidently the

Bermudas, 600 miles from Cape Hatteras as the crow flies. The

Spaniards landed on an island called Iti, and had a brisk

fight," resulting in the capture of more than 200 prisoners.

Seven of these were given to the Indian guides, who paddled

home with them. "'We also [wrote Vespucius] set sail for

Spain, with 222 prisoners, slaves; and arrived in the port of

Cadiz on the 15th day of October, 1498, where we were well

received and sold our slaves.' ... The obscurity in which this

voyage has so long been enveloped is due chiefly to the fact

that it was not followed up till many years had elapsed, and

the reason for this neglect impresses upon us forcibly the

impossibility of understanding the history of the Discovery of

America unless we bear in mind all the attendant

circumstances. One might at first suppose that a voyage which

revealed some 4,000 miles of the coast of North America would

have attracted much attention in Spain and have become

altogether too famous to be soon forgotten. Such an argument,

however, loses sight of the fact that these early voyagers

were not trying to 'discover America.' There was nothing to

astonish them in the existence of 4,000 miles of coast line on

this side of the Atlantic. To their minds it was simply the

coast of Asia, about which they knew nothing except from Marco

Polo, and the natural effect of such a voyage as this would be

simply to throw discredit upon that traveller."

J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 7 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

C. E. Lester and A. Foster, Life and Voyages of Americus

Vespucius, part 1, chapter 7.

J. Winsor, Christopher Columbus, chapter 15.

{54}

AMERICA: A. D. 1498.

Voyage and Discoveries of Sebastian Cabot.

The ground of English claims in the New World.

"The son of John Cabot, Sebastian, is not mentioned in this

patent [issued by Henry VII., February 3, 1498], as he had been in

that of 1496. Yet he alone profited by it. For the father is

not again mentioned in connection with the voyage. ...

Sebastian was now, if Humboldt's supposition is true that he

was born in 1477, a young man of about 20 or 21 years of age.

And as he had become proficient in astronomy and mathematics,

and had gained naval experience in the voyage he had made in

company with his father; and as he knew better than anyone

else his father's views, and also the position of the newly

discovered regions, he may now have well appeared to Henry as

a fit person for the command of another expedition to the

northwest. Two ships, manned with 300 mariners and volunteers,

were ready for him early in the spring of 1498; and he sailed

with them from Bristol, probably in the beginning of the month

of May. We have no certain information regarding his route.

But he appears to have directed his course again to the

country which he had seen the year before on the voyage with

his father, our present Labrador. He sailed along the coast of

this country so far north that, even in the month of July, he

encountered much ice. Observing at the same time, to his great

displeasure, that the coast was trending to the east, he resolved

to give up a further advance to the north, and returned in a

southern direction. At Newfoundland, he probably came to

anchor in some port, and refreshed his men, and refitted his

vessels after their Arctic hardships. ... He probably was the

first fisherman on the banks or shores of Newfoundland, which

through him became famous in Europe. Sailing from Newfoundland

southwest, he kept the coast in view as much as possible, on

his right side, 'always with the intent to find a passage and

open water to India.' ... After having rounded Cape Cod, he

must have felt fresh hope. He saw a coast running to the west,

and open water before him in that direction. It is therefore

nearly certain that he entered somewhat that broad gulf, in

the interior corner of which lies the harbor of New York. ...

From a statement contained in the work of Peter Martyr it

appears ... certain that Cabot landed on some places of the

coast along which he sailed. This author, relating a

conversation which he had with his friend Cabot, on the

subject of his voyage of 1498, says that Cabot told him 'he

had found on most of the places copper or brass among the

aborigines.' ... From another authority we learn that he

captured some of these aborigines and brought them to England,

where they lived and were seen a few years after his return by

the English chronicler, Robert Fabyan. It is not stated at

what place he captured those Indians; but it was not customary

with the navigators of that time to take on board the Indians

until near the time of their leaving the country. Cabot's

Indians, therefore, were probably captured on some shore south

of New York harbor. ... The southern terminus of his voyage is

pretty well ascertained. He himself informed his friend Peter

Martyr, that he went as far south as about the latitude of the

Strait of Gibraltar, that is to say, about 36° North latitude,

which is near that of Cape Hatteras. ... On their return from

their first voyage of 1497, the Cabots believed that they had

discovered portions of Asia and so proclaimed it. But the more

extensive discoveries of the second voyage corrected the views

of Sebastian, and revealed to him nothing but a wild and

barbarous coast, stretching through 30 degrees of latitude,

from 67½° to 36°. The discovery of this impassable barrier

across his passage to Cathay, as he often complained, was a

sore displeasure to him. Instead of the rich possessions of

China, which he hoped to reach, he was arrested by a New found

land, savage and uncultivated. A spirited German author, Dr.

G. M. Asher, in his life of Henry Hudson, published in London

in 1860, observes: 'The displeasure of Cabot involves the

scientific discovery of a new world. He was the first to

recognize that a new and unknown continent was lying, as one

vast barrier, between Western Europe and Eastern Asia.' ...

When Cabot made proposals in the following year, 1499, for

another expedition to the same regions, he was supported

neither by the king nor the merchants. For several years the

scheme for the discovery of a north-western route to Cathay

was not much favored in England. Nevertheless, the voyage of

this gifted and enterprising youth along the entire coast of

the present United States, nay along the whole extent of that

great continent, in which now the English race and language

prevail and flourish, has always been considered as the true

beginning, the foundation and cornerstone, of all the English

claims and possessions in the northern half of America."

J. G. Kohl, History of the Discovery of Maine, chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

R. Biddle, Memoir of Sebastian Cabot, chapter 1-10.

J. F. Nicholls, Life of Sebastian Cabot, chapter 5.

AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.

The Third and Fourth Voyages of Columbus.

Discovery of Trinidad, the northern coast of S. America, the

shores of Central America and Panama.

When Columbus reached Spain in June, 1496, "Ferdinand and

Isabella received him kindly, gave him new honors and promised

him other outfits. Enthusiasm, however, had died out and

delays took place. The reports of the returning ships did not

correspond with the pictures of Marco Polo, and the new-found

world was thought to be a very poor India after all. Most

people were of this mind; though Columbus was not

disheartened, and the public treasury was readily opened for a

third voyage. Coronel sailed early in 1498 with two ships, and

Columbus followed with six, embarking at San Lucas on the 30th

of May. He now discovered Trinidad (July 31), which he named

either from its three peaks, or from the Holy Trinity; struck

the northern coast of South America, and skirted what was

later known as the Pearl coast, going as far as the Island of

Margarita. He wondered at the roaring fresh waters which the

Oronoco pours into the Gulf of Pearls, as he called it, and he

half believed that its exuberant tide came from the

terrestrial paradise. He touched the southern coast of Hayti

on the 30th of August. Here already his colonists had

established a fortified post, and founded the town of Santo

Domingo. His brother Bartholomew had ruled energetically

during the Admiral's absence, but he had not prevented a

revolt, which was headed by Roldan. Columbus on his arrival

found the insurgents still defiant, but he was able after a

while to reconcile them, and he even succeeded in attaching

Roldan warmly to his interests.

{55}

Columbus' absence from Spain, however, left his good name

without sponsors; and to satisfy detractors, a new

commissioner was sent over with enlarged powers, even with

authority to supersede Columbus in general command, if

necessary. This emissary was Francisco de Bobadilla, who

arrived at Santo Domingo with two caravels on the 23d of

August, 1500, finding Diego in command, his brother, the

Admiral, being absent. An issue was at once made. Diego

refused to accede to the commissioner's orders till Columbus

returned to judge the case himself; so Bobadilla assumed

charge of the crown property violently, took possession of the

Admiral's house, and when Columbus returned, he with his

brother was arrested and put in irons. In this condition the

prisoners were placed on shipboard, and sailed for Spain. The

captain of the ship offered to remove the manacles: but

Columbus would not permit it, being determined to land in

Spain bound as he was; and so he did. The effect of his

degradation was to his advantage; sovereigns and people were

shocked at the sight; and Ferdinand and Isabella hastened to

make amends by receiving him with renewed favor. It was soon

apparent that everything reasonable would be granted him by

the monarchs, and that he could have all he might wish short

of receiving a new lease of power in the islands, which the

sovereigns were determined to see pacified at least before

Columbus should again assume government of them. The Admiral

had not forgotten his vow to wrest the Holy Sepulchre from the

Infidel; but the monarchs did not accede to his wish to

undertake it. Disappointed in this, he proposed a new voyage;

and getting the royal countenance for this scheme, he was

supplied with four vessels of from fifty to seventy tons each.

... He sailed from Cadiz, May 9, 1502, accompanied by his

brother Bartholomew and his son Fernando. The vessels reached

San Domingo June 29. Bobadilla, whose rule of a year and a

half had been an unhappy one, had given place to Nicholas de

Ovando; and the fleet which brought the new governor--with

Maldonado, Las Casas and others--now lay in the harbor waiting

to receive Bobadilla for the return voyage. Columbus had been

instructed to avoid Hispaniola; but now that one of his

vessels leaked, and he needed to make repairs, he sent a boat

ashore, asking permission to enter the harbor. He was refused,

though a storm was impending. He sheltered his vessels as best

he could, and rode out the gale. The fleet which had on board

Bobadilla and Roldan, with their ill-gotten gains, was

wrecked, and these enemies of Columbus were drowned. The

Admiral found a small harbor where he could make his repairs;

and then, July 14, sailed westward to find, as he supposed,

the richer portions of India. ... A landing was made on the

coast of Honduras, August 14. Three days later the explorers

landed again fifteen leagues farther east, and took possession

of the country for Spain. Still east they went; and, in

gratitude for safety after a long storm, they named a cape

which they rounded, Gracias à Dios--a name still preserved at

the point where the coast of Honduras begins to trend

southward. Columbus was now lying ill on his bed, placed on

deck, and was half the time in revery. Still the vessels

coasted south," along and beyond the shores of Costa Rica;

then turned with the bend of the coast to the northeast, until

they reached Porto Bello, as we call it, where they found

houses and orchards, and passed on "to the farthest spot of

Bastidas' exploring, who had, in 1501, sailed westward along

the northern coast of South America." There turning back,

Columbus attempted to found a colony at Veragua, on the Costa

Rica coast, where signs of gold were tempting. But the gold

proved scanty, the natives hostile, and, the Admiral,

withdrawing his colony, sailed away. "He abandoned one

worm-eaten caravel at Porto Bello, and, reaching Jamaica,

beached two others. A year of disappointment, grief, and want

followed. Columbus clung to his wrecked vessels. His crew

alternately mutinied at his side, and roved about the island.

Ovando, at Hispaniola, heard of his straits, but only tardily

and scantily relieved him. The discontented were finally

humbled; and some ships, despatched by the Admiral's agent in

Santo Domingo, at last reached him and brought him and his

companions to that place, where Ovando received him with

ostentatious kindness, lodging him in his house till Columbus

departed for Spain, Sept. 12, 1504." Arriving in Spain in

November, disheartened, broken with disease, neglected, it was

not until the following May that he had strength enough to go

to the court at Segovia, and then only to be coldly received

by King Ferdinand--Isabella being dead. "While still hope was

deferred, the infirmities of age and a life of hardships

brought Columbus to his end; and on Ascension Day, the 20th of

May, 1506, he died, with his son Diego and a few devoted

friends by his bedside."

J. Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 2, chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,

volume 1, chapter 2 and 4.

W. Irving, Life and Voyages of Columbus,

book 10-18 (volume 2).

AMERICA: A. D. 1499-1500.

The Voyages and Discoveries of Ojeda and Pinzon.

The Second Voyage of Amerigo Vespucci.

One of the most daring and resolute of the adventurers who

accompanied Columbus on his second voyage (in 1493) was Alonzo

de Ojeda. Ojeda quarrelled with the Admiral and returned to

Spain in 1498. Soon afterwards, "he was provided by the Bishop

Fonseca, Columbus' enemy, with a fragment of the map which the

Admiral had sent to Ferdinand and Isabella, showing the

discoveries which he had made in his last voyage. With this

assistance Ojeda set sail for South America, accompanied by

the pilot, Juan de la Cosá, who had accompanied Columbus in

his first great voyage in 1492, and of whom Columbus

complained that, 'being a clever man, he went about saying

that he knew more than he did,' and also by Amerigo Vespucci.

They set sail on the 20th of May, 1499, with four vessels, and

after a passage of 27 days came in sight of the continent, 200

leagues east of the Oronoco. At the end of June, they landed

on the shores of Surinam, in six degrees of north latitude,

and proceeding west saw the mouths of the Essequibo and

Oronoco. Passing the Boca del Drago of Trinidad, they coasted

westward till they reached the Capo de la Vela in Granada. It

was in this voyage that was discovered the Gulf to which Ojeda

gave the name of Venezuela, or Little Venice, on account of

the cabins built on piles over the water, a mode of life which

brought to his mind the water-city of the Adriatic.

{56}

From the American coast Ojeda went to the Caribbee Islands,

and on the 5th of September reached Yaguimo, in Hispaniola,

where he raised a revolt against the authority of Columbus.

His plans, however, were frustrated by Roldan and Escobar, the

delegates of Columbus, and he was compelled to withdraw from

the island. On the 5th of February, 1500, he returned,

carrying with him to Cadiz an extraordinary number of slaves,

from which he realized an enormous sum of money. At the

beginning of December, 1499, the same year in which Ojeda set

sail on his last voyage, another companion of Columbus, in his

first voyage, Vicente Yañez Pinzon, sailed from Palos, was the

first to cross the line on the American side of the Atlantic.

and on the 20th of January, 1500, discovered Cape St.

Augustine, to which he gave the name of Cabo Santa Maria de la

Consolacion, whence returning northward he followed the

westerly trending coast, and so discovered the mouth of the

Amazon, which he named Paricura. Within a month after his

departure from Palos, he was followed from the same port and

on the same route by Diego de Lepe, who was the first to

discover, at the mouth of the Oronoco, by means of a closed

vessel, which only opened when it reached the bottom of the

water, that, at a depth of eight fathoms and a half, the two

lowest fathoms were salt water, but all above was fresh. Lepe

also made the observation that beyond Cape St. Augustine,

which he doubled, as well as Pinzon, the coast of Brazil

trended south-west."

R. H. Major, Life of Prince Henry of Portugal, chapter 19.

ALSO IN:

W. Irving, Life and Voyages of Columbus, volume 3, chapter 1-3.

AMERICA: A. D. 1500.

Voyages of the Cortereals to the far North, and of Bastidas to

the Isthmus of Darien.

"The Portuguese did not overlook the north while making their

important discoveries to the south. Two vessels, probably in

the spring of 1500, were sent out under Gaspar Cortereal. No

journal or chart of the voyage is now in existence, hence

little is known of its object or results. Still more dim is a

previous voyage ascribed by Cordeiro to João Vaz Cortereal,

father of Gaspar. ... Touching at the Azores, Gaspar

Cortereal, possibly following Cabot's charts, struck the coast

of Newfoundland north of Cape Race, and sailing north

discovered a land which he called Terra Verde, perhaps

Greenland, but was stopped by ice at a river which he named

Rio Nevado, whose location is unknown. Cortereal returned to

Lisbon before the end of 1500. ... In October of this same

year Rodrigo de Bastidas sailed from Cadiz with two vessels.

Touching the shores of South America near Isla Verde, which

lies between Guadalupe and the main land, he followed the

coast westward to El Retrete, or perhaps Nombre de Dios, on

the Isthmus of Darien, in about 9° 30' North latitude.

Returning he was wrecked on Española toward the end of 1501,

and reached Cadiz in September, 1502. This being the first

authentic voyage by Europeans to the territory herein defined

as the Pacific States, such incidents as are known will be

given hereafter."

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 1,

page 113.

"We have Las Casas's authority for saying that Bastidas was a

humane man toward the Indians. Indeed, he afterwards lost his

life by this humanity; for, when governor of Santa Martha, not

consenting to harass the Indians, he so alienated his men that

a conspiracy was formed against him, and he was murdered in

his bed. The renowned Vasco Nuñez [de Balboa] was in this

expedition, and the knowledge he gained there had the greatest

influence on the fortunes of his varied and eventful life."

Sir A. Helps, Spanish Conquest in America,

book 5, chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

J. G. Kohl, History of the Discovery of Maine, chapter 5.

R. Biddle, Memoir of Sebastian Cabot, book 2, chapters 3-5.

See, also, NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

AMERICA: A. D. 1500-1514.

Voyage of Cabral.

The Third Voyage of Americus Vespucius.

Exploration of the Brazilian coast for the King of Portugal.

Curious evolution of the continental name "America."

"Affairs now became curiously complicated. King Emanuel of

Portugal intrusted to Pedro Alvarez de Cabral the command of a

fleet for Hindustan, to follow up the work of Gama and

establish a Portuguese centre of trade on the Malabar coast.

This fleet of 13 vessels, carrying about 1,200 men, sailed

from Lisbon March 9, 1500. After passing the Cape Verde

Islands, March 22, for some reason not clearly known, whether

driven by stormy weather or seeking to avoid the calms that

were apt to be troublesome on the Guinea coast, Cabral took a

somewhat more westerly course than he realized, and on April

22, after a weary progress averaging less than 60 miles per

day, he found himself on the coast of Brazil not far beyond

the limit reached by Lepe. ... Approaching it in such a way

Cabral felt sure that this coast must fall to the east of the

papal meridian. Accordingly on May day, at Porto Seguro in

latitude 16° 30' South, he took formal possession of the country

for Portugal, and sent Gaspar de Lemos in one of his ships

back to Lisbon with the news. On May 22 Cabral weighed anchor

and stood for the Cape of Good Hope. ... Cabral called the

land he had found Vera Cruz, a name which presently became

Santa Cruz; but when Lemos arrived in Lisbon with the news he

had with him some gorgeous paroquets, and among the earliest

names on old maps of the Brazilian coast we find 'Land of

Paroquets' and 'Land of the Holy Cross.' The land lay

obviously so far to the east that Spain could not deny that at

last there was something for Portugal out in the 'ocean sea.'

Much interest was felt at Lisbon. King Emanuel began to

prepare an expedition for exploring this new coast, and wished

to secure the services of some eminent pilot and cosmographer

familiar with the western waters. Overtures were made to

Americus, a fact which proves that he had already won a high

reputation. The overtures were accepted, for what reason we do

not know, and soon after his return from the voyage with

Ojeda, probably in the autumn of 1500, Americus passed from

the service of Spain into that of Portugal. ... On May 14,

1501, Vespucius, who was evidently principal pilot and guiding

spirit in this voyage under unknown skies, set sail from

Lisbon with three caravels. It is not quite clear who was

chief captain, but M. Varnhagen has found reasons for

believing that it was a certain Don Nuno Manuel. The first

halt was made on the African coast at Cape Verde, the first

week in June. ... After 67 days of 'the vilest weather ever

seen by man' they reached the coast of Brazil in latitude

about 5° South, on the evening of the 16th of August, the

festival-day of San Roque, whose name was accordingly given to

the cape before which they dropped anchor.

{57}

From this point they slowly followed the coast to the

southward, stopping now and then to examine the country. ...

It was not until All Saints day, the first of November, that

they reached the bay in latitude 13° South, which is still known

by the name which they gave it, Bahia de Todos Santos. On New

Year's day, 1502, they arrived at the noble bay where 54 years

later the chief city of Brazil was founded. They would seem to

have mistaken it for the mouth of another huge river, like

some that had already been seen in this strange world; for

they called it Rio de Janeiro (River of January). Thence by

February 15 they had passed Cape Santa Maria, when they left

the coast and took a southeasterly course out into the ocean.

Americus gives no satisfactory reason for this change of

direction. ... Perhaps he may have looked into the mouth of

the river La Plata, which is a bay more than a hundred miles

wide; and the sudden westward trend of the shore may have led

him to suppose that he had reached the end of the continent.

At any rate, he was now in longitude more than twenty degrees

west of the meridian of Cape San Roque, and therefore

unquestionably out of Portuguese waters. Clearly there was no

use in going on and discovering lands which could belong only

to Spain. This may account, I think, for the change of

direction." The voyage southeastwardly was pursued until the

little fleet had reached the icy and rocky coast of the island

of South Georgia, in latitude 54° South. It was then decided to

turn homeward. "Vespucius ... headed straight North North East

through the huge ocean, for Sierra Leone, and the distance of

more than 4,000 miles was made--with wonderful accuracy,

though Vespucius says nothing about that--in 33 days. ...

Thence, after some further delay, to Lisbon, where they

arrived on the 7th of September, 1502. ... Among all the

voyages made during that eventful period there was none that

as a feat of navigation surpassed this third of Vespucius, and

there was none, except the first of Columbus, that outranked

it in historical importance. For it was not only a voyage into

the remotest stretches of the Sea of Darkness, but it was

preeminently an incursion into the antipodal world of the

Southern hemisphere. ... A coast of continental extent,

beginning so near the meridian of the Cape Verde islands and

running southwesterly to latitude 35° South and perhaps beyond,

did not fit into anybody's scheme of things. ... It was land

unknown to the ancients, and Vespucius was right in saying

that he had beheld there things by the thousand which Pliny

had never mentioned. It was not strange that he should call it

a 'New World,' and in meeting with this phrase, on this first

occasion in which it appears in any document with reference to

any part of what we now call America, the reader must be

careful not to clothe it with the meaning which it wears in

our modern eyes. In using the expression 'New World' Vespucius

was not thinking of the Florida coast which he had visited on

a former voyage, nor of the 'islands of India' discovered by

Columbus, nor even of the Pearl Coast which he had followed

after the Admiral in exploring. The expression occurs in his

letter to Lorenzo de' Medici, written from Lisbon in March or

April, 1503, relating solely to this third voyage. The letter

begins as follows: 'I have formerly written to you at

sufficient length about my return from those new countries

which in the ships and at the expense and command of the most

gracious King of Portugal we have sought and found. It is

proper to call them a new world.' Observe that it is only the

new countries visited on this third voyage, the countries from

Cape San Roque southward, that Vespucius thinks it proper to

call a new world, and here is his reason for so calling them:

'Since among our ancestors there was no knowledge of them, and

to all who hear of the affair it is most novel. For it

transcends the ideas of the ancients, since most of them say

that beyond the equator to the south there is no continent,

but only the sea which they called the Atlantic, and if any of

them asserted the existence of a continent there, they found

many reasons for refusing to consider it a habitable country.

But this last voyage of mine has proved that this opinion of

theirs was erroneous and in every way contrary to the facts."

... This expression 'Novus Mundus,' thus occurring in a

private letter, had a remarkable career. Early in June, 1503,

about the time when Americus was starting on his fourth

voyage, Lorenzo died. By the beginning of 1504, a Latin

version of the letter [translated by Giovanni Giocondo] was

printed and published, with the title 'Mundus Novus.' ... The

little four-leaved tract, 'Mundus Novus,' turned out to be the

great literary success of the day. M. Harisse has described at

least eleven Latin editions probably published in the course

of 1504, and by 1506 not less than eight editions of German

versions had been issued. Intense curiosity was aroused by

this announcement of the existence of a populous land beyond

the equator and unknown (could such a thing be possible) to

the ancients,--who did know something, at least, about the

eastern parts of the Asiatic continent which Columbus was

supposed to have reached. The "Novus Mundus," so named, began

soon to be represented on maps and globes, generally as a

great island or quasi-continent lying on and below the

equator. "Europe, Asia and Africa were the three parts of the

earth [previously known], and so this opposite region,

hitherto unknown, but mentioned by Mela and indicated by

Ptolemy, was the Fourth Part. We can now begin to understand

the intense and wildly absorbing interest with which people

read the brief story of the third voyage of Vespucius, and we

can see that in the nature of that interest there was nothing

calculated to bring it into comparison with the work of

Columbus. The two navigators were not regarded as rivals in

doing the same thing, but as men who had done two very

different things; and to give credit to one was by no means

equivalent to withholding credit from the other." In 1507,

Martin Waldseemüller, professor of geography at Saint-Dié,

published a small treatise entitled "Cosmographic

Introductio," with that second of the two known letters of

Vespucius--the one addressed to Soderini, of which an account

is given above (A. D. 1497-1498)--appended to it. "In this

rare book occurs the first suggestion of the name America.

{58}

After having treated of the division of the earth's inhabited

surface into three parts--Europe, Asia, and

Africa--Waldseemüller speaks of the discovery of a Fourth

Part," and says: "'Wherefore I do not see what is rightly to

hinder us from calling it Amerige or America, i. e., the land

of Americus, after its discoverer Americus, a man of sagacious

mind, since both Europe and Asia have got their names from

women.' ... Such were the winged words but for which, as M.

Harisse reminds us, the western hemisphere might have come to

be known as Atlantis, or Hesperides, or Santa Cruz, or New

India, or perhaps Columbia. ... In about a quarter of a

century the first stage in the development of the naming of

America had been completed. That stage consisted of five

distinct steps: 1. Americus called the regions visited by him

beyond the equator 'a new world' because they were unknown to

the ancients; 2. Giocondo made this striking phrase 'Mundus

Novus' into a title for his translation of the letter. ... 3.

the name Mundus Novus got placed upon several maps as an

equivalent for Terra Sanctæ Crucis, or what we call Brazil; 4.

the suggestion was made that Mundus Novus was the Fourth Part

of the earth, and might properly be named America after its

discoverer; 5. the name America thus got placed upon several

maps [the first, so far as known, being a map ascribed to

Leonardo da Vinci and published about 1514, and the second a

globe made in 1515 by Johann Schöner, at Nuremberg] as an

equivalent for what we call Brazil, and sometimes came to

stand alone as an equivalent for what we call South America,

but still signified only a part of the dry land beyond the

Atlantic to which Columbus had led the way. ... This wider

meaning [of South America] became all the more firmly

established as its narrower meaning was usurped by the name

Brazil. Three centuries before the time of Columbus the red

dye-wood called brazil-wood was an article of commerce, under

that same name, in Italy and Spain. It was one of the valuable

things brought from the East, and when the Portuguese found

the same dye-wood abundant in those tropical forests that had

seemed so beautiful to Vespucius, the name Brazil soon became

fastened upon the country and helped to set free the name

America from its local associations." When, in time, and by

slow degrees, the great fact was learned, that all the lands

found beyond the Atlantic by Columbus and his successors,

formed part of one continental system, and were all to be

embraced in the conception of a New World, the name which had

become synonymous with New World was then naturally extended

to the whole. The evolutionary process of the naming of the

western hemisphere as a whole was thus made complete in 1541,

by Mercator, who spread the name America in large letters upon

a globe which he constructed that year, so that part of it

appeared upon the northern and part upon the southern

continent.

J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 7 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

W. B. Scaife, America: Its Geographical History,

section 4.

R. H. Major, Life of Prince Henry of Portugal,

chapter 19.

J. Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 2, ch, 2, notes.

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 1, pages

99-112, and 123-125.

AMERICA: A. D. 1501-1504.

Portuguese, Norman and Breton fishermen on the Newfoundland

Banks.

See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

AMERICA: A. D. 1502..

The Second Voyage of Ojeda.

The first voyage of Alonzo de Ojeda, from which he returned to

Spain in June 1500, was profitable to nothing but his

reputation as a bold and enterprising explorer. By way of

reward, he was given "a grant of land in Hispaniola, and

likewise the government of Coquibacoa, which place he had

discovered [and which he had called Venezuela]. He was

authorized to fit out a number of ships at his own expense and

to prosecute discoveries on the coast of Terra Firma. ... With

four vessels, Ojeda set sail for the Canaries, in 1502, and

thence proceeded to the Gulf of Paria, from which locality he

found his way to Coquibacoa. Not liking this poor country, he

sailed on to the Bay of Honda, where he determined to found

his settlement, which was, however, destined to be of short

duration. Provisions very soon became scarce; and one of his

partners, who had been sent to procure supplies from Jamaica,

failed to return until Ojeda's followers were almost in a

state of mutiny. The result was that the whole colony set sail

for Hispaniola, taking the governor with them in chains. All

that Ojeda gained by his expedition was that he at length came

off winner in a lawsuit, the costs of which, however, left him

a ruined man."

R G. Watson, Spanish and Portuguese South America,

book 1, chapter 1.

AMERICA: A. D. 1503-1504.

The Fourth Voyage of Americus Vespucius.

First Settlement in Brazil.

In June, 1503, "Amerigo sailed again from Lisbon, with six

ships. The object of this voyage was to discover a certain

island called Melcha, which was supposed to lie west of

Calicut, and to be as famous a mart in the commerce of the

Indian world as Cadiz was in Europe. They made the Cape de

Verds, and then, contrary to the judgment of Vespucci and of

all the fleet, the Commander persisted in standing for Serra

Leoa." The Commander's ship was lost, and Vespucci, with one

vessel, only, reached the coast of the New World, finding a

port which is thought to have been Bahia. Here "they waited

above two months in vain expectation of being joined by the

rest of the squadron. Having lost all hope of this they

coasted on for 260 leagues to the Southward, and there took

port again in 18° S. 35° West of the meridian of Lisbon. Here

they remained five months, upon good terms with the natives,

with whom some of the party penetrated forty leagues into the

interior; and here they erected a fort, in which they left 24

men who had been saved from the Commander's ship. They gave

them 12 guns, besides other arms, and provisions for six

months; then loaded with brazil [wood], sailed homeward and

returned in safety. ... The honour, therefore, of having

formed the first settlement in this country is due to Amerigo

Vespucci. It does not appear that any further attention was as

this time paid to it. ... But the cargo of brazil which

Vespucci had brought home tempted private adventurers, who

were content with peaceful gains, to trade thither for that

valuable wood; and this trade became so well known, that in

consequence the coast and the whole country obtained the name

of Brazil, notwithstanding the holier appellation [Santa Cruz]

which Cabral had given it."

R. Southey, History of Brazil, volume 1, chapter 1.

{59}

AMERICA: A. D. 1509-1511.

The Expeditions of Ojeda and Nicuesa to the Isthmus.

The Settlement at Darien.

"For several years after his ruinous, though successful

lawsuit, we lose all traces of Alonzo de Ojeda, excepting that

we are told he made another voyage to Coquibacoa [Venezuela],

in 1505. No record remains of this expedition, which seems to

have been equally unprofitable with the preceding, for we find

him, in 1508, in the island of Hispaniola as poor in purse,

though as proud in spirit, as ever. ... About this time the

cupidity of King Ferdinand was greatly excited by the accounts

by Columbus of the gold mines of Veragua, in which the admiral

fancied he had discovered the Aurea Chersonesus of the

ancients, whence King Solomon procured the gold used in

building the temple of Jerusalem. Subsequent voyagers had

corroborated the opinion of Columbus as to the general riches

of the coast of Terra Firma; King Ferdinand resolved,

therefore, to found regular colonies along that coast, and to

place the whole under some capable commander." Ojeda was

recommended for this post, but found a competitor in one of

the gentlemen of the Spanish court, Diego de Nicuesa. "King

Ferdinand avoided the dilemma by favoring both; not indeed by

furnishing them with ships and money, but by granting patents

and dignities, which cost nothing, and might bring rich

returns. He divided that part of the continent which lies

along the Isthmus of Darien into two provinces, the boundary

line running through the Gulf of Uraba. The eastern part,

extending to Cape de la Vela, was called New Andalusia, and

the government of it given to Ojeda. The other to the west

[called Castilla del Oro], including Veragua, and reaching, to

Cape Gracias à Dios, was assigned to Nicuesa. The island of

Jamaica was given to the two governors in common, as a place

whence to draw supplies of provisions." Slender means for the

equipment of Ojeda's expedition were supplied by the veteran

pilot, Juan de la Cosa, who accompanied him as his lieutenant.

Nicuesa was more amply provided. The rival armaments arrived

at San Domingo about the same time (in 1509), and much

quarreling between the two commanders ensued. Ojeda found a

notary in San Domingo, Martin Fernandez de Enciso, who had

money which he consented to invest in the enterprise, and who

promised to follow him with an additional ship-load of

recruits and supplies. Under this arrangement Ojeda made ready

to sail in advance of his competitor, embarking November 10, 1509.

Among those who sailed with him was Francisco Pizarro, the

future conqueror of Peru. Ojeda, by his energy, gained time

enough to nearly ruin his expedition before Nicuesa reached

the scene; for, having landed at Carthagena, he made war upon

the natives, pursued them recklessly into the interior of the

country, with 70 men, and was overwhelmed by the desperate

savages, escaping with only one companion from their poisoned

arrows. His faithful friend, the pilot, Juan de la Cosa, was

among the slain, and Ojeda himself, hiding in the forest, was

nearly dead of hunger and exposure when found and rescued by a

searching party from his ships. At this juncture the fleet of

Nicuesa made its appearance. Jealousies were forgotten in a

common rage against the natives and the two expeditions were

joined in an attack on the Indian villages which spared

nothing. Nicuesa then proceeded to Veragua, while Ojeda

founded a town, which he called San Sebastian, at the east end

of the Gulf of Uraba. Incessantly harassed by the natives,

terrified by the effects of the poison which these used in

their warfare, and threatened with starvation by the rapid

exhaustion of its supplies, the settlement lost courage and

hope. Enciso and his promised ship were waited for in vain. At

length there came a vessel which certain piratical adventurers

at Hispaniola had stolen, and which brought some welcome

provisions, eagerly bought at an exorbitant price. Ojeda, half

recovered from a poisoned wound, which he had treated

heroically with red-hot plates of iron, engaged the pirates to

convey him to Hispaniola, for the procuring of supplies. The

voyage was a disastrous one, resulting in shipwreck on the

coast of Cuba and a month of desperate wandering in the

morasses of the island. Ojeda survived all these perils and

sufferings, made his way to Jamaica, and from Jamaica to San

Domingo, found that his partner Enciso had sailed for the

colony long before, with abundant supplies, but could learn

nothing more. Nor could he obtain for himself any means of

returning to San Sebastian, or of dispatching relief to the

place. Sick, penniless and disheartened, he went into a

convent and died. Meantime the despairing colonists at San

Sebastian waited until death had made them few enough to be

all taken on board of the two little brigantines which were

left to them; then they sailed away, Pizarro in command. One

of the brigantines soon went down in a squall; the other made

its way to the harbor of Carthagena, where it found the tardy

Enciso, searching for his colony. Enciso, under his

commission, now took command, and insisted upon going to San

Sebastian. There the old experiences were soon renewed, and

even Enciso was ready to abandon the deadly place. The latter

had brought with him a needy cavalier, Vasco Nuñez de

Balboa--so needy that he smuggled himself on board Enciso's

ship in a cask to escape his creditors. Vasco Nuñez, who had

coasted this region with Bastidas, in 1500, now advised a

removal of the colony to Darien, on the opposite coast of the

Gulf of Uraba. His advice, which was followed, proved good,

and the hopes of the settlers were raised; but Enciso's modes

of government proved irksome to them. Then Balboa called

attention to the fact that, when they crossed the Gulf of

Uraba, they passed out of the territory covered by the patent

to Ojeda, under which Enciso was commissioned, and into that

granted to Nicuesa. On this suggestion Enciso was promptly

deposed and two alcaldes were elected, Balboa being one. While

events in one corner of Nicuesa's domain were thus

establishing a colony for that ambitious governor, he himself,

at the other extremity of it, was faring badly. He had

suffered hardships, separation from most of his command and

long abandonment on a dc solate coast; had rejoined his

followers after great suffering, only to suffer yet more in

their company, until less than one hundred remained of the 700

who sailed with him a few months before. The settlement at

Veragua had been deserted, and another, named Nombre de Dios

undertaken, with no improvement of circumstances. In this

situation he was rejoiced, at last, by the arrival of one of

his lieutenants, Rodrigo de Colmenares, who came with

supplies. Colmenares brought tidings, moreover, of the

prosperous colony at Darien, which he had discovered on his

way, with an invitation to Nicuesa to come and assume the

government of it. He accepted the invitation with delight;

but, alas! the community at Darien had repented of it before

he reached them, and they refused to receive him when he

arrived. Permitted finally to land, he was seized by a

treacherous party among the colonists--to whom Balboa is said

to have opposed all the resistance in his power--was put on

board of an old and crazy brigantine, with seventeen of his

friends, and compelled to take an oath that he would sail

straight to Spain. "The frail bark set sail on the first of

March, 1511, and steered across the Caribbean Sea for the

island of Hispaniola, but was never seen or heard of more."

W. Irving, Life and Voyages of Columbus and his

Companions, volume 3.

ALSO IN

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,

volume 1, chapter 6.

{60}

AMERICA: A. D. 1511.

The Spanish conquest and occupation of Cuba.

See CUBA: A. D. 1511.

AMERICA: A. D. 1512.

The Voyage of Ponce de Leon in quest of the Fountain of Youth,

and his Discovery of Florida.

"Whatever may have been the Southernmost point reached by

Cabot in coasting America on his return, it is certain that he

did not land in Florida, and that the honour of first

exploring that country is due to Juan Ponce de Leon. This

cavalier, who was governor of Puerto Rico, induced by the

vague traditions circulated by the natives of the West Indies,

that there was a country in the north possessing a fountain

whose waters restored the aged to youth, made it an object of

his ambition to be the first to discover this marvellous

region. With this view, he resigned the governorship, and set

sail with three caravels on the 3d of March 1512. Steering N.

¼ N., he came upon a country covered with flowers and verdure;

and as the day of his discovery happened to be Palm Sunday,

called by the Spaniards' Pasqua Florida,' he gave it the name

of Florida from this circumstance. He landed on the 2d of

April, and took possession of the country in the name of the

king of Castile. The warlike people of the coast of Cautio (a

name given by the Indians to all the country lying between

Cape Cañaveral and the southern point of Florida) soon,

however, compelled him to retreat, and he pursued his

exploration of the coast as far as 30° 8' North latitude, and

on the 8th of May doubled Cape Cañaveral. Then retracing his

course to Puerto Rico, in the hope of finding the island of

Bimini, which he believed to be the Land of Youth, and

described by the Indians as opposite to Florida, he discovered

the Bahamas, and some other islands, previously unknown. Bad

weather compelling him to put into the isle of Guanima to

repair damages, he despatched one of his caravels, under the

orders of Jaun Perez de Ortubia and of the pilot Anton de

Alaminos, to gain information respecting the desired land,

which he had as yet been totally unable to discover. He

returned to Puerto Rico on the 21st of September; a few days

afterwards, Ortubia arrived also with news of Bimini. He

reported that he had explored the island,--which he described

as large, well wooded, and watered by numerous streams,--but

he had failed in discovering the fountain. Oviedo places

Bimini at 40 leagues west of the island of Bahama. Thus all

the advantages which Ponce de Leon promised himself from this

voyage turned to the profit of geography: the title of

'Adelantado of Bimini and Florida,' which was conferred upon

him, was purely honorary; but the route taken by him in order

to return to Puerto Rico, showed the advantage of making the

homeward voyage to Spain by the Bahama Channel."

W. B. Rye, Introduction to "Discovery and Conquest of

Terra Florida, by a gentleman of Elvas" (Hakluyt Society,

1851).

ALSO IN G. R. Fairbanks, History of Florida, chapter 1

AMERICA: A. D. 1513-1517.

The discovery of the Pacific by Vasco Nuñez de Balboa.

Pedrarias Davila on the Isthmus.

With Enciso deposed from authority and Nicuesa sent adrift,

Vasco Nuñez de Balboa seems to have easily held the lead in

affairs at Darien, though not without much opposition; for

faction and turbulence were rife. Enciso was permitted to

carry his grievances and complaints to Spain, but Balboa's

colleague, Zamudio, went with him, and another comrade

proceeded to Hispaniola, both of them well-furnished with

gold. For the quest of gold had succeeded at last. The Darien

adventurers had found considerable quantities in the

possession of the surrounding natives, and were gathering it

with greedy hands. Balboa had the prudence to establish

friendly relations with one of the most important of the

neighboring caciques, whose comely daughter he

wedded--according to the easy customs of the country--and

whose ally he became in wars with the other caciques. By gift

and tribute, therefore as well as by plunder, he harvested

more gold than any before him had found since the ransacking

of the New World began. But what they obtained seemed little

compared with the treasures reported to them as existing

beyond the near mountains and toward the south. One Indian

youth, son of a friendly cacique, particularly excited their

imaginations by the tale which he told of another great sea,

not far to the west, on the southward-stretching shores of

which were countries that teemed with every kind of wealth. He

told them, however, that they would need a thousand men to

fight their way to this Sea. Balboa gave such credence to the

story that he sent envoys to Spain to solicit forces from the

king for an adequate expedition across the mountains. They

sailed in October, 1512, but did not arrive in Spain until the

following May. They found Balboa in much disfavor at the

court. Enciso and the friends of the unfortunate Nicuesa had

unitedly ruined him by their complaints, and the king had

caused criminal proceedings against him to be commenced.

Meantime, some inkling of these hostilities had reached

Balboa, himself, conveyed by a vessel which bore to him, at

the same time, a commission as captain-general from the

authorities in Hispaniola. He now resolved to become the

discoverer of the ocean which his Indian friends described,

and of the rich lands bordering it, before his enemies could

interfere with him. "Accordingly, early in September, 1513, he

set out on his renowned expedition for finding 'the other

sea,' accompanied by 190 men well armed, and by dogs, which

were of more avail than men, and by Indian slaves to carry the

burdens. He went by sea to the territory of his father-in-law,

King Careta, by whom he was well received, and accompanied by

whose Indians he moved on into Poncha's territory." Quieting

the fears of this cacique, he passed his country without

fighting. The next chief encountered, named Quarequa,

attempted resistance, but was routed, with a great slaughter

of his people, and Balboa pushed on. "On the 25th of

September, 1513, he came near to the top of a mountain from

whence the South Sea was visible.

{61}

The distance from Poncha's chief town to this point was forty

leagues, reckoned then six days' journey; but Vasco Nuñez and

his men took twenty-five days to accomplish it, as they

suffered much from the roughness of the ways and from the want

of provisions. A little before Vasco Nuñez reached the height,

Quarequa's Indians informed him of his near approach to the

sea. It was a sight in beholding which, for the first time,

any man would wish to be alone. Vasco Nuñez bade his men sit

down while he ascended, and then, in solitude, looked down

upon the vast Pacific--the first man of the Old World, so far

as we know, who had done so. Falling on his knees, he gave

thanks to God for the favour shown to him in his being

permitted to discover the Sea of the South. Then with his hand

be beckoned to his men to come up. When they had come, both he

and they knelt down and poured forth their thanks to God. He

then addressed them. ... Having ... addressed his men, Vasco

Nuñez proceeded to take formal possession, on behalf of the

kings of Castile, of the sea and of all that was in it; and in

order to make memorials of the event, he cut down trees,

formed crosses, and heaped up stones. He also inscribed the

names of the monarchs of Castile upon great trees in the

vicinity." Afterwards, when he had descended the western slope

and found the shore, "he entered the sea up to his thighs,

having his sword on, and with his shield in his hand; then he

called the by-standers to witness how he touched with his

person and took possession of this sea for the kings of

Castile, and declared that he would defend the possession of

it against all comers. After this, Vasco Nuñez made friends in

the usual manner, first conquering and then negotiating with"

the several chiefs or caciques whose territories came in his

way. He explored the Gulf of San Miguel, finding much wealth

of pearls in the region, and returned to Darien by a route

which crossed the isthmus considerably farther to the north,

reaching his colony on the 29th of January, 1514, having been

absent nearly five months. "His men at Darien received him

with exultation, and he lost no time in sending his news,

'such signal and new news,' ... to the King of Spain,

accompanying it with rich presents. His letter, which gave a

detailed account of his journey, and which, for its length,

was compared by Peter Martyr to the celebrated letter that

came to the senate from Tiberius, contained in every page

thanks to God that he had escaped from such great dangers and

labours. Both the letter and the presents were intrusted to a

man named Arbolanche, who departed from Darien about the

beginning of March, 1514. ... Vasco Nuñez's messenger,

Arbolanche, reached the court of Spain too late for his

master's interests." The latter had already been superseded in

the Governorship, and his successor was on the way to take his

authority from him. The new governor was one Pedrarias De

Avila, or Davila, as the name is sometimes written;--an

envious and malignant old man, under whose rule on the isthmus

the destructive energy of Spanish conquest rose to its meanest

and most heartless and brainless development. Conspicuously

exposed as he was to the jealousy and hatred of Pedrarias,

Vasco Nuñez was probably doomed to ruin, in some form, from

the first. At one time, in 1516, there seemed to be a promise

for him of alliance with his all-powerful enemy, by a marriage

with one of the governor's daughters, and he received the

command of an expedition which again crossed the isthmus,

carrying ships, and began the exploration of the Pacific. But

circumstances soon arose which gave Pedrarias all opportunity

to accuse the explorer of treasonable designs and to

accomplish his arrest--Francisco Pizarro being the officer

fitly charged with the execution of the governor's warrant.

Brought in chains to Acla, Vasco Nuñez was summarily tried,

found guilty and led forth to swift death, laying his head

upon the block (A. D. 1517). "Thus perished Vasco Nuñez de

Balboa, in the forty-second year of his age, the man who,

since the time of Columbus, had shown the most statesmanlike

and warriorlike powers in that part of the world, but whose

career only too much resembles that of Ojeda, Nicuesa, and the

other unfortunate commanders who devastated those beautiful

regions of the earth."

Sir A. Helps, Spanish Conquest in America,

book 6 (volume 1).

"If I have applied strong terms of denunciation to Pedrarias

Dávila, it is because he unquestionably deserves it. He is by

far the worst man who came officially to the New World during

its early government. In this all authorities agree. And all

agree that Vasco Nuñez was not deserving of death."

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,

volume 1, chapter 8-12 (foot-note, page 458).

ALSO IN

W. Irving, Life and Voyages of Columbus and His

Companions, volume 3.

AMERICA: A. D. 1515.

Discovery of La Plata by Juan de Solis.

See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.

AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1518.

The Spaniards find Mexico.

"An hidalgo of Cuba, named Hernandez de Cordova, sailed with

three vessels on an expedition to one of the neighbouring

Bahama Islands, in quest of Indian slaves (February 8, 1517). He

encountered a succession of heavy gales which drove him far

out of his course, and at the end of three weeks he found

himself on a strange and unknown coast. On landing and asking

the name of the country, he was answered by the natives

'Tectelan,' meaning 'I do not understand you,' but which the

Spaniards, misinterpreting into the name of the place, easily

corrupted into Yucatan. Some writers give a different

etymology. ... Bernal Diaz says the word came from the

vegetable 'yuca' and 'tale,' the name for a hillock in which

it is planted. ... M. Waldeck finds a much more plausible

derivation in the Indian word 'Ouyouckatan,' 'listen to what

they say.' ... Cordova had landed on the north-eastern end of

the peninsula, at Cape Catoche. He was astonished at the size

and solid materials of the buildings constructed of stone and

lime, so different from the frail tenements of reeds and

rushes which formed the habitations of the islanders. He was

struck, also, with the higher cultivation of the soil, and

with the delicate texture of the cotton garments and gold

ornaments of the natives. Everything indicated a civilization

far superior to anything he had before witnessed in the New

World. He saw the evidence of a different race, moreover, in

the warlike spirit of the people. ... Wherever they landed

they were met with the most deadly hostility.

{62}

Cordova himself, in one of his skirmishes with the Indians,

received more than a dozen wounds, and one only of his party

escaped unhurt. At length, when he had coasted the peninsula

as far as Campeachy, he returned to Cuba, which he reached

after an absence of several months. ... The reports he had

brought back of the country, and, still more, the specimens of

curiously wrought gold, convinced Velasquez [governor of Cuba]

of the importance of this discovery, and he prepared with all

despatch to avail himself of it. He accordingly fitted out a

little squadron of four vessels for the newly discovered

lands, and placed it under the command of his nephew, Juan de

Grijalva, a man on whose probity, prudence, and attachment to

himself he knew he could rely. The fleet left the port of St.

Jago de Cuba, May 1, 1518. ... Grijalva soon passed over to

the continent and coasted the peninsula, touching at the same

places as his predecessor. Everywhere he was struck, like him,

with the evidences of a higher civilization, especially in the

architecture; as he well might be, since this was the region

of those extraordinary remains which have become recently the

subject of so much speculation. He was astonished, also, at

the sight of large stone crosses, evidently objects of

worship, which he met with in various places. Reminded by

these circumstances of his own country, he gave the peninsula

the name New Spain, a name since appropriated to a much wider

extent of territory. Wherever Grijalva landed, he experienced

the same unfriendly reception as Cordova, though he suffered

less, being better prepared to meet it." He succeeded,

however, at last, in opening a friendly conference and traffic

with one of the chiefs, on the Rio de Tabasco, and "had the

satisfaction of receiving, for a few worthless toys and

trinkets, a rich treasure of jewels, gold ornaments and

vessels, of the most fantastic forms and workmanship. Grijalva

now thought that in this successful traffic--successful beyond

his most sanguine expectations--he had accomplished the chief

object of his mission." He therefore dispatched Alvarado, one

of his captains, to Velasquez, with the treasure acquired, and

continued his voyage along the coast, as far as the province

of Panuco, returning to Cuba at the end of about six months

from his departure. "On reaching the Island, he was surprised

to learn that another and more formidable armament had been

fitted out to follow up his own discoveries, and to find

orders at the same time from the governor, couched in no very

courteous language, to repair at once to St. Jago. He was

received by that personage, not merely with coldness, but with

reproaches, for having neglected so fair an opportunity of

establishing a colony in the country he had visited."

W. H. Prescott, Conquest of Mexico, book 2, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: C.

St. J. Fancourt, History of Yucatan, chapter 1-2.

Bernal Diaz del Castillo, Memoirs, V. 1, chapter 2-19.

AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.

The Spanish Conquest of Mexico.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1519-1524.

AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.

The Voyage of Magellan and Sebastian del Cano.

The New World passed and the Earth circumnavigated.

The Congress at Badajos.

Fernando Magellan, or Magalhaes, was "a disaffected Portuguese

gentleman who had served his country for five years in the Indies

under Albuquerque, and understood well the secrets of the

Eastern trade. In 1517, conjointly with his geographical and

astronomical friend, Ruy Falerio, another unrequited

Portuguese, he offered his services to the Spanish court. At

the same time these two friends proposed, not only to prove

that the Moluccas were within the Spanish lines of

demarkation, but to discover a passage thither different from

that used by the Portuguese. Their schemes were listened to,

adopted and carried out. The Straits of Magellan were

discovered, the broad South Sea was crossed, the Ladrones and

the Phillipines were inspected, the Moluccas were passed

through, the Cape of Good Hope was doubled on the homeward

voyage, and the globe was circumnavigated, all in less than

three years, from 1519 to 1522. Magellan lost his life, and

only one of his five ships returned [under Sebastian del Cano]

to tell the marvelous story. The magnitude of the enterprise

was equalled only by the magnitude of the results. The globe

for the first time began to assume its true character and size

in the minds of men, and the minds of men began soon to grasp

and utilize the results of this circumnavigation for the

enlargement of trade and commerce, and for the benefit of

geography, astronomy, mathematics, and the other sciences.

This wonderful story, is it not told in a thousand books? ...

The Portuguese in India and the Spiceries, as well as at home,

now seeing the inevitable conflict approaching, were

thoroughly aroused to the importance of maintaining their

rights. They openly asserted them, and pronounced this trade

with the Moluccas by the Spanish an encroachment on their

prior discoveries and possession, as well as a violation of

the Papal Compact of 1494, and prepared themselves

energetically for defense and offense. On the other hand, the

Spaniards as openly declared that Magellan's fleet carried the

first Christians to the Moluccas and by friendly intercourse

with the kings of those islands, reduced them to Christian

subjection and brought back letters and tribute to Cæsar.

Hence these kings and their people came under the protection

of Charles V. Besides this, the Spaniards claimed that the

Moluccas were within the Spanish half, and were therefore

doubly theirs. ... Matters thus waxing hot, King John of

Portugal begged Charles V. to delay dispatching his new fleet

until the disputed points could be discussed and settled.

Charles, who boasted that he had rather be right than rich,

consented, and the ships were staid. These two Christian

princes, who owned all the newly discovered and to be

discovered parts of the whole world between them by deed of

gift of the Pope, agreed to meet in Congress at Badajos by

their representatives, to discuss and settle all matters in

dispute about the division of their patrimony, and to define

and stake out their lands and waters, both parties agreeing to

abide by the decision of the Congress. Accordingly, in the

early spring of 1524, up went to this little border town

four-and-twenty wise men, or thereabouts, chosen by each

prince. They comprised the first judges, lawyers,

mathematicians, astronomers, cosmographers, navigators and

pilots of the land, among whose names were many honored now as

then--such as Fernando Columbus, Sebastian Cabot, Estevan

Gomez, Diego Ribero, etc. ... The debates and proceedings of

this Congress, as reported by Peter Martyr, Oviedo, and

Gomara, are very amusing, but no regular joint decision could

be reached, the Portuguese declining to subscribe to the

verdict of the Spaniards, inasmuch as it deprived them of the

Moluccas. So each party published and proclaimed its own

decision after the Congress broke up in confusion on the last

day of May, 1524. It was, however, tacitly understood that the

Moluccas fell to Spain, while Brazil, to the extent of two

hundred leagues from Cape St. Augustine, fell to the

Portuguese. ... However, much good resulted from this first

geographical Congress. The extent and breadth of the Pacific

were appreciated, and the influence of the Congress was soon

after seen in the greatly improved maps, globes, and charts."

H. Stevens, History and Geographical Notes,

1453-1530.

{63}

"For three months and twenty days he [Magellan] sailed on the

Pacific and never saw inhabited land. He was compelled by

famine to strip off the pieces of skin and leather wherewith

his rigging was here and there bound, to soak them in the sea

and then soften them with warm water, so as to make a wretched

food; to eat the sweepings of the ship and other loathsome

matter'; to drink water gone putrid by keeping; and yet he

resolutely held on his course, though his men were dying

daily. ... In the whole history of human undertakings there is

nothing that exceeds, if indeed there is anything that equals,

this voyage of Magellan's. That of Columbus dwindles away in

comparison. It is a display of superhuman courage, superhuman

perseverance."

J. W. Draper, History of the Intellectual Development of

Europe, chapter 19.

"The voyage [of Magellan] ... was doubtless the greatest feat

of navigation that has ever been performed, and nothing can be

imagined that would surpass it except a journey to some other

planet. It has not the unique historic position of the first

voyage of Columbus, which brought together two streams of

human life that had been disjoined since the Glacial Period.

But as an achievement in ocean navigation that voyage of

Columbus sinks into insignificance by the side of it, and when

the earth was a second time encompassed by the greatest

English sailor of his age, the advance in knowledge, as well

as the different route chosen, had much reduced the difficulty

of the performance. When we consider the frailness of the

ships, the immeasurable extent of the unknown, the mutinies

that were prevented or quelled, and the hardships that were

endured, we can have no hesitation in speaking of Magellan as

the prince of navigators."

J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 7 (volume 2).

ALSO IN

Lord Stanley of Alderley, The First Voyage Round the

World (Hakluyt Society, 1874).

R. Kerr, Collection of Voyages, volume 10.

AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1525.

The Voyages of Garay and Ayllon.

Discovery of the mouth of the Mississippi.

Exploration of the Carolina Coast.

In 1519, Francisco de Garay, governor of Jamaica, who had been

one of the companions of Columbus on his second voyage, having

heard of the richness and beauty of Yucatan, "at his own

charge sent out four ships well equipped, and with good

pilots, under the command of Alvarez Alonso de Pineda. His

professed object was to search for some strait, west of

Florida, which was not yet certainly known to form a part of

the continent. The strait having been sought for in vain, his

ships turned toward the west, attentively examining the ports,

rivers, inhabitants, and everything else that seemed worthy of

remark; and especially noticing the vast volume of water

brought down by one very large stream. At last they came upon

the track of Cortes near Vera Cruz. ... The carefully drawn

map of the pilots showed distinctly the Mississippi, which, in

this earliest authentic trace of its outlet, bears the name of

the Espiritu Santo. ... But Garay thought not of the

Mississippi and its valley: he coveted access to the wealth of

Mexico; and, in 1523, lost fortune and life ingloriously in a

dispute with Cortes for the government of the country on the

river Panuco. A voyage for slaves brought the Spaniards in

1520 still farther to the north. A company of seven, of whom

the most distinguished was Lucas Vasquez de Ayllon, fitted out

two slave ships from St. Domingo, in quest of laborers for

their plantations and mines. From the Bahama Islands they

passed to the coast of South Carolina, which was called

Chicora. The Combahee river received the name of Jordan; the

name of St. Helena, whose day is the 18th of August, was given

to a cape, but now belongs to the sound." Luring a large

number of the confiding natives on board their ships the

adventurers treacherously set sail with them; but one of the

vessels foundered at sea, and most of the captives on the

other sickened and died. Vasquez de Ayllon was rewarded for

his treacherous exploit by being authorized and appointed to

make the conquest of Chicora. "For this bolder enterprise the

undertaker wasted his fortune in preparations; in 1525 his

largest ship was stranded in the river Jordan; many of his men

were killed by the natives; and he himself escaped only to

suffer from the consciousness of having done nothing worthy of

honor. Yet it may be that ships, sailing under his authority,

made the discovery of the Chesapeake and named it the bay of

St. Mary; and perhaps even entered the bay of Delaware, which,

in Spanish geography, was called St. Christopher's."

G. Bancroft, History of the U. 8., part 1, chapter 2.

ALSO IN

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,

volume 4, chapter 11, and volume 5, chapters 6-7.

W. G. Simms, History of S. Carolina, book 1, chapter 1.

AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.

The Voyages of Verrazano.

First undertakings of France in the New World.

"It is constantly admitted in our history that our kings paid

no attention to America before the year 1523. Then Francis I.,

wishing to excite the emulation of his subjects in regard to

navigation and commerce, as he had already so successfully in

regard to the sciences and fine arts, ordered John Verazani,

who was in his service, to go and explore the New Lands, which

began to be much talked of in France. ... Verazani was

accordingly sent, in 1523, with four ships to discover North

America; but our historians have not spoken of his first

expedition, and we should be in ignorance of it now, had not

Ramusio preserved in his great collection a letter of Verazani

himself, addressed to Francis I. and dated Dieppe, July 8,

1524. In it he supposes the king already informed of the

success and details of the voyage, so that he contents himself

with stating that he sailed from Dieppe in four vessels, which

he had safely brought back to that port. In January, 1524, he

sailed with two ships, the Dauphine and the Normande, to

cruise against the Spaniards. Towards the close of the same

year, or early in the next, he again fitted out the Dauphine,

on which, embarking with 50 men and provisions for eight

months, he first sailed to the island of Madeira."

Father Charlevoix, History of New France

(translated by J. G. Shea), book 1.

{64}

"On the 17th of January, 1524, he [Verrazano] parted from the

'Islas desiertas,' a well-known little group of islands near

Madeira, and sailed at first westward, running in 25 days 500

leagues, with a light and pleasant easterly breeze, along the

northern border of the trade winds, in about 30° North. His track

was consequently nearly like that of Columbus on his first

voyage. On the 14th of February he met 'with as violent a

hurricane as any ship ever encountered.' But he weathered it,

and pursued his voyage to the west, 'with a little deviation

to the north;' when, after having sailed 24 days and 400

leagues, he descried a new country which, as he supposed, had

never before been seen either by modern or ancient navigators.

The country was very low. From the above description it is

evident that Verrazano came in sight of the east coast of the

United States about the 10th of March, 1524. He places his

land-fall in 34° North, which is the latitude of Cape Fear." He

first sailed southward, for about 50 leagues, he states,

looking for a harbor and finding none. He then turned

northward. "I infer that Verrazano saw little of the coast of

South Carolina and nothing of that of Georgia, and that in

these regions he can, at most, be called the discoverer only

of the coast of North Carolina. ... He rounded Cape Hatteras,

and at a distance of about 50 leagues came to another shore,

where he anchored and spent several days. ... This was the

second principal landing-place of Verrazano. If we reckon 50

leagues from Cape Hatteras, it would fall somewhere upon the

east coast of Delaware, in latitude 38° North, where, by some

authors, it is thought to have been. But if, as appears most

likely, Verrazano reckoned his distance here, as he did in

other cases, from his last anchoring, and not from Cape

Hatteras, we must look for his second landing somewhere south

of the entrance to Chesapeake Bay, and near the entrance to

Albemarle Sound. And this better agrees with the 'sail of 100

leagues' which Verrazano says he made from his second to his

third landing-place, in New York Bay. ... He found at this

third landing station an excellent berth, where he came to

anchor, well-protected from the winds, ... and from which he

ascended the river in his boat into the interior. He found the

shores very thickly settled, and as he passed up half a league

further, he discovered a most beautiful lake ... of three

leagues in circumference. Here, more than 30 canoes came to

him with a multitude of people, who seemed very friendly. ...

This description contains several accounts which make it still

more clear that the Bay of New York was the scene of these

occurrences."--Verrazano's anchorage having been at Gravesend

Bay, the river which he entered being the Narrows, and the

lake he found being the Inner Harbor. From New York Bay

Verrazano sailed eastward, along the southern shore of Long

Island, and following the New England coast, touching at or

describing points which are identified with Narragansett Bay

and Newport, Block Island or Martha's Vineyard, and

Portsmouth. His coasting voyage was pursued as far as 50° North,

from which point he sailed homeward. "He entered the port of

Dieppe early in July, 1524. His whole exploring expedition,

from Madeira and back, had accordingly lasted but five and a

half months."

J. G. Kohl, History of the Discovery of Maine

(Maine Historical Society Collection, 2d Series, volume 1),

chapter 8.

ALSO IN

G. Dexter, Cortereal, Verrazano, &c. (Narrative and

Critical History of America, volume 4, chapter 1).

Relation of Verrazano (New York Historical Society

Collection, volume 1, and N. S., volume 1).

J. C. Brevoort, Verrazano the Navigator.

AMERICA: A. D. 1524-1528.

The Explorations of Pizarro and Discovery of Peru.

"The South Sea having been discovered, and the inhabitants of

Tierra Firme having been conquered and pacified, the Governor

Pedrarias de Avila founded and settled the cities of Panama

and of Nata, and the town of Nombre de Dios. At this time the

Captain Francisco Pizarro, son of the Captain Gonzalo Pizarro,

a knight of the city of Truxillo, was living in the city of

Panama; possessing his house, his farm and his Indians, as one

of the principal people of the land, which indeed he always

was, having distinguished himself in the conquest and

settling, and in the service of his Majesty. Being at rest and

in repose, but full of zeal to continue his labours and to

perform other more distinguished services for the royal crown,

he sought permission from Pedrarias to discover that coast of

the South Sea to the eastward. He spent a large part of his

fortune on a good ship which he built, and on necessary

supplies for the voyage, and he set out from the city of

Panama on the 14th day of the month of November, in the year

1524. He had 112 Spaniards in his company, besides some Indian

servants. He commenced a voyage in which they suffered many

hardships, the season being winter and unpropitious." From

this unsuccessful voyage, during which many of his men died of

hunger and disease, and in the course of which he found no

country that tempted his cupidity or his ambition, Pizarro

returned after some months to "the land of Panama, landing at

an Indian village near the island of Pearls, called Chuchama.

Thence he sent the ship to Panama, for she had become

unseaworthy by reason of the teredo; and all that had befallen

was reported to Pedrarias, while the Captain remained behind

to refresh himself and his companions. When the ship arrived

at Panama it was found that, a few days before, the Captain

Diego de Almagro had sailed in search of the Captain Pizarro,

his companion, with another ship and 70 men." Almagro and his

party followed the coast until they came to a great river,

which they called San Juan [a few miles north of the port of

Buenaventura, in New Granada]. ... They there found signs of

gold, but there being no traces of the Captain Pizarro, the

Captain Almagro returned to Chuchama, where he found his

comrade. They agreed that the Captain Almagro should go to

Panama, repair the ships, collect more men to continue the

enterprise, and defray the expenses, which amounted to more

than 10,000 castellanos. At Panama much obstruction was caused

by Pedrarias and others, who said that the voyage should not

be persisted in, and that his Majesty would not be served by

it. The Captain Almagro, with the authority given him by his

comrade, was very constant in prosecuting the work he had

commenced, and ... Pedrarias was forced to allow him to engage men.

{65}

He set out from Panama with 110 men; and went to

the place where Pizarro waited with another 50 of the first

110 who sailed with him, and of the 70 who accompanied Almagro

when he went in search. The other 130 were dead. The two

captains, in their two ships, sailed with 160 men, and coasted

along the land. When they thought they saw signs of

habitations, they went on shore in three canoes they had with

them, rowed by 60 men, and so they sought for provisions. They

continued to sail in this way for three years, suffering great

hardships from hunger and cold. The greater part of the crews

died of hunger, insomuch that there were not 50 surviving, and

during all those three years they discovered no good land. All

was swamp and inundated country, without inhabitants. The good

country they discovered was as far as the river San Juan,

where the Captain Pizarro remained with the few survivors,

sending a captain with the smaller ship to discover some good

land further along the coast. He sent the other ship, with the

Captain Diego de Almagro to Panama to get more men. At the

end of 70 days, the exploring ship came back with good

reports, and with specimens of gold, silver and cloths, found

in a country further south. "As soon as the Captain Almagro

arrived from Panama with a ship laden with men and horses, the

two ships, with their commanders and all their people, set out

from the river San Juan, to go to that newly-discovered land.

But the navigation was difficult; they were detained so long

that the provisions were exhausted, and the people were

obliged to go on shore in search of supplies. The ships

reached the bay of San Mateo, and some villages to which the

Spaniards gave the name of Santiago. Next they came to the

villages of Tacamez [Atacames, on the coast of modern

Ecuador], on the sea coast further on. These villages were

seen by the Christians to be large and well peopled: and when

90 Spaniards had advanced a league beyond the villages of

Tacamez, more than 10,000 Indian warriors encountered them;

but seeing that the Christians intended no evil, and did not

wish to take their goods, but rather to treat them peacefully,

with much love, the Indians desisted from war. In this land there

were abundant supplies, and the people led well-ordered lives,

the villages having their streets and squares. One village had

more than 3,000 houses, and others were smaller. It seemed to

the captains and to the other Spaniards that nothing could be

done in that land by reason of the smallness of their numbers,

which rendered them unable to cope with the Indians. So they

agreed to load the ships with the supplies to be found in the

villages, and to return to an island called Gallo, where they

would be safe until the ships arrived at Panama with the news

of what had been discovered, and to apply to the Governor for

more men, in order that the Captains might be able to continue

their undertaking, and conquer the land. Captain Almagro went

in the ships. Many persons had written to the Governor

entreating him to order the crews to return to Panama, saying

that it was impossible to endure more hardships than they had

suffered during the last three years. The Governor ordered

that all those who wished to go to Panama might do so, while

those who desired to continue the discoveries were at liberty

to remain. Sixteen men stayed with Pizarro, and all the rest

went back in the ships to Panama. The Captain Pizarro was on

that island for five months, when one of the ships returned,

in which he continued the discoveries for a hundred leagues

further down the coast. They found many villages and great

riches; and they brought away more specimens of gold, silver,

and cloths than had been found before, which were presented by

the natives. The Captain returned because the time granted by

the governor had expired, and the last day of the period had

been reached when he entered the port of Panama. The two

Captains were so ruined that they could no longer prosecute

their undertaking. ... The Captain Francisco Pizarro was only

able to borrow a little more than 1,000 castellanos among his

friends, with which sum he went to Castile, and gave an

account to his Majesty of the great and signal services he had

performed."

F. de Xeres (Sec. of Pizarro), Account of the Province

of Cuzco; translated and edited by C. R. Markham

(Hakluyt Society, 1872).

ALSO IN:

W. H. Prescott, History of the Conquest of Peru,

book 2, chapters 2-4 (volume 1).

AMERICA: A. D. 1525.

The Voyage of Gomez.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): THE NAMES.

AMERICA: A. D. 1526-1531.

Voyage of Sebastian Cabot and attempted colonization of La Plata.

See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.

AMERICA: A. D. 1528-1542.

The Florida Expeditions of Narvaez and Hernando de Soto.

Discovery of the Mississippi.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

AMERICA: A. D. 1531-1533.

Pizarro's Conquest of Peru.

See PERU: A. D. 1528-1531, and 1531-1533.

AMERICA: A. D. 1533.

Spanish Conquest of the Kingdom of Quito.

See ECUADOR:

AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535.

Exploration of the St. Lawrence to Montreal by Jacques Cartier.

"At last, ten years after [the voyages of Verrazano], Philip

Chabot, Admiral of France, induced the king [Francis I.] to

resume the project of founding a French colony in the New

World whence the Spaniards daily drew such great wealth; and

he presented to him a Captain of St. Malo, by name Jacques

Cartier, whose merit he knew, and whom that prince accepted.

Cartier having received his instructions, left St. Malo the 2d

of April, 1534, with two ships of 60 tons and 122 men. He

steered west, inclining slightly north, and had such fair

winds that, on the 10th of May, he made Cape Bonavista, in

Newfoundland, at 46° north. Cartier found the land there still

covered with snow, and the shore fringed with ice, so that he

could not or dared not stop; He ran down six degrees

south-southeast, and entered a port to which he gave the name

of St. Catharine. Thence he turned back north. ... After

making almost the circuit of Newfoundland, though without

being able to satisfy himself that it was an island, he took a

southerly course, crossed the gulf, approached the continent,

and entered a very deep bay, where he suffered greatly from

heat, whence he called it Chaleurs Bay. He was charmed with

the beauty of the country, and well pleased with the Indians

that he met and with whom he exchanged some goods for furs.

... On leaving this bay, Cartier visited a good part of the

coasts around the gulf, and took possession of the country in

the name of the most Christian king, as Verazani had done in

all the places where he landed.

{66}

He set sail again on the 15th of August to return to France,

and reached St. Malo safely on the 5th of September. ... On

the report which he made of his voyage, the court concluded

that it would be useful to France to have a settlement in that

part of America; but no one took this affair more to heart

than the Vice-Admiral Charles de Mony, Sieur de la Mailleraye.

This noble obtained a new commission for Cartier, more ample

than the first, and gave him three ships well equipped. This

fleet was ready about the middle of May, and Cartier ...

embarked on Wednesday the 19th." His three vessels were

separated by violent storms, but found one another, near the

close of July, in the gulf which was their appointed place of

rendezvous. "On the 1st of August bad weather drove him to

take refuge in the port of St. Nicholas, at the mouth of the

river on the north. Here Cartier planted a cross, with the

arms of France, and remained until the 7th. This port is

almost the only spot in Canada that has kept the name given by

Cartier. ... On the 10th the three vessels re-entered the

gulf, and in honor of the saint whose feast is celebrated on

that day, Cartier gave the gulf the name of St. Lawrence; or

rather he gave it to a bay lying between Anticosti Island and

the north shore, whence it extended to the whole gulf of which

this bay is part; and because the river, before that called

River of Canada, empties into the same gulf, it insensibly

acquired the name of St. Lawrence, which it still bears. ...

The three vessels ... ascended the river, and on the 1st of

September they entered the river Saguenay. Cartier merely

reconnoitered the mouth of this river, and ... hastened to

seek a port where his vessels might winter in safety. Eight

leagues above Isle aux Coudres he found another much larger

and handsomer island, all covered with trees and vines. He

called it Bacchus Island, but the name has been changed to

Isle d'Orleans. The author of the relation to this voyage,

printed under the name of Cartier, pretends that only here the

country begins to be called Canada. But he is surely mistaken;

for it is certain that from the earliest times the Indians

gave this name to the whole country along the river on both

sides, from its mouth to the Saguenay. From Bacchus Island,

Cartier proceeded to a little river which is ten leagues off,

and comes from the north; he called it Rivière de Ste Croix,

because he entered it on the 14th of September (Feast of the

Exaltation of the Holy Cross); but it is now commonly called

Rivière de Jacques Cartier. The day after his arrival he

received a visit from an Indian chief named Donnacona, whom

the author of the relation of that voyage styles Lord of

Canada. Cartier treated with this chief by means of two

Indians whom he had taken to France the year before, and who

knew a little French. They informed Donnacona that the

strangers wished to go to Hochelaga, which seemed to trouble

him. Hochelaga was a pretty large town, situated on an island

now known under the name of Island of Montreal. Cartier had

heard much of it, and was loth to return to France without

seeing it. The reason why this voyage troubled Donnacona was

that the people of Hochelaga were of a different nation from

his, and that he wished to profit exclusively by the

advantages which he hoped to derive from the stay of the

French in his country." Proceeding with one vessel to Lake St.

Pierre, and thence in two boats, Cartier reached Hochelaga

Oct. 2. "The shape of the town was round, and three rows of

palisades inclosed in it about 50 tunnel shaped cabins, each

over 50 paces long and 14 or 15 wide. It was entered by a

single gate, above which, as well as along the first palisade,

ran a kind of gallery, reached by ladders, and well provided

with pieces of rock and pebbles for the defence of the place.

The inhabitants of the town spoke the Huron language. They

received the French very well. ... Cartier visited the

mountain at the foot of which the town lay, and gave it the

name of Mont Royal, which has become that of the whole Island

[Montreal]. From it he discovered a great extent of country,

the sight of which charmed him. ... He left Hochelaga on the

5th of October, and on the 11th arrived at Sainte Croix."

Wintering at this place, where his crews suffered terribly

from the cold and from scurvy, he returned to France the

following spring. "Some authors ... pretend that Cartier,

disgusted with Canada, dissuaded the king, his master, from

further thoughts of it; and Champlain seems to have been of

that opinion. But this does not agree with what Cartier

himself says in his memoirs. ... Cartier in vain extolled the

country which he had discovered. His small returns, and the

wretched condition to which his men had been reduced by cold

and scurvy, persuaded most that it would never be of any use

to France. Great stress was laid on the fact that he nowhere

saw any appearance of mines; and then, even more than now, a

strange land which produced neither gold nor silver was

reckoned as nothing."

Father Charlevoix, History of New France

(translated by J. G. Shea), book 1.

ALSO IN:

R. Kerr, General Collection of Voyages,

part 2, book 2, chapter 12 (volume 6).

F. X. Garneau, History of Canada, volume 1, chapter 2.

AMERICA: A. D. 1535-1540.

Introduction of Printing in Mexico.

See PRINTING, &c.: A. D. 1535-1709.

AMERICA: A. D. 1535-1550.

Spanish Conquests in Chile.

See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

AMERICA: A. D. 1536-1538.

Spanish Conquests of New Granada.

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.

AMERICA: A. D. 1541-1603.

Jacques Cartier's last Voyage.

Abortive attempts at French Colonization in Canada.

"Jean François de la Roque, lord of Roberval, a gentleman of

Picardy, was the most earnest and energetic of those who

desired to colonize the lands discovered by Jacques Cartier.

... The title and authority of lieutenant-general was

conferred upon him; his rule to extend over Canada. Hochelaga,

Saguenay, Newfoundland, Belle Isle, Carpon, Labrador, La Grand

Baye, and Baccalaos, with the delegated rights and powers of

the Crown. This patent was dated the 15th of January, 1540.

Jacques Cartier was named second in command. ... Jacques

Cartier sailed on the 23d of May, 1541, having provisioned his

fleet for two years." He remained on the St. Lawrence until

the following June, seeking vainly for the fabled wealth of

the land of Saguenay, finding the Indians strongly inclined to

a treacherous hostility, and suffering severe hardships during

the winter. Entirely discouraged and disgusted, he abandoned

his undertaking early in the summer of 1542, and sailed for home.

{67}

In the road of St. John's, Newfoundland, Cartier met his tardy

chief, Roberval, just coming to join him; but no persuasion

could induce the disappointed explorer to turn back. "To avoid

the chance of an open rupture with Roberval, the lieutenant

silently weighed anchor during the night, and made all sail

for France. This inglorious withdrawal from the enterprise

paralyzed Roberval's power, and deferred the permanent

settlement of Canada for generations then unborn. Jacques

Cartier died soon after his return to Europe." Roberval

proceeded to Canada, built a fort at Ste Croix, four leagues

west of Orleans, sent back two of his three ships to France,

and remained through the winter with his colony, having a

troubled time. There is no certain account of the ending of

the enterprise, but it ended in failure. For half a century

afterwards there was little attempt made by the French to

colonize any part of New France, though the French fisheries

on the Newfoundland Bank and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence were

steadily growing in activity and importance. "When, after

fifty years of civil strife, the strong and wise sway of Henry

IV. restored rest to troubled France, the spirit of discovery

again arose. The Marquis de In Roche, a Breton gentleman,

obtained from the king, in 1598, a patent granting the same

powers that Roberval had possessed." But La Roche's

undertaking proved more disastrous than Roberval's had been.

Yet, there had been enough of successful fur-trading opened to

stimulate enterprise, despite these misfortunes. "Private

adventurers, unprotected by any special privilege, began to

barter for the rich peltries of the Canadian hunters. A

wealthy merchant of St. Malo, named Pontgravé, was the boldest

and most successful of these traders; he made several voyages

to Tadoussac, at the mouth of the Saguenay, bringing back each

time a rich cargo of rare and valuable furs." In 1600,

Pontgravé effected a partnership with one Chauvin, a naval

captain, who obtained a patent from the king giving him a

monopoly of the trade; but Chauvin died in 1602 without having

succeeded in establishing even a trading post at Tadoussac. De

Chatte, or De Chastes, governor of Dieppe, succeeded to the

privileges of Chauvin, and founded a company of merchants at

Rouen [1603] to undertake the development of the resources of

Canada. It was under the auspices of this company that Samuel

Champlain, the founder of New France, came upon the scene.

E. Warburton, The Conquest of Canada, volume 1, chapter 2-3.

ALSO IN:

F. Parkman, Pioneers of France in the New World:

Champlain, chapter 1-2.

AMERICA: A. D. 1562-1567.

The slave trading Voyages of John Hawkins.

Beginnings of English Enterprise in the New World.

"The history of English America begins with the three

slave-trading voyages of John Hawkins, made in the years 1562,

1564, and 1567. Nothing that Englishmen had done in connection

with America, previously to those voyages, had any result

worth recording. England had known the New World nearly

seventy years, for John Cabot reached it shortly after its

discovery by Columbus; and, as the tidings of the discovery

spread, many English adventurers had crossed the Atlantic to

the American coast. But as years passed, and the excitement of

novelty subsided, the English voyages to America had become

fewer and fewer, and at length ceased altogether. It is easy

to account for this. There was no opening for conquest or

plunder, for the Tudors were at peace with the Spanish

sovereigns: and there could be no territorial occupation, for

the Papal title of Spain and Portugal to the whole of the new

continent could not be disputed by Catholic England. No trade

worth having existed with the natives: and Spain and Portugal

kept the trade with their own settlers in their own hands. ...

As the plantations in America grew and multiplied, the demand

for negroes rapidly increased. The Spaniards had no African

settlements, but the Portuguese had many, and, with the aid of

French and English adventurers, they procured from these

settlements slaves enough to supply both themselves and the

Spaniards. But the Brazilian plantations grew so fast, about

the middle of the century, that they absorbed the entire

supply, and the Spanish colonists knew not where to look for

negroes. This penury of slaves in the Spanish Indies became

known to the English and French captains who frequented the

Guinea coast; and John Hawkins, who had been engaged from

boyhood in the trade with Spain and the Canaries, resolved in

1562 to take a cargo of negro slaves to Hispaniola. The little

squadron with which he executed this project was the first

English squadron which navigated the West Indian seas. This

voyage opened those seas to the English. England had not yet

broken with Spain, and the law excluding English vessels from

trading with the Spanish colonists was not strictly enforced.

The trade was profitable, and Hawkins found no difficulty in

disposing of his cargo to great advantage. A meagre note ...

from the pen of Hakluyt contains all that is known of the

first American voyage of Hawkins. In its details it must have

closely resembled the second voyage. In the first voyage,

however, Hawkins had no occasion to carry his wares further

than three ports on the northern side of Hispaniola. These

ports, far away from San Domingo, the capital, were already

well known to the French smugglers. He did not venture into

the Caribbean Sea; and having loaded his ships with their

return cargo, he made the best of his way back. In his second

voyage ... he entered the Caribbean Sea, still keeping,

however, at a safe distance from San Domingo, and sold his

slaves on the mainland. This voyage was on a much larger

scale. ... Having sold his slaves in the continental ports

[South American], and loaded his vessels with hides and other

goods bought with the produce, Hawkins determined to strike

out a new path and sail home with the Gulf-stream, which would

carry him northwards past the shores of Florida. Sparke's

narrative ... proves that at every point in these expeditions

the Englishman was following in the track of the French. He

had French pilots and seamen on board, and there is little

doubt that one at least of these had already been with

Laudonnière in Florida. The French seamen guided him to

Laudonnière's settlement, where his arrival was most opportune.

They then pointed him the way by the coast of North America,

then universally know in the mass as New France, to

Newfoundland, and thence, with the prevailing westerly winds,

to Europe.

{68}

This was the pioneer voyage made by Englishmen along coasts

afterwards famous in history through English colonization. ...

The extremely interesting narrative ... given ... from the pen

of John Sparke, one of Hawkins' gentlemen companions ...

contains the first information concerning America and its

natives which was published in England by an English

eye-witness." Hawkins planned a third voyage in 1566, but the

remonstrances of the Spanish king caused him to be stopped by

the English court. He sent out his ships, however, and they

came home in due time richly freighted,--from what source is

not known. "In another year's time the aspect of things had

changed." England was venturing into war with Spain, "and

Hawkins was now able to execute his plans without restraint,

He founded a permanent fortified factory on the Guinea coast,

where negroes might be collected all the year round. Thence he

sailed for the West Indies a third time. Young Francis Drake

sailed with him in command of the 'Judith,' a small vessel of

fifty tons." The voyage had a prosperous beginning and a

disastrous ending. After disposing of most of their slaves,

they were driven by storms to take refuge in the Mexican port

of Vera Cruz, and there they were attacked by a Spanish fleet.

Drake in the "Judith" and Hawkins in another small vessel

escaped. But the latter was overcrowded with men and obliged

to put half of them ashore on the Mexican coast. The majority

of those left on board, as well as a majority of Drake's crew,

died on the voyage home, and it was a miserable remnant that

landed in England, in January, 1569.

E. J. Payne, Voyages of the Elizabethan Seamen to

America, chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

The Hawkins Voyages; edited by C. R. Markham

(Hakluyt Society, No. 57).

R. Southey, Lives of the British Admirals, volume 3.

AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

The Piratical Adventures of Drake and his Encompassing of the

World.

"Francis Drake, the first of the English Buccaneers, was one

of the twelve children of Edward Drake of Tavistock, in

Devonshire, a staunch Protestant, who had fled his native

place to avoid persecution, and had then become a ship's

chaplain. Drake, like Columbus, had been a seaman by

profession from boyhood; and ... had served as a young man, in

command of the Judith, under Hawkins, ... Hawkins had confined

himself to smuggling: Drake advanced from this to piracy. This

practice was authorized by law in the middle ages for the

purpose of recovering debts or damages from the subjects of

another nation. The English, especially those of the west

country, were the most formidable pirates in the world; and

the whole nation was by this time roused against Spain, in

consequence of the ruthless war waged against Protestantism in

the Netherlands by Philip II. Drake had accounts of his own to

settle with the Spaniards. Though Elizabeth had not declared

for the revolted States, and pursued a shifting policy, her

interests and theirs were identical; and it was with a view of

cutting off those supplies of gold and silver from America

which enabled Philip to bribe politicians and pay soldiers, in

pursuit of his policy of aggression, that the famous voyage

was authorized by English statesmen. Drake had recently made

more than one successful voyage of plunder to the American

coast." In July, 1572, he surprised the Spanish town of Nombre

de Dios, which was the shipping port on the northern side of

the Isthmus for the treasures of Peru. His men made their way

into the royal treasure-house, where they laid hands on a heap

of bar-silver, 70 feet long, 10 wide, and 10 high; but Drake

himself had received a wound which compelled the pirates to

retreat with no very large part of the splendid booty. In the

winter of 1573, with the help of the runaway slaves on the

Isthmus, known as Cimarrones, he crossed the Isthmus, looked

on the Pacific ocean, approached within sight of the city of

Panama, and waylaid a transportation party conveying gold to

Nombre de Dios; but was disappointed of his prey by the

excited conduct of some of his men. When he saw, on this

occasion, the great ocean beyond the Isthmus, "Drake then and

there resolved to be the pioneer of England in the Pacific;

and on this resolution he solemnly besought the blessing of

God. Nearly four years elapsed before it was executed; for it

was not until November, 1577, that Drake embarked on his

famous voyage, in the course of which he proposed to plunder

Peru itself. The Peruvian ports were unfortified. The

Spaniards knew them to be by nature absolutely secured from

attack on the north; and they never dreamed that the English

pirates would be daring enough to pass the terrible straits of

Magellan and attack them from the south. Such was the plan of

Drake; and it was executed with complete success." He sailed

from Plymouth, Dec. 13, 1577, with a fleet of four vessels,

and a pinnace, but lost one of the ships after he had entered

the Pacific, in a storm which drove him southward, and which

made him the discoverer of Cape Horn. Another of his ships,

separated from the squadron, returned home, and a third, while

attempting to do the same, was lost in the river Plate. Drake,

in his own vessel, the Golden Hind, proceeded to the Peruvian

coasts, where he cruised until be had taken and plundered a

score of Spanish ships. "Laden with a rich booty of Peruvian

treasure he deemed it unsafe to return by the way that he

came. He therefore resolved to strike across the Pacific, and

for this purpose made the latitude in which this voyage was

usually performed by the Spanish government vessels which

sailed annually from Acapulco to the Philippines. Drake thus

reached the coast of California, where the Indians, delighted

beyond measure by presents of clothing and trinkets, invited

him to remain and rule over them. Drake took possession of the

country in the name of the Queen, and refitted his vessel in

preparation for the unknown perils of the Pacific. The place

where He landed must have been either the great bay of San

Francisco [per contra., see CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847] or

the small bay of Bodega, which lies a few leagues further

north. The great seaman had already coasted five degrees more

to the northward before finding a suitable harbour. He

believed himself to be the first European who had coasted

these shores; but it is now well known that Spanish explorers

had preceded him. Drake's circumnavigation of the globe was

thus no deliberate feat of seamanship, but the necessary

result of circumstances. The voyage made in more than one way

a great epoch in English nautical history." Drake reached

Plymouth on his return Sept. 26, 1580.

E. J. Payne, Voyages of the Elizabethan Seamen, pages

141-143.

ALSO IN

F. Fletcher, The World Encompassed by Sir F. Drake

(Hakluyt Society, 1854).

J. Barrow, Life of Drake.

R. Southey, Lives of British Admirals, volume 3.

{69}

AMERICA: A. D. 1580.

The final founding of the City of Buenos Ayres.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC; A. D: 1580-1777.

AMERICA: A. D. 1583.

The Expedition of Sir Humphrey Gilbert.

Formal possession taken of Newfoundland.

In 1578, Sir Humphrey Gilbert, an English gentleman, of

Devonshire, whose younger half-brother was the more famous Sir

Walter Raleigh, obtained from Queen Elizabeth a charter

empowering him, for the next six years, to discover "such

remote heathen and barbarous lands, not actually possessed by

any Christian prince or people," as he might be shrewd or

fortunate enough to find, and to occupy the same as their

proprietor. Gilbert's first expedition was attempted the next

year, with Sir Walter Raleigh associated in it; but

misfortunes drove back the adventurers to port, and Spanish

intrigue prevented their sailing again. "In June, 1583,

Gilbert sailed from Cawsund Bay with five vessels, with the

general intention of discovering and colonizing the northern

parts of America. It was the first colonizing expedition which

left the shores of Great Britain; and the narrative of the

expedition by Hayes, who commanded one of Gilbert's vessels,

forms the first page in the history of English colonization.

Gilbert did no more than go through the empty form of taking

possession of the island of Newfoundland, to which the English

name formerly applied to the continent in general ... was now

restricted. ... Gilbert dallied here too long. When he set

sail to cross the Gulf of St. Lawrence and take possession of

Cape Breton and Nova Scotia the season was too far advanced;

one of his largest ships went down with all on board,

including the Hungarian scholar Parmenius, who had come out as

the historian of the expedition; the stores were exhausted and

the crews dispirited; and Gilbert resolved on sailing home,

intending to return and prosecute his discoveries the next

spring. On the home voyage the little vessel in which he was

sailing foundered; and the pioneer of English colonization

found a watery grave. ... Gilbert was a man of courage, piety,

and learning. He was, however, an indifferent seaman, and

quite incompetent for the task of colonization to which he had

set his hand. The misfortunes of his expedition induced Amadas

and Barlow, who followed in his steps, to abandon the

northward voyage and sail to the shores intended to be

occupied by the easier but more circuitous route of the

Canaries and the West Indies."

E. J. Payne, Voyages of the Elizabethan Seamen,

pages 173-174.

"On Monday, the 9th of September, in the afternoon, the

frigate [the' Squirrel'] was near cast away, oppressed by

waves, yet at that time recovered; and giving forth signs of

joy, the general, sitting abaft with a book in his hand, cried

out to us in the 'Hind' (so oft as we did approach within

hearing), 'We are as near to heaven by sea as by land,'

reiterating the same speech, well beseeming a soldier resolute

in Jesus Christ, as I can testify he was. On the same Monday

night, about twelve o'clock, or not long after, the frigate

being ahead of us in the 'Golden Hind,' suddenly her lights

were out, whereof as it were in a moment we lost the sight,

and withal our watch cried the General was cast away, which

was too true; for in that moment the frigate was devoured and

swallowed up by the sea. Yet still we looked out all that

night and ever after, until we arrived upon the coast of

England. ... In great torment of weather and peril of drowning

it pleased God to send safe home the 'Golden Hind,' which

arrived in Falmouth on the 22d of September, being Sunday."

E. Hayes, A Report of the Voyage by Sir Humphrey Gilbert

(reprinted in Payne's Voyages).

ALSO IN

E. Edwards, Life of Raleigh, volume 1, chapter 5.

R. Hakluyt, Principal Navigations; edited by E. Goldsmid,

volume 12.

AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586.

Raleigh's First Colonizing attempts and failures.

"The task in which Gilbert had failed was to be undertaken by

one better qualified to carry it out. If any Englishman in

that age seemed to be marked out as the founder of a colonial

empire, it was Raleigh. Like Gilbert, he had studied books;

like Drake he could rule men. ... The associations of his

youth, and the training of his early manhood, fitted him to

sympathize with the aims of his half-brother Gilbert, and

there is little reason to doubt that Raleigh had a share in

his undertaking and his failure. In 1584 he obtained a patent

precisely similar to Gilbert's. His first step showed the

thoughtful and well-planned system on which he began his task.

Two ships were sent out, not with any idea of settlement, but

to examine and report upon the country. Their commanders were

Arthur Barlow and Philip Amidas. To the former we owe the

extant record of the voyage: the name of the latter would

suggest that he was a foreigner. Whether by chance or design,

they took a more southerly course than any of their

predecessors. On the 2d of July the presence of shallow water,

and a smell of sweet flowers, warned them that land was near.

The promise thus given was amply fulfilled upon their

approach. The sight before them was far different from that

which had met the eyes of Hore and Gilbert. Instead of the

bleak coast of Newfoundland, Barlow and Amidas looked upon a

scene which might recall the softness of the Mediterranean.

... Coasting along for about 120 miles, the voyagers reached

an inlet and with some difficulty entered. They then solemnly

took possession of the land in the Queen's name, and then

delivered it over to Raleigh according to his patent. They

soon discovered that the land upon which they had touched was

an island about 20 miles long, and not above six broad, named,

as they afterwards learnt, Roanoke. Beyond, separating them

from the mainland, lay an enclosed sea, studded with more than

a hundred fertile and well-wooded islets." The Indians proved

friendly, and were described by Barlow as being "most gentle,

loving and faithful, void of all guile and treason, and such

as live after the manner of the golden age." "The report which

the voyagers took home spoke as favourably of the land itself

as of its inhabitants. ... With them they brought two of the

savages, named Wanchese and Manteo. A probable tradition tells

us that the queen herself named the country Virginia, and that

Raleigh's knighthood was the reward and acknowledgment of his

success.

{70}

On the strength of this report Raleigh at once made

preparations for a settlement. A fleet of seven ships was

provided for the conveyance of 108 settlers. The fleet was

under the command of Sir Richard Grenvillle, who was to

establish the settlement and leave it under the charge of

Ralph Lane. ... On the 9th of April [1585] the emigrants set

sail." For some reason not well explained, the fleet made a

circuit to the West Indies, and loitered for five weeks at the

island of St. John's and at Hispaniola, reaching Virginia in

the last days of June. Quarrels between the two commanders,

Grenville and Lane, had already begun, and both seemed equally

ready to provoke the enmity of the natives. In August, after

exploring some sixty miles of the coast, Grenville returned to

England, promising to come back the next spring with new

colonists and stores. The settlement, thus left to the care of

Lane, was established "at the north-east corner of the island

of Roanoke, whence the settlers could command the strait.

There, even now, choked by vines and underwood, and here and

there broken by the crumbling remains of an earthen bastion,

may be traced the outlines of the ditch which enclosed the

camp, some forty yards square, the home of the first English

settlers in the New World. Of the doings of the settlers

during the winter nothing is recorded, but by the next spring

their prospects looked gloomy. The Indians were no longer

friends. ... The settlers, unable to make fishing weirs, and

without seed corn, were entirely dependent on the Indians for

their daily food. Under these circumstances, one would have

supposed that Lane would have best employed himself in

guarding the settlement and improving its condition. He,

however, thought otherwise, and applied himself to the task of

exploring the neighbouring territory." But a wide combination

of hostile Indian tribes had been formed against the English,

and their situation became from day to day more imperilled. At

the beginning of June, 1586, Lane fought a bold battle with

the savages and routed them; but no sign of Grenville appeared

and the prospect looked hopeless. Just at this juncture, a

great English fleet, sailing homewards from a piratical

expedition to the Spanish Main, under the famous Captain

Drake, came to anchor at Roanoke and offered succor to the

disheartened colonists. With one voice they petitioned to be

taken to England, and Drake received the whole party on board

his ships. "The help of which the colonists had despaired was

in reality close at hand. Scarcely had Drake's fleet left the

coast when a ship well furnished by Raleigh with needful

supplies, reached Virginia, and after searching for the

departed settlers returned to England. About a fortnight later

Grenville himself arrived with three ships. He spent some time in

the country exploring, searching for the settlers, and at last,

unwilling to lose possession of the country, landed fifteen

men at Roanoke well supplied for two years, and then set sail

for England, plundering the Azores, and doing much damage to

the Spaniards."

J. A. Doyle, The English in America: Virginia, &c.,

chapter 4.

"It seems to be generally admitted that, when Lane and his

company went back to England, they carried with them tobacco

as one of the products of the country, which they presented to

Raleigh, as the planter of the colony, and by him it was

brought into use in England, and gradually in other European

countries. The authorities are not entirely agreed upon this

point. Josselyn says: 'Tobacco first brought into England by

Sir John Hawkins, but first brought into use by Sir Walter

Rawleigh many years after.' Again he says: 'Now (say some)

Tobacco was first brought into England by Mr. Ralph Lane, out

of Virginia. Others will have Tobacco to be first brought into

England from Peru, by Sir Francis Drake's Mariners.' Camden

fixes its introduction into England by Ralph Lane and the men

brought back with him in the ships of Drake. He says: 'And

these men which were brought back were the first that I know

of, which brought into England that Indian plant which they

call Tobacco and Nicotia, and use it against crudities, being

taught it by the Indians.' Certainly from that time it began

to be in great request, and to be sold at a high rate. ...

Among the 108 men left in the colony with Ralph Lane in 1585

was Mr. Thomas Hariot, a man of a strongly mathematical and

scientific turn, whose services in this connection were

greatly valued. He remained there an entire year, and went

back to England in 1586. He wrote out a full account of his

observations in the New World."

L. N. Tarbox, Sir Walter Raleigh and his Colony (Prince

Society 1884).

ALSO IN

T. Hariot, Brief and true Report (Reprinted in

above-named Prince Society Publication).

F. L. Hawks, History of North Carolina, volume 1 (containing

reprints of Lane's Account, Hariot's Report, &c.)

Original Documents edited by E. E. Hale

(Archæologia Americana, volume 4).

AMERICA: A. D. 1587-1590.

The Lost Colony of Roanoke.

End of the Virginia Undertakings of Sir Walter Raleigh.

"Raleigh, undismayed by losses, determined to plant an

agricultural state; to send emigrants with their wives and

families, who should make their homes in the New World; and,

that life and property might be secured, in January, 1587, he

granted a charter for the settlement, and a municipal

government for the city of 'Raleigh.' John White was appointed

its governor; and to him, with eleven assistants, the

administration of the colony was intrusted. Transport ships

were prepared at the expense of the proprietary; 'Queen

Elizabeth, the godmother of Virginia,' declined contributing

'to its education.' Embarking in April, in July they arrived

on the coast of North Carolina; they were saved from the

dangers of Cape Fear; and, passing Cape Hatteras, they

hastened to the isle of Roanoke, to search for the handful of

men whom Grenville had left there as a garrison. They found

the tenements deserted and overgrown with weeds; human bones

lay scattered on the field where wild deer were reposing. The

fort was in ruins. No vestige of surviving life appeared. The

instructions of Raleigh had designated the place for the new

settlement on the bay of Chesapeake. But Fernando, the naval

officer, eager to renew a profitable traffic in the West

Indies, refused his assistance in exploring the coast, and

White was compelled to remain on Roanoke. ... It was there

that in July the foundations of the city of Raleigh were laid.

But the colony was doomed to disaster from the beginning,

being quickly involved in warfare with the surrounding

natives. "With the returning ship White embarked for England,

under the excuse of interceding for re-enforcements and

supplies.

{71}

Yet, on the 18th of August, nine days previous to

his departure, his daughter Eleanor Dare, the wife of one of

the assistants, gave birth to a female child, the first

offspring of English parents on the soil of the United States.

The infant was named from the place of its birth. The colony,

now composed of 89 men, 17 women, and two children, whose

names are all preserved, might reasonably hope for the speedy

return of the governor, as he left with them his daughter and

his grandchild, Virginia Dare. The farther history of this

plantation is involved in gloomy uncertainty. The inhabitants

of 'the city of Raleigh,' the emigrants from England and the

first-born of America, awaited death in the land of their

adoption. For, when White reached England, he found its

attention absorbed by the threats of an invasion from Spain.

... Yet Raleigh, whose patriotism did not diminish his

generosity, found means, in April 1588, to despatch White with

supplies in two vessels. But the company, desiring a gainful

voyage rather than a safe one, ran in chase of prizes, till

one of them fell in with men of war from Rochelle, and, after

a bloody fight, was boarded and rifled. Both ships were

compelled to return to England. The delay was fatal: the

English kingdom and the Protestant reformation were in danger;

nor could the poor colonists of Roanoke be again remembered

till after the discomfiture of the Invincible Armada. Even

then Sir Walter Raleigh, who had already incurred a fruitless

expense of £40,000, found his impaired fortune insufficient

for further attempts at colonizing Virginia. He therefore used

the privilege of his patent to endow a company of merchants

and adventurers with large concessions. Among the men who thus

obtained an assignment of the proprietary's rights in Virginia

is found the name of Richard Hakluyt; it connects the first

efforts of England in North Carolina with the final

colonization of Virginia. The colonists at Roanoke had

emigrated with a charter; the instrument of March, 1589, was

not an assignment of Raleigh's patent, but the extension of a

grant, already held under its sanction by increasing the

number to whom the rights of that charter belonged. More than

another year elapsed before White could return to search for

his colony and his daughter; and then the island of Roanoke

was a desert. An inscription on the bark of a tree pointed to

Croatan; but the season of the year and the dangers from

storms were pleaded as an excuse for an immediate return. The

conjecture has been hazarded that the deserted colony,

neglected by their own countrymen, were hospitably adopted

into the tribe [the Croatans] of Hatteras Indians. Raleigh

long cherished the hope of discovering some vestiges of their

existence, and sent at his own charge, and, it is said, at

five several times, to search for his liege men. But

imagination received no help in its attempts to trace the fate

of the colony of Roanoke."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States,

part 1, ch.5 (volume 1).

"The Croatans of to-day claim descent from the lost colony.

Their habits, disposition and mental characteristics show

traces both of savage and civilized ancestors. Their language

is the English of 300 years ago, and their names are in many

cases the same as those borne by the original colonists. No

other theory of their origin has been advanced."

S. B. Weeks, The Lost Colony of Roanoke (American

History Association Papers, volume 5, part 4).

"This last expedition [of White, searching for his lost

colony] was not despatched by Raleigh, but by his successors

in the American patent. And our history is now to take leave

of that illustrious man, with whose schemes and enterprises it

ceases to have any further connexion. The ardour of his mind

was not exhausted, but diverted by a multiplicity of new and

not less arduous undertakings. ... Desirous, at the same time,

that a project which he had carried so far should not be

entirely abandoned, and hoping that the spirit of commerce

would preserve an intercourse with Virginia that might

terminate in a colonial establishment, he consented to assign

his patent to Sir Thomas Smith, and a company of merchants in

London, who undertook to establish and maintain a traffic

between England and Virginia. ... It appeared very soon that

Raleigh had transferred his patent to bands very different

from his own. ... Satisfied with a paltry traffic carried on

by a few small vessels, they made no attempt to take

possession of the country: and at the period of Elizabeth's

death, not a single Englishman was settled in America."

J. Grahame, History of the Rise and Progress of the

United States of North America till 1688, chapter 1.

ALSO IN

W. Stith, History of Va., book 1.

F. L. Hawks, History of N. C., volume 1, Nos. 7-8.

AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.

The Voyages of Gosnold, Pring, and Weymouth.

The First Englishmen In New England.

Bartholomew Gosnold was a West-of-England mariner who had

served in the expeditions of Sir Walter Raleigh to the

Virginia coast. Under his command, in the spring of 1602,

"with the consent of Sir Walter Raleigh, and at the cost,

among others, of Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, the

accomplished patron of Shakespeare, a small vessel, called the

Concord, was equipped for exploration in 'the north part of

Virginia,' with a view to the establishment of a colony. At

this time, in the last year of the Tudor dynasty, and nineteen

years after the fatal termination of Gilbert's enterprise,

there was no European Inhabitant of North America, except

those of Spanish birth in Florida, and some twenty or thirty

French, the miserable relics of two frustrated attempts to

settle what they called New France. Gosnold sailed from

Falmouth with a company of thirty-two persons, of whom eight

were seamen, and twenty were to become planters. Taking a

straight course across the Atlantic, instead of the indirect

course by the Canaries and the West Indies which had been

hitherto pursued in voyages to Virginia, at the end of seven

weeks he saw land in Massachusetts Bay, probably near what is

now Salem Harbor. Here a boat came off, of Basque build,

manned by eight natives, of whom two or three were dressed in

European clothes, indicating the presence of earlier foreign

voyagers in these waters. Next he stood to the southward, and

his crew took great quantities of codfish by a head land,

called by him for that reason Cape Cod, the name which it

retains. Gosnold, Brereton, and three others, went on shore,

the first Englishmen who are known to have set foot upon the

soil of Massachusetts. ... Sounding his way cautiously along,

first in a southerly, and then in a westerly direction, and

probably passing to the south of Nantucket, Gosnold next

landed on a small island, now called No Man's Land.

{72}

To this he gave the name of Martha's Vineyard, since

transferred to the larger island further north. ... South of

Buzzard's Bay, and separated on the south by the Vineyard

Sound from Martha's Vineyard, is scattered the group denoted

on modern maps as the Elizabeth Islands. The southwesternmost

of these, now known by the Indian name of Cuttyhunk, was

denominated by Gosnold Elizabeth Island. ... Here Gosnold

found a pond two miles in circumference, separated from the

sea on one side by a beach thirty yards wide, and enclosing 'a

rocky islet, containing near an acre of ground, full of wood and

rubbish.' This islet was fixed upon for a settlement. In three

weeks, while a part of the company were absent on a trading

expedition to the mainland, the rest dug and stoned a cellar,

prepared timber and built a house, which they fortified with

palisades, and thatched with sedge. Proceeding to make an

inventory of their provisions, they found that, after

supplying the vessel, which was to take twelve men on the

return voyage, there would be a sufficiency for only six weeks

for the twenty men who would remain. A dispute arose upon the

question whether the party to be left behind would receive a

share in the proceeds of the cargo of cedar, sassafras, furs,

and other commodities which had been collected. A small party,

going out in quest of shell-fish, was attacked by some

Indians. With men having already, it is likely, little stomach

for such cheerless work, these circumstances easily led to the

decision to abandon for the present the scheme of a

settlement, and in the following month the adventurers sailed

for England, and, after a voyage of five weeks, arrived at

Exmouth. ... The expedition of Gosnold was pregnant with

consequences, though their development was slow. The accounts

of the hitherto unknown country, which were circulated by his

company on their return, excited an earnest interest." The

next year (April, 1603), Martin Pring or Prynne was sent out,

by several merchants of Bristol, with two small vessels.

seeking cargoes of sassafras, which had acquired a high value

on account of supposed medicinal virtues. Pring coasted from

Maine to Martha's Vineyard, secured his desired cargoes, and

gave a good account of the country. Two years later (March,

1605), Lord Soathampton and Lord Wardour sent a vessel

commanded by George Weymouth to reconnoitre the same coast

with an eye to settlements. Weymouth ascended either the

Kennebec or the Penobscot river some 50 or 60 miles and

kidnapped five natives. "Except for this, and for some

addition to the knowledge of the local geography, the voyage

was fruitless."

J. G. Palfrey, History of New England,

volume 1, chapter 2.

ALSO IN

Massachusetts History Society Collection,

3d Series, volume 8 (1843).

J. McKeen, On the Voyage of George Weymouth

(Maine History Society Collection, volume 5).

AMERICA: A. D. 1603-1608.

The First French Settlements in Acadia.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1603-1605, and 1606-1608.

AMERICA: A. D. 1607.

The founding of the English Colony of Virginia, and the

failure in Maine.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607, and after;

and MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.

AMERICA: A. D. 1607-1608.

The First Voyages of Henry Hudson.

"The first recorded voyage made by Henry Hudson was undertaken

... for the Muscovy or Russia Company [of England]. Departing

from Gravesend the first of May, 1607, with the intention of

sailing straight across the north pole, by the north of what

is now called Greenland, Hudson found that this land stretched

further to the eastward than he had anticipated, and that a

wall of ice, along which he coasted, extended from Greenland

to Spitzbergen. Forced to relinquish the hope of finding a

passage in the latter vicinity, he once more attempted the

entrance of Davis' Straits by the north of Greenland. This

design was also frustrated and he apparently renewed the

attempt in a lower latitude and nearer Greenland on his

homeward voyage. In this cruise Hudson attained a higher

degree of latitude than any previous navigator. ... He reached

England on his return on the 15th September of that year

[1607]. ... On the 22d of April, 1608, Henry Hudson commenced

his second recorded voyage for the Muscovy or Russia Company,

with the design of 'finding a passage to the East Indies· by

the north-east. ... On the 3d of June, 1608, Hudson had

reached the most northern point of Norway, and on the 11th was

in latitude 75° 24', between Spitzbergen and Nova Zembla."

Failing to pass to the north-east beyond Nova Zembla, he

returned to England in August.

J. M. Read, Jr., Historical Inquiry Concerning Henry

Hudson, pages 133-138.

ALSO IN

G. M. Asher, Henry Hudson, the Navigator

(Hakluyt Society, 1860).

AMERICA: A. D. 1608-1616.

Champlain's Explorations in the Valley of the St. Lawrence and

the Great Lakes.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1608-1611, and 1611-1616.

AMERICA: A. D. 1609.

Hudson's Voyage of Discovery for the Dutch.

"The failure of two expeditions daunted the enterprise of

Hudson's employers [the Muscovy Company, in England]; they

could not daunt the courage of the great navigator, who was

destined to become the rival of Smith and of Champlain. He

longed to tempt once more the dangers of the northern sea;

and, repairing to Holland, he offered, in the service of the

Dutch East India Company, to explore the icy wastes in search

of the coveted passage. The voyage of Smith to Virginia

stimulated desire; the Zealanders, fearing the loss of

treasure, objected; but, by the influence of Balthazar

Moucheron, the directors for Amsterdam resolved on equipping a

small vessel of discovery; and, on the 4th day of April, 1609,

the 'Crescent' [or 'Half-Moon' as the name of the little ship

is more commonly translated], commanded by Hudson, and manned

by a mixed crew of Englishmen and Hollanders, his son being of

the number, set sail for the north-western passage. Masses of

ice impeded the navigation towards Nova Zembla; Hudson, who

had examined the maps of John Smith of Virginia, turned to the

west; and passing beyond Greenland and Newfoundland, and

running down the coast of Acadia, he anchored, probably, in

the mouth of the Penobscot. Then, following the track of

Gosnold, he came upon the promontory of Cape Cod, and,

believing himself its first discoverer, gave it the name of

New Holland. Long afterwards, it was claimed as the

north-eastern boundary of New Netherlands. From the sands of

Cape Cod, he steered a southerly course till he was opposite

the entrance into the bay of Virginia, where Hudson remembered

that his countrymen were planted.

{73}

Then, turning again to the north, he discovered the Delaware

Bay, examined its currents and its soundings, and, without

going on shore, took note of the aspect of the country. On the

3d day of September, almost at the time when Champlain was

invading New York from the north, less than five months after

the truce with Spain, which gave the Netherlands a diplomatic

existence as a state, the 'Crescent' anchored within Sandy

Hook, and from the neighboring shores, that were crowned with

'goodly oakes,' attracted frequent visits from the natives.

After a week's delay, Hudson sailed through the Narrows, and

at the mouth of the river anchored in a harbor which was

pronounced to be very good for all winds. ... Ten days were

employed in exploring the river; the first of Europeans,

Hudson went sounding his way above the Highlands, till at last

the 'Crescent' had sailed some miles beyond the city of

Hudson, and a boat had advanced a little beyond Albany.

Frequent intercourse was held with the astonished natives [and

two battles fought with them]. ... Having completed his

discovery, Hudson descended the stream to which time has given

his name, and on the 4th day of October, about the season of

the return of John Smith to England, he set sail for Europe.

... A happy return voyage brought the 'Crescent' into

Dartmouth. Hudson forwarded to his Dutch employers a brilliant

account of his discoveries; but he never revisited the lands

which he eulogized: and the Dutch East-India Company refused

to search further for the north-western passage."

G. Bancroft, History of the U. S., chapter 15 (or part

2, chapter 12 of "Author's Last Revision").

ALSO IN

H. R. CLEVELAND, Life of Henry Hudson (Library of American

Biographies, volume 10), chapters 3-4.

R. Juet, Journal of Hudson's Voyage (New York History

Society Collection., Second Series, volume 1).

J. V. N. Yates and J. W. Moulton, History of the State of

New York, part 1.

AMERICA: A. D. 1610-1614.

The Dutch occupation of New Netherland, and Block's coasting

exploration.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

AMERICA: A. D. 1614-1615.

The Voyages of Capt. John Smith to North Virginia.

The Naming of the country New England.

"From the time of Capt. Smith's departure from Virginia [see

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1607-1610], till the year 1614, there is a

chasm in his biography. . . . In 1614, probably by his advice

and at his suggestion, an expedition was fitted out by some

London merchants, in the expense of which he also shared, for

the purposes of trade and discovery in New England, or, as it

was then called, North Virginia. ... In March, 1614, he set

sail from London with two ships, one commanded by himself, and

the other by Captain Thomas Hunt. They arrived, April 30th, at

the island of Manhegin, on the coast of Maine, where they

built seven boats. The purposes for which they were sent were

to capture whales and to search for mines of gold or copper,

which were said to be there, and, if these failed, to make up

a cargo of fish and furs. Of mines, they found no indications,

and they found whale-fishing a 'costly conclusion;' for,

although they saw many, and chased them too, they succeeded in

taking none. They thus lost the best part of the fishing

season; but, after giving up their gigantic game, they

diligently employed the months of July and August in taking

and curing codfish, an humble, but more certain prey. While

the crew were thus employed, Captain Smith, with eight men in

a small boat, surveyed and examined the whole coast, from

Penobscot to Cape Cod, trafficking with the Indians for furs,

and twice fighting with them, and taking such observations of

the prominent points as enabled him to construct a map of the

country. He then sailed for England, where he arrived in

August, within six months after his departure. He left Captain

Hunt behind him, with orders to dispose of his cargo of fish

in Spain. Unfortunately, Hunt was a sordid and unprincipled

miscreant, who resolved to make his countrymen odious to the

Indians, and thus prevent the establishment of a permanent

colony, which would diminish the large gains he and a few

others derived by monopolizing a lucrative traffic. For this

purpose, having decoyed 24 of the natives on board his ship,

he carried them off and sold them as slaves in the port of

Malaga. . . . Captain Smith, upon his return, presented his

map of the country between Penobscot and Cape Cod to Prince

Charles (afterwards Charles I.), with a request that he would

substitute others, instead of the 'barbarous names' which had

been given to particular places. Smith himself gave to the

country the name of New England, as he expressly states, and

not Prince Charles, as is commonly supposed. ... The first

port into which Captain Smith put on his return to England was

Plymouth. There he related his adventures to some of his

friends, 'who,' he says, 'as I supposed, were interested in

the dead patent of this unregarded country.' The Plymouth

Company of adventurers to North Virginia, by flattering hopes

and large promises, induced him to engage his services to

them." Accordingly in March, 1615, he sailed from Plymouth,

with two vessels under his command, bearing 16 settlers,

besides their crew. A storm dismasted Smith's ship and drove

her back to Plymouth. "His consort, commanded by Thomas

Dermer, meanwhile proceeded on her voyage, and returned with a

profitable cargo in August; but the object, which was to

effect a permanent settlement, was frustrated. Captain Smith's

vessel was probably found to be so much shattered as to render

it inexpedient to repair her; for we find that he set sail a

second time from Plymouth, on the 24th of June, in a small

bark of 60 tons, manned by 30 men, and carrying with him the

same 16 settlers he had taken before. But an evil destiny

seemed to hang over this enterprise, and to make the voyage a

succession of disasters and disappointments." It ended in

Smith's capture by a piratical French fleet and his detention

for some months, until he made a daring escape in a small

boat. "While he had been detained on board the French pirate,

in order, as he says, 'to keep my perplexed thoughts from too

much meditation of my miserable estate,' he employed himself

in writing a narrative of his two voyages to New England, and

an account of the country. This was published in a quarto form

in June, 1616. ... Captain Smith's work on New England was the

first to recommend that country as a place of settlement."

G. S. Hillard, Life of Captain John Smith (ch. 14-15).

ALSO IN

Captain John Smith, Description of New England.

{74}

AMERICA: A. D. 1619.

Introduction of negro slavery into Virginia.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1619.

AMERICA: A. D. 1620.

The Planting of the Pilgrim Colony at Plymouth, and the

Chartering of the Council for New England.

See MASSACHUSETTS (PLYMOUTH COLONY): A. D. 1620;

and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.

AMERICA: A. D. 1620.

Formation of the Government of Rio de La Plata.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

AMERICA: A. D. 1621.

Conflicting claims of England and France on the North-eastern coast.

Naming and granting of Nova Scotia.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

The Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.

"Sir Robert Heath, attorney-general to Charles I., obtained a

grant of the lands between the 38th [36th?] degree of north

latitude to the river St. Matheo. His charter bears date of

October 5, 1629. ... The tenure is declared to be as ample as

any bishop of Durham [Palatine], in the kingdom of England,

ever held and enjoyed, or ought or could of right have held

and enjoyed. Sir Robert, his heirs and assigns, are

constituted the true and absolute lords and proprietors, and

the country is erected into a province by the name of Carolina

[or Carolana] and the islands are to be called the Carolina

islands. Sir Robert conveyed his right some time after to the

earl of Arundel. This nobleman, it is said, planted several

parts of his acquisition, but his attempt to colonize was

checked by the war with Scotland, and afterwards the civil

war. Lord Maltravers, who soon after, on his father's death,

became earl of Arundel and Sussex ... made no attempt to avail

himself of the grant. ... Sir Robert Heath's grant of land, to

the southward of Virginia, perhaps the most extensive

possession ever owned by an individual, remained for a long

time almost absolutely waste and uncultivated. This vast

extent of territory occupied all the country between the 30th

and 36th degrees of northern latitude, which embraces the

present states of North and South Carolina, Georgia,

[Alabama], Tennessee, Mississippi, and, with very little

exceptions, the whole state of Louisiana, and the territory of

East and West Florida, a considerable part of the state of

Missouri, the Mexican provinces of Texas, Chiuhaha, &c. The

grantee had taken possession of the country, soon after he had

obtained his title, which he afterwards had conveyed to the

earl of Arundel. Henry lord Maltravers appears to have

obtained some aid from the province of Virginia in 1639, at

the desire of Charles I., for the settlement of Carolana, and

the country had since become the property of a Dr. Cox; yet,

at this time, there were two points only in which incipient

English settlements could be discerned; the one on the

northern shore of Albemarle Sound and the streams that flow

into it. The population of it was very thin, and the greatest

portion of it was on the north-east bank of Chowan river. The

settlers had come from that part of Virginia now known as the

County of Nansemond. ... They had been joined by a number of

Quakers and other sectaries, whom the spirit of intolerance

had driven from New England, and some emigrants from Bermudas.

... The other settlement of the English was at the mouth of

Cape Fear river; ... those who composed it had come thither

from New England in 1659. Their attention was confined to

rearing cattle. It cannot now be ascertained whether the

assignees of Carolana ever surrendered the charter under which

it was held, nor whether it was considered as having become

vacated or obsolete by non-user, or by any other means."

F. X. Martin, History of North Carolina,

volume 1, chapter 5 and 7.

AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

The Royal Charter to the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629, THE DORCHESTER COMPANY.

AMERICA: A. D. 1629-1631.

The Dutch occupation of the Delaware.

See DELAWARE: A. D. 1629-1631.

AMERICA: A. D. 1629-1632.

English Conquest and brief occupation of New France.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1628-1632.

AMERICA: A. D. 1632.

The Charter to Lord Baltimore and the founding of Maryland.

See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632, and A. D. 1633-1637.

AMERICA: A. D. 1638.

The planting of a Swedish Colony on the Delaware.

See DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640.

AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.

The Buccaneers and their piratical warfare with Spain.

"The 17th century gave birth to a class of rovers wholly

distinct from any of their predecessors in the annals of the

world, differing as widely in their plans, organization and

exploits as in the principles that governed their actions. ...

After the native inhabitants of Haiti had been exterminated,

and the Spaniards had sailed farther west, a few adventurous

men from Normandy settled on the shores of the island, for the

purpose of hunting the wild bulls and hogs which roamed at

will through the forests. The small island of Tortugas was

their market; thither they repaired with their salted and

smoked meat, their hides, &c., and disposed of them in

exchange for powder, lead, and other necessaries. The places

where these semi-wild hunters prepared the slaughtered

carcases were called 'boucans,' and they themselves became

known as Buccaneers. Probably the world has never before or

since witnessed such an extraordinary association as theirs.

Unburdened by women-folk or children, these men lived in

couples, reciprocally rendering each other services, and

having entire community of property--a condition termed by

them matelotage, from the word 'matelot,' by which they

addressed one another. ... A man on joining the fraternity

completely merged his identity. Each member received a

nickname, and no attempt was ever made to inquire into his

antecedents. When one of their number married, he ceased to be

a buccaneer, having forfeited his membership by so civilized a

proceeding. He might continue to dwell on the coast, and to

hunt cattle, but he was no longer a 'matelot'--as a Benedick

he had degenerated to a 'colonist.' ... Uncouth and lawless

though the buccaneers were, the sinister signification now

attaching to their name would never have been merited had it

not been for the unreasoning jealousy of the Spaniards. The

hunters were actually a source of profit to that nation, yet

from an insane antipathy to strangers the dominant race

resolved on exterminating the settlers. Attacked whilst

dispersed in pursuance of their avocations, the latter fell

easy victims; many of them were wantonly massacred, others

dragged into slavery. ... Breathing hatred and vengeance, 'the

brethren of the coast' united their scattered forces, and a

war of horrible reprisals commenced.

{75}

Fresh troops arrived from Spain, whilst the ranks of the

buccaneers were filled by adventurers of all nations, allured

by love of plunder, and fired with indignation at the

cruelties of the aggressors. ... The Spaniards, utterly

failing to oust their opponents, hit upon a new expedient, so

short-sighted that it reflects but little credit on their

statesmanship. This was the extermination of the horned

cattle, by which the buccaneers derived their means of

subsistence; a general slaughter took place, and the breed was

almost extirpated. ... The puffed up arrogance of the Spaniard

was curbed by no prudential consideration; calling upon every

saint in his calendar, and raining curses on the heretical

buccaneers, he deprived them of their legitimate occupation,

and created wilfully a set of desperate enemies, who harassed

the colonial trade of an empire already betraying signs of

feebleness with the pertinacity of wolves, and who only

desisted when her commerce had been reduced to insignificance.

... Devoured by an undying hatred of their assailants, the

buccaneers developed into a new association--the freebooters."

C. H. Eden, The West Indies, chapter 3.

"The monarchs both of England and France, but especially the

former, connived at and even encouraged the freebooters [a

name which the pronunciation of French sailors transformed

into 'flibustiers,' while that corruption became Anglicized in

its turn and produced the word filibusters], whose services

could be obtained in time of war, and whose actions could be

disavowed in time of peace. Thus buccaneer, filibuster, and

sea-rover, were for the most part at leisure to hunt wild

cattle, and to pillage and massacre the Spaniards wherever

they found an opportunity. When not on some marauding

expedition, they followed the chase." The piratical buccaneers

were first organized under a leader in 1639, the islet of

Tortuga being their favorite rendezvous. "So rapid was the

growth of their settlements that in 1641 we find governors

appointed, and at San Christobal a governor-general named De

Poincy, in charge of the French filibusters in the Indies.

During that year Tortuga was garrisoned by French troops, and

the English were driven out, both from that islet and from

Santo Domingo, securing harborage elsewhere in the islands.

Nevertheless corsairs of both nations often made common cause.

... In [1654] Tortuga was again recaptured by the Spaniards,

but in 1660 fell once more into the hands of the French; and

in their conquest of Jamaica in 1655 the British troops were

reenforced by a large party of buccaneers." The first of the

more famous buccaneers, and apparently the most ferocious

among them all, was a Frenchman called François L'Olonnois,

who harried the coast of Central America between 1660-1665

with six ships and 700 men. At the same time another buccaneer

named Mansvelt, was rising in fame, and with him, as second in

command, a Welshman, Henry Morgan, who became the most

notorious of all. In 1668, Morgan attacked and captured the

strong town of Portobello, on the Isthmus, committing

indescribable atrocities. In 1671 he crossed the Isthmus,

defeated the Spaniards in battle and gained possession of the

great and wealthy city of Panama--the largest and richest in

the New World, containing at the time 30,000 inhabitants. The

city was pillaged, fired and totally destroyed. The exploits

of this ruffian and the stolen riches which he carried home to

England soon afterward, gained the honors of knighthood for

him, from the worthy hands of Charles II. In 1680, the

buccaneers under one Coxon again crossed the Isthmus, seized

Panama, which had been considerably rebuilt, and captured

there a Spanish fleet of four ships, in which they launched

themselves upon the Pacific. From that time their plundering

operations were chiefly directed against the Pacific coast.

Towards the close of the 17th century, the war between England

and France, and the Bourbon alliance of Spain with France,

brought about the discouragement, the decline and finally the

extinction of the buccaneer organization.

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States: Central

America, volume 2, chapter 26-30.

ALSO IN

W. Thornbury, The Buccaneers.

A. O. Exquemelin, History of the Buccaneers.

J. Burney, History of the Buccaneers of Am.

See, also, JAMAICA: A. D. 1655-1796.

AMERICA: A. D. 1655.

Submission of the Swedes on the Delaware to the Dutch.

See DELAWARE: A. D. 1640-1656.

AMERICA: A. D. 1663.

The grant of the Carolinas to Monk, Clarendon, Shaftesbury,

and others.

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

AMERICA: A. D. 1664.

English conquest of New Netherland.

See NEW YORK: A. D.1664.

AMERICA: A. D. 1673.

The Dutch reconquest of New Netherland.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

AMERICA: A. D. 1673-1682.

Discovery and exploration of the Mississippi, by Marquette and

La Salle.

Louisiana named and possessed by the French.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1634-1673, and 1669-1687.

AMERICA: A. D. 1674.

Final surrender of New Netherland to the English.

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

AMERICA: A. D. 1681.

The proprietary grant to William Penn.

See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D,1681.

AMERICA: A. D. 1689-1697.

The first lnter-Colonial War: King Williams's War (The war of

the League of Augsburg).

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1689-1690; 1692-1697;

also, NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.

AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

The first Colonial Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690;

also, CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1689-1690.

AMERICA: A. D. 1698-1712.

The French colonization of Louisiana.

Broad claims of France to the whole Valley of the Mississippi.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

AMERICA: A. D. 1700-1735.

The Spread of French occupation in the Mississippi Valley and

on the Lakes.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1700-1735.

AMERICA: A. D. 1702.

Union of the two Jerseys as a royal province.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1688-1738.

AMERICA: A. D. 1702-1713.

The Second Inter-Colonial War: Queen Anne's War (The War of

the Spanish Succession).

Final acquisition of Nova Scotia by the English.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;

CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1711-1713.

AMERICA: A. D. 1713.

Division of territory between England and France by the Treaty

of Utrecht.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE) A. D. 1711-1713.

{76}

AMERICA: A. D. 1729.

End of the proprietary government in North Carolina.

See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1688-1729.

AMERICA: A. D. 1732.

The colonization of Georgia by General Oglethrope.

See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.

AMERICA: A. D. 1744-1748.

The Third Inter-Colonial War: King George's War (The War of

the Austrian Succession).

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

AMERICA: A. D. 1748-1760.

Unsettled boundary disputes of England and France.

The fourth and last inter-colonial war, called the French and

Indian War (The Seven Years War of Europe).

English Conquest of Canada.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1750-1753; 1760;

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D.1749-1755; 1755;

OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754; 1754; 1755;

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

AMERICA: A. D. 1749.

Introduction of negro slavery into Georgia.

See GEORGIA: A. D. 1735-1749.

AMERICA: A. D. 1750-1753:

Dissensions among the English Colonies on the eve of the great

French War.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1750-1753.

AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

The Colonial Congress at Albany.

Franklin's Plan of Union.

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

AMERICA: A. D. 1763.

The Peace of Paris.

Canada, Cape Breton, Newfoundland, and Louisiana east of the

Mississippi (except New Orleans) ceded by France to Great

Britain.

West of the Mississippi and New Orleans to Spain.--Florida by

Spain to Great Britain.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR.

AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.

Pontiac's War.

See PONTIAC'S WAR.

AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1766.

Growing discontent of the English Colonies.

The question of taxation.

The Stamp Act and its repeal.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775, to 1766.

AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1769.

Spanish occupation of New Orleans and Western Louisiana, and

the revolt against it.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1766-1768, and 1769.

AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1783.

Independence of the English colonies achieved.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1775 (APRIL) to 1783 (SEPTEMBER).

AMERICA: A. D. 1776.

Erection of the Spanish Vice-royalty of Buenos Ayres.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1816.

Revolt, independence and Confederation of the Argentine

Provinces.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.

AMERICA: A. D. 1818.

Chilean independence achieved.

See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.

AMERICA: A. D. 1820-1821.

Independence Acquired by Mexico and the Central American

States.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826,

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

AMERICA: A. D. 1824.

Peruvian independence won at Ayacucho.

See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

----------AMERICA: End----------

AMERICAN ABORIGINES.

Linguistic Classification.

In the Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology (for

1885-86, published in 1891), Major J. W. Powell, the Director

of the Bureau, has given a classification of the languages of

the North American aborigines based upon the most recent

investigations. The following is a list of families of speech,

or linguistic stocks, which are defined and named:

"Adaizan [identified since the publication of this list as

being but part of the Caddoan stock].

Algonquian.

Athapascan.

Attacapan.

Beothukan.

Caddoan.

Chimakuan.

Chimarikan.

Chimmesyan.

Chinookan.

Chitimachan.

Chumashan.

Coahuiltecan.

Copehan.

Costanoan.

Eskimauan.

Esselenian.

Iroquoian.

Kalapooian.

Karankawan.

Keresan.

Kiowan.

Kituanahan.

Koluschan.

Kulanapan.

Kusan.

Lutuamian.

Mariposan.

Moquelumnan.

Muskhogean.

Natchesan.

Palaihnihan.

Piman.

Pujunan.

Quoratean.

Salinan.

Salishan.

Sastean.

Shahaptian.

Shoshonean.

Siouan.

Skittagetan.

Takilman.

Tañoan.

Timuquanan.

Tonikan.

Tonkawan.

Uchean.

Waiilatpuan.

Wakashan.

Washoan.

Weitspekan.

Wishoskan.

Yokonan.

Yanan.

Yukian.

Yuman.

Zufiian."

These families are severally defined in the summary of

information given below, and the relations to them of all

tribes having any historical importance are shown by

cross-references and otherwise; but many other groupings and

associations, and many tribal names not scientifically

recognized, are likewise exhibited here, for the reason that

they have a significance in history and are the subjects of

frequent allusion in literature.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Abipones.

See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Abnakis, or Abenaques, or Taranteens.

"The Abnakis were called Taranteens by the English, and

Owenagungas by the New Yorkers. ... We must admit that a large

portion of the North American Indians were called Abnakis, if

not by themselves, at least by others. This word Abnaki is

found spelt Abenaques, Abenaki, Wapanachki, and Wabenakies by

different writers of various nations, each adopting the manner

of spelling according to the rules of pronunciation of their

respective native languages. ... The word generally received

is spelled thus, Abnaki, but it should be 'Wanbanaghi,' from

the Indian word 'wanbanban,' designating the people of the

Aurora Borealis, or in general, of the place where the sky

commences to appear white at the breaking of the day. ... It

has been difficult for different writers to determine the

number of nations or tribes comprehended under this word

Abnaki. It being a general word, by itself designates the

people of the east or northeast. ... We find that the word

Abnaki was applied in general, more or less, to all the

Indians of the East, by persons who were not much acquainted

with the aborigines of the country. On the contrary, the early

writers and others well acquainted with the natives of New

France and Acadia, and the Indians themselves, by Abnakis

always pointed out a particular nation existing north-west and

south of the Kennebec river, and they never designated any

other people of the Atlantic shore, from Cape Hatteras to

Newfoundland. ... The Abnakis had five great villages, two

amongst the French colonies, which must be the village of St.

Joseph or Sillery, and that of St. Francis de Sales, both in

Canada, three on the head waters, or along three rivers,

between Acadia and New England. These three rivers are the

Kennebec, the Androscoggin, and the Saco. ... The nation of

the Abnakis bear evident marks of having been an original

people in their name, manners, and language. They show a kind

of civilization which must be the effect of antiquity, and of

a past flourishing age."

E. Vetromile, The Abnaki Indians

(Maine Historical Society Collection, volume 6).

See, also, below:

ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

{77}

For some account of the wars of the Abnakis, with the New

England colonies,

See

CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1689-1690, and 1692-1697;

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (JULY-SEPT.); 1702-1710, 1711-1713;

and NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Absarokas, Upsarokas, or Crows.

See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Acawoios.

See below: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Acolhuas.

See MEXICO, A. D. 1325-1502.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Adais.

[Footnote: See Note, Appendix E.]

These Indians were a "tribe who, according to Dr. Sibley,

lived about the year 1800 near the old Spanish fort or mission

of Adaize, 'about 40 miles from Natchitoches, below the

Yattassees, on a lake called Lac Macdon, which communicates

with the division of Red River that passes by Bayou Pierre'

[Lewis and Clarke]. A vocabulary of about 250 words is all

that remains to us of their language, which according to the

collector, Dr. Sibley, 'differs from all others, and is so

difficult to speak or understand that no nation can speak ten

words of it. ... A recent comparison of this vocabulary by Mr.

Gatschet, with several Caddoan dialects, has led to the

discovery that a considerable percentage of the Adái words

have a more or less remote affinity with Caddoan, and he

regards it as a Caddoan dialect."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, pages 45-46.

See preceding page.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Adirondacks.

"This is a term bestowed by the Iroquois, in derision, on the

tribes who appear, at an early day, to have descended the

Utawas river, and occupied the left banks of the St. Lawrence,

above the present site of Quebec, about the close of the 15th

century. It is said to signify men who eat trees, in allusion

to their using the bark of certain trees for food, when

reduced to straits, in their war excursions. The French, who

entered the St. Lawrence from the gulf, called the same people

Algonquins--a generic appellation, which has been long

employed and come into universal use, among historians and

philologists. According to early accounts, the Adirondacks had

preceded the Iroquois in arts and attainments."

H. R. Schoolcraft, Notes on the Iroquois, chapter 5.

See, also, below: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR CONQUESTS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Æsopus Indians.

See below: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Agniers.

Among several names which the Mohawks (see below: IROQUOIS)

bore in early colonial history was that of the Agniers.

F. Parkman, The Conspiracy of Pontiac, volume 1, page 9,

foot-note.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Albaias.

See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Aleuts.

See below: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Algonquian (Algonkin) Family.

"About the period 1500-1600, those related tribes whom we now

know by the name of Algonkins were at the height of their

prosperity. They occupied the Atlantic coast from the Savannah

river on the south to the strait of Belle Isle on the north.

... The dialects of all these were related, and evidently at

some distant day had been derived from the same primitive

tongue. Which of them had preserved the ancient forms most

closely, it may be premature to decide positively, but the

tendency of modern studies has been to assign that place to

the Cree--the northernmost of all. We cannot erect a

genealogical tree of these dialects. ... We may, however,

group them in such a manner as roughly to indicate their

relationship. This I do"--in the following list:

"Cree.

Old Algonkin.

Montagnais.

Chipeway, Ottawa, Pottawattomie, Miami, Peoria, Pea,

Piankishaw, Kaskaskia, Menominee, Sac, Fox, Kikapoo.

Sheshatapoosh, Secoffee, Micmac, Melisceet, Etchemin, Abnaki.

Mohegan, Massachusetts, Shawnee, Minsi, Unami, Unalachtigo

[the last three named forming, together, the nation of the

Lenape or Delawares], Nanticoke, Powhatan, Pampticoke.

Blackfoot, Gros Ventre, Sheyenne.

... All the Algonkin nations who dwelt north of the Potomac,

on the east shore of Chesapeake Bay, and in the basins of the

Delaware and Hudson rivers, claimed near kinship and an

identical origin, and were at times united into a loose,

defensive confederacy. By the western and southern tribes they

were collectively known as Wapanachkik--' those of the eastern

region'--which in the form Abnaki is now confined to the

remnant of a tribe in Maine. ... The members of the

confederacy were the Mohegans (Mahicanni) of the Hudson, who

occupied the valley of that river to the falls above the site

of Albany, the various New Jersey tribes, the Delawares proper

on the Delaware river and its branches, including the Minsi or

Monseys, among the mountains, the Nanticokes, between

Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic, and the small tribe called

Canai, Kanawhas or Ganawese, whose towns were on tributaries

of the Potomac and Patuxent. ... Linguistically, the Mohegans

were more closely allied to the tribes of New England than to

those of the Delaware Valley. Evidently, most of the tribes of

Massachusetts and Connecticut were comparatively recent

offshoots of the parent stem on the Hudson, supposing the

course of migration had been eastward. ... The Nanticokes

occupied the territory between Chesapeake Bay and the ocean,

except its southern extremity, which appears to have been

under the control of the Powhatan tribe of Virginia."

D. G. Brinton, The Lenape and their Legends.

chapters 1-2.

"Mohegans, Munsees, Manhattans, Metöacs, and other affiliated

tribes and bands of Algonquin lineage, inhabited the banks of

the Hudson and the islands, bay and seaboard of New York,

including Long Island, during the early periods of the rise of

the Iroquois Confederacy. ... The Mohegans finally retired

over the Highlands east of them into the valley of the

Housatonic. The Munsees and Nanticokes retired to the Delaware

river and reunited with their kindred, the Lenapees, or modern

Delawares. The Manhattans, and numerous other bands and

sub-tribes melted away under the influence of liquor and died

in their tracks."

H. R. Schoolcraft, Notes on the Iroquois, chapter 5.

{78}

"On the basis of a difference in dialect, that portion of the

Algonquin Indians which dwelt in New England has been classed

in two divisions, one consisting of those who inhabited what

is now the State of Maine, nearly up to its western border,

the other consisting of the rest of the native population. The

Maine Indians may have been some 15,000 in number, or somewhat

less than a third of the native population of New England.

That portion of them who dwelt furthest towards the east were

known by the name of Etetchemins. The Abenaquis, including the

Tarratines, hunted on both sides of the Penobscot, and

westward as far as the Saco, if not quite to the Piscataqua.

The tribes found in the rest of New England were designated by

a greater variety of names. The home of the Penacook or

Pawtucket Indians was in the southeast corner of what is now

New Hampshire and the contiguous region of Massachusetts. Next

dwelt the Massachusetts tribe, along the bay of that name.

Then were found successively the Pokanokets, or Wampanoags, in

the southeasterly region of Massachusetts, and by Buzzard's

and Narragansett Bays; the Narragansetts, with a tributary

race called Nyantics in what is now the western part of the

State of Rhode Island; the Pequots, between the Narragansetts

and the river formerly called the Pequot River, now the

Thames; and the Mohegans, spreading themselves beyond the

River Connecticut. In the central region of Massachusetts were

the Nipmucks, or Nipnets; and along Cape Cod were the Nausets,

who appeared to have owed some fealty to the Pokanokets. The

New England Indians exhibited an inferior type of humanity.

... Though fleet and agile when excited to some occasional

effort, they were found to be incapable of continuous labor.

Heavy and phlegmatic, they scarcely wept or smiled."

J. G. Palfrey, Compendious History of New England,

book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1).

"The valley of the 'Cahohatatea,' or Mauritius River [i. e.,

the Hudson River, as now named] at the time Hudson first

ascended its waters, was inhabited, chiefly, by two aboriginal

races of Algonquin lineage, afterwards known among the English

colonists by the generic names of Mohegans and Mincees. The

Dutch generally called the Mohegans, Mahicans; and the

Mincees, Sanhikans. These two tribes were subdivided into

numerous minor bands, each of which had a distinctive name.

The tribes on the east side of the river were generally

Mohegans; those on the west side, Mincees. They were

hereditary enemies. ... Long Island, or 'Sewan-hacky,' was

occupied by the savage tribe of Metowacks, which was

subdivided into various clans. ... Staten Island, on the

opposite side of the bay, was inhabited by the Monatons. ...

Inland, to the west, lived the Raritans and the Hackinsacks;

while the regions in the vicinity of the well-known

'Highlands,' south of Sandy Hook, were inhabited by a band or

sub-tribe called the Nevesincks or Navisinks. ... To the south

and west, covering the centre of New Jersey, were the

Aquamachukes and the Stankekans; while the valley of the

Delaware, northward from the Schuylkill, was inhabited by

various tribes of the Lenape race. ... The island of the

Manhattans" was occupied by the tribe which received that name

(see MANHATTAN). On the shores of the river, above, dwelt the

Tappans, the Weckquaesgeeks, the Sint Sings, "whose chief

village was named Ossin-Sing, or 'the Place of Stones,'" the

Pachami, the Waorinacks, the Wappingers, and the

Waronawankongs. "Further north, and occupying the present

counties of Ulster and Greene, were the Minqua clans of

Minnesincks, Nanticokes, Mincees, and Delawares. These clans

had pressed onward from the upper valley of the Delaware. ...

They were generally known among the Dutch as the Æsopus

Indians."

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

chapter 3

"The area formerly occupied by the Algonquian family was more

extensive than that of any other linguistic stock in North

America, their territory reaching from Labrador to the Rocky

Mountains, and from Churchill River of Hudson Bay as far south

at least as Pamlico Sound of North Carolina. In the eastern

part of this territory was an area occupied by Iroquoian

tribes, surrounded on almost all sides by their Algonquian

neighbors. On the south the Algonquian tribes were bordered by

those of Iroquoian and Siouan (Catawba) stock, on the

southwest and west by the Muskhogean and Siouan tribes, and on

the northwest by the Kitunahan and the great Athapascan

families, while along the coast of Labrador and the eastern

shore of Hudson Bay they came in contact with the Eskimo, who

were gradually retreating before them to the north. In

Newfoundland they encountered the Beothukan family, consisting

of but a single tribe. A portion of the Shawnee at some early

period had separated from the main body of the tribe in

central Tennessee and pushed their way down to the Savannah

River in South Carolina, where, known as Savannahs, they

carried on destructive wars with the surrounding tribes until

about the beginning of the 18th century they were finally

driven out and joined the Delaware in the north. Soon

afterwards the rest of the tribe was expelled by the Cherokee

and Chicasa, who thenceforward claimed all the country

stretching north to the Ohio River. The Cheyenne and Arapaho,

two allied tribes of this stock, had become separated from

their kindred on the north and had forced their way through

hostile tribes across the Missouri to the Black Hills country

of South Dakota, and more recently into Wyoming and Colorado,

thus forming the advance guard of the Algonquian stock in that

direction, having the Siouan tribes behind them and those of

the Shoshonean family in front. [The following are the]

principal tribes: Abnaki, Algonquin, Arapaho, Cheyenne, Conoy,

Cree, Delaware, Fox, Illinois, Kickapoo, Mahican, Massachuset,

Menominee, Miami, Micmac, Mohegan, Montagnais, Montauk,

Munsee, Nanticoke, Narraganset, Nauset, Nipmuc, Ojibwa,

Ottawa, Pamlico, Pennacook, Pequot, Piankishaw, Pottawotomi,

Powhatan, Sac, Shawnee, Siksika, Wampanoag, Wappinger. The

present number of the Algonquian stock is about 95,600, of

whom about 60,000 are in Canada and the remainder in the

United States."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, pages 47-48.

ALSO IN

J. W. De Forest, History of the Indians of Connecticut.

A. Gallatin, Synopsis of the Indian Tribes (Archæologia

Americana, volume 2), intro., section 2.

S. G. Drake, Aboriginal Races of N. Am., book 2-3.

See, also, below:

DELAWARES; HORIKANS; SHAWANESE; SUSQUEHANNAS; OJIBWAS;

ILLINOIS.

For the Indian wars of New England,

See NEW ENGLAND:

A. D. 1637 (THE PEQUOT WAR);

A. D. 1674-1675 to 1676-1678 (KING PHILIP'S WAR).

See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR.

{79}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Alibamus, or Alabamas.

See below: MUSKHOOEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Alleghans, or Allegewi, or Talligewi.

"The oldest tribe of the United States, of which there is a

distinct tradition, were the Alleghans. The term is

perpetuated in the principal chain of mountains traversing the

country. This tribe, at an antique period, had the seat of

their power in the Ohio Valley and its confluent streams,

which were the sites of their numerous towns and villages.

They appear originally to have borne the name of Alli, or

Alleg, and hence the names of Talligewi and Allegewi. (Trans.

Am. Phi. Society, volume 1.) By adding to the radical of this

word the particle 'hany' or 'ghany,' meaning river, they

described the principal scene of their residence--namely, the

Alleghany, or River of the Alleghans, now called Ohio. The

word Ohio is of Iroquois origin, and of a far later period;

having been bestowed by them after their conquest of the

country, in alliance with the Lenapees, or ancient Delawares.

(Phi. Trans.) The term was applied to the entire river, from

its confluence with the Mississippi, to its origin in the

broad spurs of the Alleghanies, in New York and Pennsylvania.

... There are evidences of antique labors in the alluvial

plains and valleys of the Scioto, Miami, and Muskingum, the

Wabash, Kaskaskia, Cahokia, and Illinois, denoting that the

ancient Alleghans, and their allies and confederates,

cultivated the soil, and were semi-agriculturists. These

evidences have been traced, at late periods, to the fertile

table-lands of Indiana and Michigan. The tribes lived in fixed

towns, cultivating extensive fields of the zea-maize; and

also, as denoted by recent discoveries, ... of some species of

beans, vines, and esculents. They were, in truth, the mound

builders."

H. R. Schoolcraft, Information respecting the Indian

Tribes, part 5, page 133.

This conclusion, to which Mr. Schoolcraft had arrived, that

the ancient Alleghans or Tallegwi were the mound builders of

the Ohio Valley is being sustained by later investigators, and

seems to have become an accepted opinion among those of

highest authority. The Alleghans, moreover, are being

identified with the Cherokees of later times, in whom their

race, once supposed to be extinct, has apparently survived;

while the fact, long suspected, that the Cherokee language is

of the Iroquois family is being proved by the latest studies.

According to Indian tradition, the Alleghans were driven from

their ancient seats, long ago, by a combination against them

of the Lenape (Delawares) and the Mengwe (Iroquois). The route

of their migrations is being traced by the character of the

mounds which they built, and of the remains gathered from the

mounds. "The general movement [of retreat before the Iroquois

and Lenape] ... must have been southward, ... and the exit of

the Ohio mound-builders was, in all probability, up the

Kanawah Valley on the same line that the Cherokees appear to

have followed in reaching their historical locality. ... If

the hypothesis here advanced be correct, it is apparent that

the Cherokees entered the immediate valley of the Mississippi

from the northwest, striking it in the region of Iowa."

C. Thomas, The Problem of the Ohio Mounds (Bureau of

Ethnology, 1889).

ALSO IN The same,

Burial Mounds of the Northern Sections of the U. S.

(Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1883-84).

J. Heckewelder, Account of the Indian Nations, chapter 1.

See, below:

CHEROKEES, and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY;

also AMERICA, PREHISTORIC.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Amahuacas.

See below: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Andastés.

See below: SUSQUEHANNAS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Andesians.

"The term Andesians or Antesians, is used with geographical

rather than ethnological limits, and embraces a number of

tribes. First of these are the Cofan in Equador, east of

Chimborazo. They fought valiantly against the Spaniards, and

in times past killed many of the missionaries sent among them.

Now they are greatly reduced and have become more gentle. The

Huamaboya are their near neighbors. The Jivara, west of the

river Pastaca, are a warlike tribe, who, possibly through a

mixture of Spanish blood, have a European cast of countenance

and a beard. The half Christian Napo or Quijo and their

peaceful neighbors, the Zaporo, live on the Rio Napo. The

Yamco, living on the lower Chambiva and crossing the Marañon,

wandering as far as Saryacu, have a clearer complexion. The

Pacamora and the Yuguarzongo live on the Maranon, where it

leaves its northerly course and bends toward the east. The

Cochiquima live on the lower Yavari; the Mayoruna, or Barbudo,

on the middle Ucayali beside the Campo and Cochibo, the most

terrible of South American Indians; they dwell in the woods

between the Tapiche and the Marañon, and like the Jivaro have

a beard. The Pano, who formerly dwelt in the territory of

Lalaguna, but who now live in villages on the upper Ucayali,

are Christians. ... Their language is the principal one on the

river, and it is shared by seven other tribes called

collectively by the missionaries Manioto or Mayno. ... Within

the woods on the right bank live the Amahuaca and Shacaya. On

the north they join the Remo, a powerful tribe who are

distinguished from all the others by the custom of tattooing.

Outside this Pano linguistic group stand the Campa, Campo, or

Antis on the east slope of the Peruvian Cordillera at the

source of the Rio Beni and its tributaries. The Chontaquiros,

or Piru, now occupy almost entirely the bank of the Ucayali

below the Pachilia. The Mojos or Moxos live in the Bolivian

province of Moxos with the small tribes of the Baure, Itonama,

Pacaguara. A number of smaller tribes belonging to the

Antesian group need not be enumerated. The late Professor

James Orton described the Indian tribes of the territory

between Quito and the river Amazon. The Napo approach the type

of the Quichua. ... Among all the Indians of the Provincia del

Oriente, the tribe of Jivaro is one of the largest. These

people are divided into a great number of sub-tribes. All of

these speak the clear musical Jivaro language. They are

muscular, active men. ... The Morona are cannibals in the full

sense of the word. ... The Campo, still very little known, is

perhaps the largest Indian tribe in Eastern Peru, and,

according to some, is related to the Inca race, or at least

with their successors. They are said to be cannibals, though

James Orton does not think this possible. ... The nearest

neighbors of the Campo are the Chontakiro, or Chontaquiro, or

Chonquiro, called also Piru, who, according to Paul Marcoy,

are said to be of the same origin with the Campo; but the

language is wholly different. ... Among the Pano people are

the wild Conibo; they are the most interesting, but are

passing into extinction."

The Standard Natural History (J. S. Kingsley, editor),

volume 6, pages 227-231.

{80}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Apache Group [Footnote: See Note, Appendix E.]

Under the general name of the Apaches "I include all the

savage tribes roaming through New Mexico, the north-western

portion of Texas, a small part of northern Mexico, and

Arizona. ... Owing to their roving proclivities and incessant

raids they are led first in one direction and then in another.

In general terms they may be said to range about as follows:

The Comanches, Jetans, or Nauni, consisting of three tribes,

the Comanches proper, the Yamparacks, and Tenawas, inhabiting

northern Texas, eastern Chihuahua, Nuevo Leon, Coahuila,

Durango, and portions of south-western New Mexico, by language

allied to the Shoshone family; the Apaches, who call

themselves Shis Inday, or 'men of the woods,' and whose tribal

divisions are the Chiricaguis, Coyoteros, Faraones, Gileños,

Lipanes, Llaneros, Mescaleros, Mimbreños, Natages, Pelones,

Pinaleños, Tejuas, Tontos, and Vaqueros, roaming over New

Mexico, Arizona, North-western Texas, Chihuahua and Sonora,

and who are allied by language to the great Tinneh family; the

Navajos, or Tenuai, 'men,' as they designate themselves,

having linguistic affinities with the Apache nation, with

which they are sometimes classed, living in and around the

Sierra de los Mimbres; the Mojaves, occupying both banks of

the Colorado in Mojave Valley; the Hualapais, near the

head-waters of Bill Williams Fork; the Yumas, on the east bank

of the Colorado, near its junction with the Rio Gila; the

Cosninos, who, like the Hualapais, are sometimes included in

the Apache nation, ranging through the Mogollon Mountains; and

the Yampais, between Bill Williams Fork and the Rio

Hassayampa. ... The Apache country is probably the most desert

of all. ... In both mountain and desert the fierce, rapacious

Apache, inured from childhood to hunger and thirst, and heat

and cold, finds safe retreat. ... The Pueblos ... are nothing

but partially reclaimed Apaches or Comanches."

H. H. Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States,

volume 1, chapter 5.

Dr. Brinton prefers the name Yuma for the whole of

the Apache Group, confining the name Apache (that being the

Yuma word for "fighting men") to the one tribe so called. "It

has also been called the Katchan or Cuchan stock."

D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 109.

See, also, below: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Apalaches.

"Among the aboriginal tribes of the United States perhaps none

is more enigmatical than the Apalaches. They are mentioned as

an important nation by many of the early French and Spanish

travellers and historians, their name is preserved by a bay

and river on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, and by the

great eastern coast range of mountains, and has been applied

by ethnologists to a family of cognate nations that found

their hunting grounds from the Mississippi to the Atlantic and

from the Ohio river to the Florida Keys; yet, strange to say,

their own race and place have been but guessed at." The

derivation of the name of the Apalaches "has been a 'questio

vexata' among Indianologists." We must "consider it an

indication of ancient connections with the southern continent,

and in itself a pure Carib word. 'Apáliché' in the Tamanaca

dialect of the Guaranay stem on the Orinoco signifies 'man,'

and the earliest application of the name in the northern

continent was as the title of the chief of a country, 'l'homme

par excellence,' and hence, like very many other Indian tribes

(Apaches, Lenni Lenape, Illinois), his subjects assumed by

eminence the proud appellation of 'The Men.' ... We have ...

found that though no general migration took place from the

continent southward, nor from the islands northward, yet there

was a considerable intercourse in both directions; that not

only the natives of the greater and lesser Antilles and

Yucatan, but also numbers of the Guaranay stem of the southern

continent, the Caribs proper, crossed the Straits of Florida

and founded colonies on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico; that

their customs and language became to a certain extent grafted

upon those of the early possessors of the soil; and to this

foreign language the name Apalache belongs. As previously

stated, it was used as a generic title, applied to a

confederation of many nations at one time under the domination

of one chief, whose power probably extended from the Alleghany

mountains on the north to the shore of the Gulf; that it

included tribes speaking a tongue closely akin to the Choktah

is evident from the fragments we have remaining. ... The

location of the tribe in after years is very uncertain. Dumont

placed them in the northern part of what is now Alabama and

Georgia, near the mountains that bear their name. That a

portion of them did live in this vicinity is corroborated by

the historians of South Carolina, who say that Colonel Moore,

in 1703, found them 'between the head-waters of the Savannah

and Altamaha.' ... According to all the Spanish authorities,

on the other hand, they dwelt in the region of country between

the Suwannee and Appalachicola rivers--yet must not be

confounded with the Apalachicolos. ... They certainly had a

large and prosperous town in this vicinity, said to contain

1,000 warriors. ... I am inclined to believe that these were

different branches of the same confederacy. ... In the

beginning of the 18th century they suffered much from the

devastations of the English, French and Creeks. ... About the

time Spain regained possession of the soil, they migrated to

the West and settled on the Bayou Rapide of Red River. Here

they had a village numbering about 50 souls."

D. G. Brinton, Notes on the Floridian Peninsula,

chapter 2.

See, also, below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Apelousas.

See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Araicu.

See below: GUCK ON COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Arapahoes.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Araucanians.

See CHILE.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Arawaks, or Arauacas.

See below: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Arecunas.

See below: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Arikaras.

See below: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Arkansas.

See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Assiniboins.

See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Athapascan Family.

Chippewyans.

Tinneh.

Sarcees [Footnote: See Note, Appendix E.]

"This name [Athapascans or Athabascans] has been applied to a

class of tribes who are situated north of the great Churchill

river, and north of the source of the fork of the

Saskatchawine, extending westward till within about 150 miles

of the Pacific Ocean. ... The name is derived, arbitrarily,

from Lake Athabasca, which is now more generally called the

Lake of the Hills. Surrounding this lake extends the tribe of

the Chippewyans, a people so-called by the Kenistenos and

Chippewas, because they were found to be clothed, in some

primary encounter, in the scanty garb of the fisher's skin.

... We are informed by Mackenzie that the territory occupied

by the Chippewyans extends between the parallels of 60° and

65° North and longitudes from 100° to 110° West."

H. R. Schoolcraft, Information Respecting the Indian

Tribes, part 5, page 172.

{81}

"The Tinneh may be divided into four great families of

nations; namely, the Chippewyans, or Athabascas, living

between Hudson Bay and the Rocky Mountains; the Tacullies, or

Carriers, of New Caledonia or North-western British America;

the Kutchins, occupying both banks of the Upper Yukon and its

tributaries, from near its mouth to the Mackenzie River, and

the Kenai, inhabiting the interior from the lower Yukon to

Copper River."

H. H. Bancroft, The Native Races of the Pacific States,

chapter 2.

"The Indian tribes of Alaska and the adjacent region may be

divided into two groups. ...

1. Tinneh--Chippewyans of

authors. ... Father Petitot discusses the terms Athabaskans,

Chippewayans, Montagnais, and Tinneh as applied to this group

of Indians. ... This great family includes a large number of

American tribes extending from near the mouth of the Mackenzie

south to the borders of Mexico. The Apaches and Navajos belong

to it, and the family seems to intersect the continent of

North America in a northerly and southerly direction,

principally along the flanks of the Rocky Mountains. ... The

designation [Tinneh] proposed by Messrs. Ross and Gibbs has

been accepted by most modern ethnologists. ...

2. T'linkets, which family includes the Yakutats and other

groups.

W. H. Dall, Tribes of the Extreme Northwest

(Contributions to North American Ethnology, volume 1).

"Wherever found, the members of this group present a certain

family resemblance. In appearance they are tall and strong,

the forehead low with prominent superciliary ridges, the eyes

slightly oblique, the nose prominent but wide toward the base,

the mouth large, the hands and feet small. Their strength and

endurance are often phenomenal, but in the North, at least,

their longevity is slight, few living beyond fifty.

Intellectually they rank below most of their neighbors, and

nowhere do they appear as fosterers of the germs of

civilization. Where, as among the Navajos, we find them having

some repute for the mechanical arts, it turns out that this is

owing to having captured and adopted the members of more

gifted tribes. ... Agriculture was not practised either in the

north or south, the only exception being the Navajos, and with

them the inspiration came from other stocks. ... The most

cultured of their bands were the Navajos, whose name is said

to signify 'large cornfields,' from their extensive

agriculture. When the Spaniards first met them in 1541 they

were tillers of the soil, erected large granaries for their

crops, irrigated their fields by artificial water courses or

acequias, and lived in substantial dwellings, partly

underground; but they had not then learned the art of weaving

the celebrated 'Navajo blankets,' that being a later

acquisition of their artisans."

D. G. Brinton, The American Race, pages 69-72.

See, above, APACHE GROUP, and BLACKFEET.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Atsinas (Caddoes).

See Note, Appendix E.

See below: BLACKFEET.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Attacapan Family.

"Derivation: From a Choctaw word meaning 'man-eater.' Little

is known of the tribe, the language of which forms the basis

of the present family. The sole knowledge possessed by

Gallatin was derived from a vocabulary and some scanty

information furnished by Dr. John Sibley, who collected his

material in the year 1805. Gallatin states that the tribe was

reduced to 50 men. ... Mr. Gatschet collected some 2,000 words

and a considerable body of text. His vocabulary differs

considerably from the one furnished by Dr. Sibley and

published by Gallatin. ... The above material seems to show

that the Attacapa language is distinct from all others, except

possibly the Chitimachan."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, page 57.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Aymaras.

See PERU.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Aztecs.

See below: MAYAS;

also MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502;

and AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE WRITING.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Bakairi.

See below: CARIBS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Balchitas.

See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Bannacks.

See below: SNOSHONEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Barbudo.

See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Baré.

See below: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Baure.

See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Beothukan Family.

The Beothuk were a tribe, now extinct, which is believed to

have occupied the whole of Newfoundland at the time of its

discovery. What is known of the language of the Beothuk

indicates no relationship to any other American tongue.

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of

Ethnology, page 57.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Biloxis.

See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Blackfeet, or Siksikas.

See Note, Appendix E.

"The tribe that wandered the furthest from the primitive home

of the stock [the Algonquian] were the Blackfeet, or Sisika,

which word has this signification. It is derived from their

earlier habitat in the valley of the Red river of the north,

where the soil was dark and blackened their moccasins. Their

bands include the Blood or Kenai and the Piegan Indians. Half

a century ago they were at the head of a confederacy which

embraced these and also the Sarcee (Tinné) and the Atsina

(Caddo) nations, and numbered about 30,000 souls. They have an

interesting mythology and an unusual knowledge of the

constellations."

D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 79.

SEE above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;

And, below: FLATHEADS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Blood, or Kenai Indians.

See above: BLACKFEET.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Botocudos.

See below: TUPI.--GUARANI.--TUPUYAS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Brulé:

See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Caddoan Family.

See below: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY;

See, also, TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Cakchiquels.

See below: QUICHES, and MAYAS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Calusa.

See below: TUMUQUANAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Cambas, or Campo, or Campa.

See above: ANDESIANS;

also, BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Cañares.

See ECUADOR.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Canas.

See PERU.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Canichanas.

See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

{82}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Caniengas.

See below: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Cariay.

See below: GUCK OR COCO Group.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Caribs and their Kindred.

"The warlike and unyielding character of these people, so

different from that of the pusillanimous nations around them,

and the wide scope of their enterprises and wanderings, like

those of the nomad tribes of the Old World, entitle them to

distinguished attention. ... The traditional accounts of their

origin, though of course extremely vague, are yet capable of

being verified to a great degree by geographical facts, and

open one of the rich veins of curious inquiry and speculation

which abound in the New World. They are said to have migrated

from the remote valleys embosomed in the Apalachian mountains.

The earliest accounts we have of them represent them with

weapons in their hands, continually engaged in wars, winning

their way and shifting their abode, until, in the course of

time, they found themselves at the extremity of Florida. Here,

abandoning the northern continent, they passed over to the

Lucayos [Bahamas], and thence gradually, in the process of

years, from island to island of that vast verdant chain, which

links, as it were, the end of Florida to the coast of Paria,

on the southern continent. The archipelago extending from

Porto Rico to Tobago was their stronghold, and the island of

Guadaloupe in a manner their citadel. Hence they made their

expeditions, and spread the terror of their name through all

the surrounding countries. Swarms of them landed upon the

southern continent, and overran some parts of terra firma.

Traces of them have been discovered far in the interior of

that vast country through which flows the Oroonoko. The Dutch

found colonies of them on the banks of the Ikouteka, which

empties into the Surinam; along the Esquibi, the Maroni, and

other rivers of Guayana; and in the country watered by the

windings of the Cayenne."

W. Irving, Life and Voyages of Columbus, book 6, chapter 3

(volume 1).

"To this account [substantially as given above] of the origin

of the Insular Charaibes, the generality of historians have

given their assent; but there are doubts attending it that are

not easily solved. If they migrated from Florida, the

imperfect state and natural course of their navigation induce

a belief that traces of them would have been found on those

islands which are near to the Florida shore; let the natives

of the Bahamas, when discovered by Columbus, were evidently a

similar people to those of Hispaniola. Besides, it is

sufficiently known that there existed anciently many numerous

and powerful tribes of Charaibes on the southern peninsula,

extending from the river Oronoko to Essequebe, and throughout

the whole province of Surinam, even to Brazil, some of which

still maintain their independency. ... I incline therefore to

the opinion of Martyr, and conclude that the islanders were

rather a colony from the Charaibes of South America, than from

any nation of the North. Rochefort admits that their own

traditions referred constantly to Guiana."

B. Edwards, History of British Colonies in the West

Indies, book 1, chapter 2.

"The Carabisce, Carabeesi, Charaibes, Caribs, or Galibis,

originally occupied [in Guiana] the principal rivers, but as

the Dutch encroached upon their possessions they retired

inland, and are now daily dwindling away. According to Mr.

Hillhouse, they could formerly muster nearly 1,000 fighting

men, but are now [1855] scarcely able to raise a tenth part of

that number. ... The smaller islands of the Caribbean Sea were

formerly thickly populated by this tribe, but now not a trace of

them remains."

H. G. Dalton, History of British Guiana, volume 1, chapter 1.

E. F. im Thurn, Among the Indians of Guiana, chapter 6.

"Recent researches have shown that the original home of the

stock was south of the Amazon, and probably in the highlands

at the head of the Tapajoz river. A tribe, the Bakairi, is

still resident there, whose language is a pure and archaic

form of the Carib tongue."

D. G. Brinton, Races and Peoples, page 268.

"Related to the Caribs stand a long list of small tribes ...

all inhabitants of the great primeval forest in and near

Guiana. They may have characteristic differences, but none

worthy of mention are known. In bodily appearance, according

to all accounts, these relatives of the Caribs are beautiful.

In Georgetown the Arauacas [or Arawaks] are celebrated for

their beauty. They are slender and graceful, and their

features handsome and regular, the face having a Grecian

profile, and the skin being of a reddish cast. A little

farther inland we find the Macushi [or Macusis], with a

lighter complexion and a Roman nose. These two types are

repeated in other tribes, except in the Tarumi, who are

decidedly ugly. In mental characteristics great similarity

prevails."

The Standard Natural History

(J. S. Kingsley, ed.), page 237.

"The Arawaks occupied on the continent the area of the modern

Guiana, between the Corentyn and the Pomeroon rivers, and at

one time all the West Indian Islands. From some of them they

were early driven by the Caribs, and within 40 years of the

date of Columbus' first voyage the Spanish had exterminated

nearly all on the islands. Their course of migration had been

from the interior of Brazil northward; their distant relations

are still to be found between the headwaters of the Paraguay

and Schingu rivers."

D. G. Brinton, Races and Peoples, page 268-269.

"The Kapohn (Acawoios, Waikas, &c.) claim kindred with the

Caribs. ... The Acawoios, though resolute and determined, are

less hasty and impetuous than the Caribs. ... According to

their tradition, one of their hordes removed [to the Upper

Demerera] ... from the Masaruni. The Parawianas, who

originally dwelt on the Demerera, having been exterminated by

the continual incursions of the Caribs, the Waika-Acawoios

occupied their vacant territory. ... The Macusis ... are

supposed by some to have formerly inhabited the banks of the

Orinoco. ... As they are industrious and unwarlike, they have

been the prey of every savage tribe around them. The

Wapisianas are supposed to have driven them northward and

taken possession of their country. The Brazilians, as well as

the Caribs, Acawoios, &c., have long been in the habit of

enslaving them. ... The Arecunas have been accustomed to

descend from the higher lands and attack the Macusis. ... This

tribe is said to have formerly dwelt on the banks of the

Uaupes or Ucayari, a tributary of the Rio Negro. ... The

Waraus appear to have been the most ancient inhabitants of the

land. Very little, however, can be gleaned from them

respecting their early history. ... The Tivitivas, mentioned

by Raleigh, were probably a branch of the Waraus, whom he

calls Quarawetes."

W. H. Brett, Indian Tribes of Guiana,

part 2, chapter 13.

{83}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Caripuna.

See below: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Cat Nation, or Eries.

See below: HURONS, &c.,

and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR CONQUESTS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Catawbas, or Kataba.

See below: SIOUAN FAMILY;

also, TIMUQUANAN.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Cayugas.

See below: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Chancas.

See PERU.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Chapas, or Chapanecs.

See below: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Cherokees.

"The Cherokee tribe has long been a puzzling factor to

students of ethnology and North American languages. Whether to

be considered an abnormal offshoot from one of the well-known

Indian stocks or families of North America, or the remnant of

some undetermined or almost extinct family which has merged

into another, appear to be questions yet unsettled."

C. Thomas, Burial Mounds of the Northern Sections of the

United States (Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of

Ethnology, 1883-4).

Facts which tend to identify the Cherokees with the ancient

"mound-builders" of the Ohio Valley--the Alleghans or

Talligewi of Indian tradition--are set forth by Professor Thomas

in a later paper, on the Problem of the Ohio Mounds, published

by the Bureau of Ethnology in 1889 [see above: ALLEGHANS] and

in a little book published in 1890, entitled "The Cherokees in

Pre-Columbian Times." "The Cherokee nation has probably

occupied a more prominent place in the affairs and history of

what is now the United States of America, since the date of

the early European settlements, than any other tribe, nation,

or confederacy of Indians, unless it be possible to except the

powerful and warlike league of the Iroquois or Six Nations of

New York. It is almost certain that they were visited at a

very early period [1540] following the discovery of the

American continent by that daring and enthusiastic Spaniard,

Fernando de Soto. ... At the time of the English settlement of

the Carolinas the Cherokees occupied a diversified and

well-watered region of country of large extent upon the waters

of the Catawba, Broad, Saluda, Keowee, Tugaloo, Savannah, and

Coosa rivers on the east and south, and several tributaries of

the Tennessee on the north and west. ... In subsequent years,

through frequent and long continued conflicts with the ever

advancing white settlements, and the successive treaties

whereby the Cherokees gradually yielded portions of their

domain, the location and names of their towns were continually

changing until the final removal of the nation [1836-1839]

west of the Mississippi. ... This removal turned the Cherokees

back in the calendar of progress and civilization at least a

quarter of a century. The hardships and exposures of the

journey, coupled with the fevers and malaria of a radically

different climate, cost the lives of perhaps 10 per cent. of

their total population. The animosities and turbulence born of

the treaty of 1835 not only occasioned the loss of many lives,

but rendered property insecure, and in consequence diminished

the zeal and industry of the entire community in its

accumulation. A brief period of comparative quiet, however,

was again characterized by an advance toward a higher

civilization. Five years after their removal we find from the

report of their agent that they are again on the increase in

population. ... With the exception of occasional

drawbacks--the result of civil feuds--the progress of the

nation in education, industry and civilization continued until

the outbreak of the rebellion. At this period, from the best

attainable information, the Cherokees numbered 21,000 souls.

The events of the war brought to them more of desolation and

ruin than perhaps to any other community. Raided and sacked

alternately, not only by the Confederates and Union forces,

but by the vindictive ferocity and hate of their own factional

divisions, their country became a blackened and desolate

waste. ... The war over, and the work of reconstruction

commenced, found them numbering 14,000 impoverished,

heart-broken, and revengeful people. ... To-day their country

is more prosperous than ever. They number 22,000, a greater

population than they have had at any previous period, except

perhaps just prior to the date of the treaty of 1835, when

those east added to those west of the Mississippi are stated

to have aggregated nearly 25,000 people. To-day they have

2,300 scholars attending 75 schools, established and supported

by themselves at an annual expense to the nation of nearly

$100,000. To-day, 13,000 of their people can read and 18,000

can speak the English language. To-day, 5,000 brick, frame and

log-houses are occupied by them, and they have 64 churches

with a membership of several thousand. They cultivate 100,000

acres of land and have an additional 150,000 fenced. ... They

have a constitutional form of government predicated upon that

of the United States. As a rule their laws are wise and

beneficent and are enforced with strictness and justice. ...

The present Cherokee population is of a composite character.

Remnants of other nations or tribes [Delawares, Shawnees,

Creeks, Natchez] have from time to time been absorbed and

admitted to full participation in the benefits of Cherokee

citizenship."

C. C. Royce, The Cherokee Nation of Indians (Fifth

Annual Reportt of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1883-84).

This elaborate paper by Mr. Royce is a narrative in detail of

the official relations of the Cherokees with the colonial and

federal governments, from their first treaty with South

Carolina, in 1721, down to the treaty of April 27, 1868.--"As

early as 1798 Barton compared the Cheroki language with that

of the Iroquois and stated his belief that there was a

connection between them. ... Mr. Hale was the first to give

formal expression to his belief in the affinity of the Cheroki

to Iroquois. Recently extensive Cheroki vocabularies have come

into possession of the Bureau of Ethnology, and a careful

comparison of them with ample Iroquois material has been made

by Mr Hewitt. The result is convincing proof of the

relationship of the two languages."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of

Ethnology, page 77.

See Note, Appendix: E.

ALSO IN

S. G. Drake, The Aboriginal Races of North America, book

4, chapter 13-16.

See, above: ALLEGHANS.

See, also, for an account of the Cherokee War of 1759-1761,

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761; and for "Lord Dunmore's

War," OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Cheyennes, or Sheyennes.

See above; ALGONQUIAN FAMILY

{84}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Chibchas.

The most northerly group of the tribes of the Andes "are the

Cundinamarca of the table lands of Bogota. At the time of the

conquest the watershed of the Magdalena was occupied by the

Chibcha, or, as they were called by the Spaniards, Muyscas. At

that time the Chibcha were the most powerful of all the

autochthonous tribes, had a long history behind them, were

well advanced toward civilization, to which numerous

antiquities bear witness. The Chibcha of to-day no longer

speak the well-developed and musical language of their

forefathers. It became extinct about 1730, and it can now only

be inferred from existing dialects of it; these are the

languages of the Turiero, a tribe dwelling north of Bogota,

and of the Itoco Indians who live in the neighborhood of the

celebrated Emerald mines of Muzo."

The Standard Natural History (J. S. Kingsley, editor)

volume 6, page 215.

"As potters and goldsmiths they [the Chibcha] ranked among the

finest on the continent."

D. G. Brinton, Races and Peoples, page 272.

See, also, COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Chicasas.

See below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY;

also, LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Chichimecs.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Chimakuan Family.

"The Chimakum are said to have been formerly one of the

largest and most powerful tribes of Puget Sound. Their

warlike habits early tended to diminish their numbers, and

when visited by Gibbs in 1854 they counted only about 70

individuals. This small remnant occupied some 15 small lodges

on Port Townsend Bay."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, page 62.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Chimarikan Family.

"According to Powers, this family was represented, so far as

known, by two tribes in California, one the Chi-mál-a-kwe,

living on New River, a branch of the Trinity, the other the

Chimariko, residing upon the Trinity itself from Burnt Ranch

up to the mouth of North Fork, California. The two tribes are

said to have been as numerous formerly as the Hupa, by whom

they were overcome and nearly exterminated. Upon the arrival

of the Americans only 25 of the Chimalakwe were left."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, page 63.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Chinantecs.

See below: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Chinookan Family.

"The banks of the Columbia, from the Grand Dalles to its

mouth, belong to the two branches of the Tsinuk [or Chinook]

nation, which meet in the neighborhood of the Kowlitz River,

and of which an almost nominal remnant is left. ... The

position of the Tsinuk previous to their depopulation was, as

at once appears, most important, occupying both sides of the

great artery of Oregon for a distance of 200 miles, they

possessed the principal thoroughfare between the interior and

the ocean, boundless resources of provisions of various kinds,

and facilities for trade almost unequalled on the Pacific."

G. Gibbs, Tribes of West Washington and N. W. Oregon

(Contributions to North American Ethnology, volume 1),

page 164.

See, also, below: FLATHEADS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Chippewas.

See below: OJIBWAS;

and above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Chippewyans.

See below: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Choctaws.

See below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Chontals and Popolocas.

"According to the census of 1880 there were 31,000 Indians in

Mexico belonging to the Familia Chontal. No such family

exists. The word 'chontalli' in the Nahuatl language means

simply 'stranger,' and was applied by the Nahuas to any people

other than their own. According to the Mexican statistics, the

Chontals are found in the states of Mexico, Puebla, Oaxaca,

Guerrero, Tabasco, Guatemala and Nicaragua. A similar term is

'popoloca,' which in Nahuatl means a coarse fellow, one

speaking badly, that is, broken Nahuatl. The Popolocas have

also been erected into an ethnic entity by some ethnographers,

with as little justice as the Chontallis. They are stated to

have lived in the provinces of Puebla, Oaxaca, Vera Cruz,

Mechoacan and Guatemala."

D. G. Brinton, The American Race, pages 146-153.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Chontaquiros.

See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Chumashan Family.

"Derivation: From Chumash, the name of the Santa Rosa

Islanders. The several dialects of this family have long been

known under the group or family name, 'Santa Barbara,' which

seems first to have been used in a comprehensive sense by

Latham in 1856, who included under it three languages, viz.:

Santa Barbara, Santa Inez, and San Luis Obispo. The term has

no special pertinence as a family designation, except from the

fact that the Santa Barbara Mission, around which one of the

dialects of the family was spoken, is perhaps more widely

known than any of the others."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, page 67.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Cliff-dwellers.

See AMERICA: PREHISTORIC.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Coahuiltecan Family.

"Derivation: From the name of the Mexican State Coahuila. This

family appears to have included numerous tribes in

southwestern Texas and in Mexico. ... A few Indians still

survive who speak one of the dialects of this family, and in

1886 Mr. Gatschet collected vocabularies of two tribes, the

Comecrudo and Cotoname, who live on the Rio Grande, at Las

Prietas, State of Tamaulipas."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, page 68.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Coajiro, or Guajira.

"An exceptional position is taken, in many respects, by the

Coajiro, or Guajira, who live on the peninsula of the same

name on the northwestern boundary of Venezuela. Bounded on all

sides by so-called civilized peoples, this Indian tribe is

known to have maintained its independence, and acquired the

well-deserved reputation for cruelty, a tribe which, in many

respects, can be classed with the Apaches and Comanches of New

Mexico, the Araucanians of Chili, and the Guaycara and Guarani

on the Parana. The Coajiro are mostly large, with

chestnut-brown complexion and black, sleek hair. While all the

other coast tribes have adopted the Spanish language, the

Coajiro have preserved their own speech. They are the especial

foes of the other peoples. No one is given entrance into their

land, and they live with their neighbors, the Venezuelans, in

constant hostilities. They have fine horses, which they know

how to ride excellently. ... They have numerous herds of

cattle. ... They follow agriculture a little."

The Standard Natural History (J. S. Kingsley, editor),

volume 6, page 243.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Cochibo.

See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Cochiquima.

See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Coco Group.

See below: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Coconoons.

See below: MARIPOSAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Cofan.

See above: ANDESIANS.

{85}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Collas.

See PERU.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Comanches.

See below: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY,

and KIOWAN FAMILY;

and above: APACHE GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Conestogas.

See below: SUSQUEHANNAS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Conibo.

See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Conoys.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Copehan Family.

"The territory of the Copehan family is bounded on the north

by Mount Shasta and the territory of the Sastean and Lutuamian

families, on the east by the territory of the Palaihnihan,

Yanan, and Punjunan families, and on the south by the bays of

San Pablo and Suisun and the lower waters of the Sacramento."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,

page 69.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Costanoan Family.

"Derivation: From the Spanish costano, 'coast-men.' Under this

group name Latham included five tribes ... which were under

the supervision of the Mission Dolores. ... The territory of

the Costanoan family extends from the Golden Gate to a point

near the southern end of Monterey Bay. ... The surviving

Indians of the once populous tribes of this family are now

scattered over several counties and probably do not number,

all told, over 30 individuals, as was ascertained by Mr.

Henshaw in 1888. Most of these are to be found near the

towns of Santa Cruz and Monterey."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,

p, 71.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Creek Confederacy, Creek Wars.

See below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY;

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

and FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Crees.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Croatans,

See AMERICA: A. D. 1587-1590.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Crows (Upsarokas, or Absarokas).

See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Cuatos.

See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Cunimaré.

See below: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Cuyriri or Kiriri.

See below: GUCK on Coco GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Dakotas, or Dacotahs, or Dahcotas.

See below: SIOUAN FAMILY and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Delawares, or Lenape.

"The proper name of the Delaware Indians was and is Lenapé (a

as in father, é as a in mate). ... The Lenape were divided

into three sub-tribes:

1. The Minsi, Monseys, Montheys, Munsees, or Minisinks.

2. The Unami or Wonameys.

3. The Unalachtigo.

No explanation of these designations will be

found in Heckewelder or the older writers. From

investigations among living Delawares, carried out at my

request by Mr. Horatio Hale, it is evident that they are

wholly geographical, and refer to the location of these

sub-tribes on the Delaware river. ... The Minsi lived in the

mountainous region at the head waters of the Delaware, above

the Forks or junction of the Lehigh river. ... The Unamis'

territory on the right bank of the Delaware river extended

from the Lehigh Valley southward. It was with them and their

southern neighbors, the Unalachtigos, that Penn dealt for the

land ceded to him in the Indian deed of 1682. The Minsis did

not take part in the transaction, and it was not until 1737

that the Colonial authorities treated directly with the latter

for the cession of their territory. The Unalachtigo or Turkey

totem had its principal seat on the affluents of the Delawares

near where Wilmington now stands."

D. G. Brinton, The Lenape and Their Legends,

chapter 3.

"At the ... time when

William Penn landed in Pennsylvania, the Delawares had been

subjugated and made women by the Five Nations. It is well

known that, according to that Indian mode of expression, the

Delawares were henceforth prohibited from making war, and

placed under the sovereignty of the conquerors, who did not

even allow sales of land, in the actual possession of the

Delawares, to be valid without their approbation. William

Penn, his descendants, and the State of Pennsylvania,

accordingly, always purchased the right of possession from the

Delawares, and that of Sovereignty from the Five Nations. ...

The use of arms, though from very different causes, was

equally prohibited to the Delawares and to the Quakers. Thus

the colonization of Pennsylvania and of West New Jersey by the

British, commenced under the most favorable auspices. Peace

and the utmost harmony prevailed for more than sixty years

between the whites and the Indians; for these were for the

first time treated, not only justly, but kindly, by the

colonists. But, however gradually and peaceably their lands

might have been purchased, the Delawares found themselves at

last in the same situation as all the other Indians, without

lands of their own, and therefore without means of

subsistence. They were compelled to seek refuge on the waters

of the Susquehanna, as tenants at will, on lands belonging to

their hated conquerors, the Five Nations. Even there and on

the Juniata they were encroached upon. ... Under those

circumstances, many of the Delawares determined to remove west

of the Alleghany Mountains, and, about the year 1740-50,

obtained from their ancient allies and uncles, the Wyandots,

the grant of a derelict tract of land lying principally on the

Muskingum. The great body of the nation was still attached to

Pennsylvania. But the grounds of complaint increased. The

Delawares were encouraged by the western tribes, and by the

French, to shake off the yoke of the Six Nations, and to join

in the war against their allies, the British. The frontier

settlements of Pennsylvania were accordingly attacked both by

the Delawares and the Shawnoes. And, although peace was made

with them at Easton in in 1758, and the conquest of Canada put

an end to the general war, both the Shawnoes and Delawares

removed altogether in 1768 beyond the Alleghany Mountains. ...

The years 1765-1795 are the true period of the power and

importance of the Delawares. United with the Shawnoes, who

were settled on the Scioto, they sustained during the Seven

Years' War the declining power of France, and arrested for

some years the progress of the British and American arms.

Although a portion of the nation adhered to the Americans

during the War of Independence, the main body, together with

all the western nations made common cause with the British.

And, after the short truce which followed the treaty of 1783,

they were again at the head of the western confederacy in

their last struggle for independence. Placed by their

geographical situation in the front of battle, they were,

during those three wars, the aggressors, and, to the last

moment, the most active and formidable enemies of America. The

decisive victory of General Wayne (1794), dissolved the

confederacy; and the Delawares were the greatest sufferers by

the treaty of Greenville of 1795."

{86}

After this, the greater part of the Delawares were settled on

White River, Indiana, "till the year 1819, when they finally

ceded their claim to the United States. Those residing there

were then reduced to about 800 souls. A number ... had

previously removed to Canada; and it is difficult to ascertain

the situation or numbers of the residue at this time [1836].

Those who have lately removed west of the Mississippi are, in

an estimate of the War Department, computed at 400 souls.

Former emigrations to that quarter had however taken place,

and several small dispersed bands are, it is believed, united

with the Senecas and some other tribes."

A. Gallatin, Synopsis of the Indian Tribes (Archæologia

Americana, volume 2), introduction, section 2.

See, above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY:

below: SHAWANESE, and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

Also, PONTIAC'S WAR; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768;

and MORAVIAN BRETHREN;

and, for an account of "Lord Dunmore's War,"

see Ohio (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Eries.

See below: HURONS, &c.,

and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR CONQUESTS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Eskimauan Family.

"Save a slight inter-mixture of European settlers, the Eskimo

are the only inhabitants of the shores of Arctic America, and

of both sides of Davis Strait and Baffin Bay, including

Greenland, as well as a tract of about 400 miles on the

Behring Strait coast of Asia. Southward they extend as far as

about 50° North latitude on the eastern side, 60° on the

western side of America, and from 55° to 60° on the shores of

Hudson Bay. Only on the west the Eskimo near their frontier

are interrupted on two small spots of the coast by the Indians,

named Kennayans and Ugalenzes, who have there advanced to the

sea-shore for the sake of fishing. These coasts of Arctic

America, of course, also comprise all the surrounding islands.

Of these, the Aleutian Islands form an exceptional group; the

inhabitants of these on the one hand distinctly differing from

the coast people here mentioned, while on the other they show

a closer relationship to the Eskimo than any other nation. The

Aleutians, therefore, may be considered as only an abnormal

branch of the Eskimo nation. ... As regards their northern

limits, the Eskimo people, or at least remains of their

habitations, have been found nearly as far north as any Arctic

explorers have hitherto advanced: and very possibly bands of

them may live still farther to the north, as yet quite unknown

to us. ... On comparing the Eskimo with the neighbouring

nations, their physical complexion certainly seems to point at

an Asiatic origin; but, as far as we know, the latest

investigations have also shown a transitional link to exist

between the Eskimo and the other American nations, which would

sufficiently indicate the possibility of a common origin from

the same continent. As to their mode of life, the Eskimo

decidedly resemble their American neighbours. ... With regard

to their language, the Eskimo also appear akin to the American

nations in regard to its decidedly polysynthetic structure.

Here, however, on the other hand, we meet with some very

remarkable similarities between the Eskimo idiom and the

language of Siberia, belonging to the Altaic or Finnish group.

... According to the Sagas of the Icelanders, they were

already met with on the east coast of Greenland about the year

1000, and almost at the same time on the east coast of the

American continent. ... Between the years 1000 and 1300 they

do not seem to have occupied the land south of 65° North L. on

the west coast of Greenland, where the Scandinavian colonies

were then situated. But the colonists seem to have been aware

of their existence in higher latitudes, and to have lived in

fear of an attack by them, since, in the year 1266, an

expedition was sent out for the purpose of exploring the

abodes of the Skrælings, as they were called by the colonists.

... About the year 1450, the last accounts were received from

the colonies, and the way to Greenland was entirely forgotten

in the mother country.  ... The features of the natives in the

Southern part of Greenland indicate a mixed descent from the

Scandinavians and Eskimo, the former, however, not having left

the slightest sign of any influence on the nationality or

culture of the present natives. In the year 1585, Greenland

was discovered anew by John Davis, and found inhabited

exclusively by Eskimo."

H. Rink, Tales and Traditions of the Eskimo,

introduction and chapter 6.

H. Rink, The Eskimo tribes.

"In 1869, I proposed for the Aleuts and people of Innuit stock

collectively the term Orarians, as indicative of their

coastwise distribution, and as supplying the need of a general

term to designate a very well-defined race. ...The Orarians

are divided into two well-marked groups, namely the Innuits,

comprising all the so-called Eskimo and Tuskis, and the

Aleuts."

W. H. Dall, Tribes of the Extreme Northwest (Contributed

to North American Ethnology, volume 1), part 1.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Esselenian Family.

"The present family was included by Latham in the

heterogeneous group called by him Salinas. ... The term

Salinan [is now] restricted to the San Antonio and San Miguel

languages, leaving the present family ... [to be] called

Esselenian, from the name of the single tribe Esselen, of

which it is composed. ... The tribe or tribes composing this

family occupied a narrow strip of the California coast from

Monterey Bay south to the vicinity of the Santa Lucia

Mountain, a distance of about 50 miles."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, pages 75-76.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Etchemins.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Eurocs, or Yuroks.

See below: MODOCS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Five Nations.

See below: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Flatheads (Salishan Family).

See Note, Appendix E.

"The name Flathead was commonly given to the Choctaws, though,

says Du Pratz, he saw no reason why they should be so

distinguished, when the practice of flattening the head was so

general. And in the enumeration just cited [Documentary Hist.

of New York, volume 1, page 24] the next paragraph. ... is: 'The

Flatheads, Cherakis, Chicachas, and Totiris are included under

the name of Flatheads by the Iroquois."

M. F. Force, Some Early Notices of the Indians of Ohio,

page 32.

"The Salish ... are distinctively known as Flatheads, though

the custom of deforming the cranium is not confined to them."

D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 107.

"In ... early times the hunters and trappers could not

discover why the Blackfeet and Flatheads [of Montana] received

their respective designations, for the feet of the former are

no more inclined to sable than any other part of the body,

while the heads of the latter possess their fair proportion of

rotundity. Indeed it is only below the falls and rapids that

real Flatheads appear, and at the mouth of the Columbia that

they flourish most supernaturally. The tribes who practice the

custom of flattening the head, and who lived at the mouth of

the Columbia, differed little from each other in laws, manners

or customs, and were composed of the Cathlamahs, Killmucks,

Clatsops, Chinooks and Chilts. The abominable custom of

flattening their heads prevails among them all."

P. Ronan, Historical Sketch of the Flathead Indian

Nation, page 17.

In Major Powell's linguistic classification, the "Salishan

Family" (Flathead) is given a distinct place.

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of

Ethnology, page 102.

{87}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Fox Indians.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,

and below, SACS, &c.

For an account of the massacre of Fox Indians at Detroit in

1712,

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1711-1713.

For an account of the Black Hawk War,

See Illinois: A. D. 1832.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Fuegians.

See below: PATAGONIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Gausarapos or Guuchies.

See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Ges Tribes.

See below: TUPI.--GUARANI.--TUPUYAS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Gros Ventres (Minnetaree; Hidatsa).

See Note, Appendix E.

See below: HIDATSA;

also, above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Guaicarus.

See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Guajira.

See above: COAJIRO.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Guanas.

See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Guarani.

See below: TUPI.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Guayanas.

See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Guck or Coco Group.

An extensive linguistic group of tribes in Brazil, on and

north of the Amazon, extending as far as the Orinoco, has been

called the Guck, or Coco group. "There is no common name for

the group, that here used meaning a father's brother, a very

important personage in these tribes. The Guck group embraces a

large number of tribes. ... We need enumerate but few. The

Cuyriri or Kiriri (also known as Sabaja, Pimenteiras, etc.),

number about 3,000. Some of them are half civilized, some are

wild, and, without restraint, wander about, especially in the

mountains in the Province of Pernambuco. The Araicu live on

the lower Amazon and the Tocantins. Next come the Manaos, who

have a prospect of maintaining themselves longer than most

tribes. With them is connected the legend of the golden lord

who washed the gold dust from his limbs in a lake [see EL

DORADO].  ... The Uirina, Baré, and Cariay live on the Rio

Negro, the Cunimaré on the Jurua, the Maranha on the Jutay.

Whether the Chamicoco on the right bank of the Paraguay,

belong to the Guck is uncertain. Among the tribes which,

though very much mixed, are still to be enumerated with the

Guck, are the Tecuna and the Passé. In language the Tecunas

show many similarities to the Ges; they live on the western

borders of Brazil, and extend in Equador to the Pastaça. Among

them occur peculiar masques which strongly recall those found

on the northwest coast of North America. ... In the same

district belong the Uaupe, who are noticeable from the fact

that they live in barracks, indeed the only tribe in South

America in which this custom appears. The communistic houses

of the Uaupe are called 'malloca;' they are buildings of about

120 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 30 high, in which live a band

of about 100 persons in 12 families, each of the latter,

however, in its own room. ... Finally, complex tribes of the

most different nationality are comprehended under names which

indicate only a common way of life, but are also incorrectly

used as ethnographic names. These are Caripuna, Mura, and

Miranha, all of whom live in the neighborhood of the Madeira

River. Of the Caripuna or Jaûn-Avô (both terms signify

'watermen'), who are mixed with Quichua blood, it is related

that they not only ate human flesh, but even cured it for

preservation. ... Formerly the Mura ... were greatly feared;

this once powerful and populous tribe, however, was almost

entirely destroyed at the end of the last century by the

Mundruco; the remnant is scattered. ... The Mura are the

gypsies among the Indians on the Amazon; and by all the other

tribes they are regarded with a certain degree of contempt as

pariahs. ... Much to be feared, even among the Indians, are

also the Miranha (i. e., rovers, vagabonds), a still populous

tribe on the right bank of the Japura, who seem to know

nothing but war, robbery, murder, and man-hunting."

The Standard Natural History

(J. S. Kingsley, ed.), volume 6, pages 245-248.

ALSO IN F. Keller, The Amazon and Madeira Rivers,

chapter 2 and 6.

H. W. Bates, A Naturalist on the River Amazons,

chapter 7-13.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Guuchies.

See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Hackinsacks.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Haidas.

See below: SKITTAGETAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Hidatsa, or Minnetaree, or Grosventres

See Note, Appendix E.

"The Hidatsa, Minnetaree, or Grosventre Indians, are one of

the three tribes which at present inhabit the permanent

village at Fort Berthold, Dakota Territory, and hunt on the

waters of the Upper Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers, in

Northwestern Dakota and Eastern Montana. The history of this

tribe is ... intimately connected with that of the politically

allied tribes of the Aricarees and Mandans." The name,

Grosventres, was given to the people of this tribe "by the

early French and Canadian adventurers. The same name was

applied also to a tribe, totally distinct from these in

language and origin, which lives some hundreds of miles west

of Fort Berthold; and the two nations are now distinguished

from one another as Grosventres of the Missouri and

Grosventres of the Prairie. ... Edward Umfreville, who traded

on the Saskatchewan River from 1784 to 1787, ... remarks: ...

'They [the Canadian French] call them Grosventres, or

Big-Bellies; and without any reason, as they are as comely and

as well made as any tribe whatever.' ... In the works of many

travellers they are called Minnetarees, a name which is

spelled in various ways. ... This, although a Hidatsa word, is

the name applied to them, not by themselves, but by the

Mandans; it signifies 'to cross the water,' or 'they crossed

the water.' ... Hidatsa was the name of the village on Knife

River farthest from the Missouri, the village of those whom

Lewis and Clarke considered the Minnetarees proper." It is the

name "now generally used by this people to designate

themselves."

W. Matthews, Ethnography and Philology of the Hidatsa

Indians, parts 1-2 (United States Geological and

Geographical Survey. F. V. Hayden, Mis. Pub., No. 7).

See also, below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

{88}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Hitchitis.

See below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Horikans.

North of the Mohegans, who occupied the east bank of the

Hudson River opposite Albany, and covering the present

counties of Columbia and Rensselaer, dwelt the Algonkin tribe

of Horikans, "whose hunting grounds appear to have extended

from the waters of the Connecticut, across the Green

Mountains, to the borders of that beautiful lake [named Lake

George by the too loyal Sir William Johnson] which might now

well bear their sonorous name."

J. R. Brodhead, History of the State of New York,

page 77.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Huamaboya.

See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Huancas.

See PERU.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Huastecs.

See below: MAYAS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Huecos, or Wacos.

See below: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Humas, or Oumas.

See below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Hupas.

See Note, Appendix E.

See below: MODOCS, &c.

Hurons, or Wyandots.

Neutral Nation.

Eries.

"The peninsula between the Lakes Huron, Erie, and Ontario was

occupied by two distinct peoples, speaking dialects of the

Iroquois tongue. The Hurons or Wyandots, including the tribe

called by the French the Dionondadies, or Tobacco Nation,

dwelt among the forests which bordered the eastern shores of

the fresh water sea to which they have left their name; while

the Neutral Nation, so called from their neutrality in the war

between the Hurons and the Five Nations, inhabited the

northern shores of Lake Erie, and even extended their eastern

flank across the strait of Niagara. The population of the

Hurons has been variously stated at from 10,000 to 30,000

souls, but probably did not exceed the former estimate. The

Franciscans and the Jesuits were early among them, and from

their descriptions it is apparent that, in legends, and

superstitions, manners and habits, religious observances and

social customs, they were closely assimilated to their

brethren of the Five Nations. ... Like the Five Nations, the

Wyandots were in some measure an agricultural people; they

bartered the surplus products of their maize fields to

surrounding tribes, usually receiving fish in exchange; and

this traffic was so considerable that the Jesuits styled their

country the Granary of the Algonquins. Their prosperity was

rudely broken by the hostilities of the Five Nations; for

though the conflicting parties were not ill matched in point

of numbers, yet the united counsels and ferocious energies of

the confederacy swept all before them. In the year 1649, in

the depth of winter, their warriors invaded the country of the

Wyandots, stormed their largest villages, and involved all

within in indiscriminate slaughter. The survivors fled in

panic terror, and the whole nation was broken and dispersed.

Some found refuge among the French of Canada, where, at the

village of Lorette, near Quebec, their descendants still

remain; others were incorporated with their conquerors, while

others again fled northward, beyond Lake Superior, and sought

an asylum among the wastes which bordered on the north-eastern

lands of the Dahcotah. Driven back by those fierce bison-hunters,

they next established themselves about the outlet of Lake

Superior, and the shores and islands in the northern parts of

Lake Huron. Thence, about the year 1680, they descended to

Detroit, where they formed a permanent settlement, and where,

by their superior valor, capacity and address, they soon

acquired an ascendancy over the surrounding Algonquins. The

ruin of the Neutral Nation followed close on that of the

Wyandots, to whom, according to Jesuit authority, they bore an

exact resemblance in character and manners. The Senecas soon

found means to pick a quarrel with them; they were assailed by

all the strength of the insatiable confederacy, and within a

few years their destruction as a nation was complete."

F. Parkman, The Conspiracy of Pontiac, chapter 1.

F. Parkman, The Jesuits in North America, chapter 1.

"The first in this locality [namely, the western extremity of

the State of New York, on and around the site of the city of

Buffalo], of whom history makes mention, were the

Attiouandaronk, or Neutral Nation, called Kah-kwas by the

Senecas. They had their council-fires along the Niagara, but

principally on its western side. Their hunting grounds

extended from the Genesee nearly to the eastern shores of Lake

Huron, embracing a wide and important territory. ... They are

first mentioned by Champlain during his winter visit to the

Hurons in 1615 ... but he was unable to visit their territory.

... The peace which this peculiar people had so long

maintained with the Iroquois was destined to be broken. Some

jealousies and collisions occurred in 1647, which culminated

in open war in 1650. One of the villages of the Neutral

Nation, nearest the Senecas and not far from the site of our

city [Buffalo], was captured in the autumn of the latter year,

and another the ensuing spring. So well-directed and energetic

were the blows of the Iroquois, that the total destruction of

the Neutral Nation was speedily accomplished. ... The

survivors were adopted by their conquerors. .... A long period

intervened between the destruction of the Neutral Nation and

the permanent occupation of their country by the

Senecas,"--which latter event occurred after the expulsion of

the Senecas from the Genesee Valley, by the expedition under

General Sullivan, in 1779, during the Revolutionary War. "They

never, as a nation, resumed their ancient seats along the

Genesee, but sought and found a new home on the secluded banks

and among the basswood forests of the Dó-syo-wa, or Buffalo

Creek, whence they had driven the Neutral Nation 130 years

before. ... It has been assumed by many writers that the

Kah-kwas and Eries were identical. This is not so. The latter,

according to the most reliable authorities, lived south of the

western extremity of Lake Erie until they were destroyed by

the Iroquois in 1655. The Kah-kwas were exterminated by them

as early as 1651. On Coronelli's map, published in 1688, one

of the villages of the latter, called 'Kahouagoga, a destroyed

nation,' is located at or near the site of Buffalo."

O. H. Marshall, The Niagara Frontier, pages 5-8, and

foot-note.

"Westward of the Neutrals, along the Southeastern shores of

Lake Erie, and stretching as far east as the Genesee river,

lay the country of the Eries, or, as they were denominated by

the Jesuits, 'La Nation Chat,' or Cat Nation, who were also a

member of the Huron-Iroquois family. The name of the beautiful

lake on whose margin our city [Buffalo] was cradled is their

most enduring monument, as Lake Huron is that of the generic

stock. They were called the Cat Nation either because that

interesting but mischievous animal, the raccoon, which the

holy fathers erroneously classed in the feline gens, was the

totem of their leading clan, or sept, or in consequence of the

abundance of that mammal within their territory."

W. C. Bryant, Interesting Archaeological Studies in and

about Buffalo, page 12.

{89}

Mr. Schoolcraft either identifies or confuses the Eries and

the Neutral Nation.

H. R. Schoolcraft, Sketch of the History of the Ancient

Eries (Information Respecting the Indian Tribes, part 4. p.

197).

ALSO IN

J. G. Shea, Inquiries Respecting the lost Neutral Nation

(same, part 4, page 204).-

D. Wilson, The Huron-Iroquois of Canada (Trans. Royal

Society of Canada, 1884).

P. D. Clarke, Origin and Traditional History of the

Wyandottes.

W. Ketchum, History of Buffalo, volume 1, chapter 1-2.

N. B. Craig. The Olden Time, volume 1, page 225.

See below: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY;

Also, CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1608-1611; 1611-1616;

1634-1652; 1640-1700.

See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR.

For an account of "Lord Dunmore's War,"

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Illinois and Miamis.

"Passing the country of the Lenape and the Shawanoes, and

descending the Ohio, the traveller would have found its valley

chiefly occupied by two nations, the Miamis or Twightwees, on

the Wabash and its branches, and the Illinois, who dwelt in

the neighborhood of the river to which they have given their

name, while portions of them extended beyond the Mississippi.

Though never subjugated, as were the Lenape, both the Miamis

and the Illinois were reduced to the last extremity by the

repeated attacks of the Five Nations; and the Illinois, in

particular, suffered so much by these and other wars, that the

population of ten or twelve thousand, ascribed to them by the

early French writers, had dwindled, during the first quarter

of the eighteenth century,

to a few small villages."

F. Parkman, Conspiracy of Pontiac, chapter 1.

See, also, above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;

and below: SACS, &c.;

also CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1669-1687.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Incas, or Yncas.

See PERU.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Innuits.

See above: ESKIMAUAN.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Iowas.

See below: SIOUAN FAMILY, and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Iroquois Confederacy.

Iroquoian Family.

"At the outset of the 16th Century, when the five tribes or

nations of the Iroquois confederacy first became known to

European explorers, they were found occupying the valleys and

uplands of northern New York, in that picturesque and fruitful

region which stretches westward from the head-waters of the

Hudson to the Genesee. The Mohawks, or Caniengas--as they

should properly be called--possessed the Mohawk River, and

covered Lake George and Lake Champlain with their flotillas of

large canoes, managed with the boldness and skill which,

hereditary in their descendants, make them still the best

boatmen of the North American rivers. West of the Caniengas

the Oneidas held the small river and lake which bear their

name. ... West of the Oneidas, the imperious Onondagas, the

central and, in some respects, the ruling nation of the

League, possessed the two lakes of Onondaga and Skaneateles.

together with the common outlet of this inland lake system,

the Oswego River to its issue into Lake Ontario. Still

proceeding westward, the lines of trail and river led to the

long and winding stretch of Lake Cayuga, about which were

clustered the towns of the people who gave their name to the

lake; and beyond them, over the wide expanse of hills and

dales surrounding Lakes Seneca and Canandaigua, were scattered

the populous villages of the Senecas, more correctly called

Sonontowanas, or Mountaineers. Such were the names and abodes

of the allied nations, members of the far-famed Kanonsionni,

or League of United Households, who were destined to become

for a time the most notable and powerful community among the

native tribes of North America. The region which has been

described was not, however, the original seat of those nations.

They belonged to that linguistic family which is known to

ethnologists as the Huron-Iroquois stock. This stock comprised

the Hurons or Wyandots, the Attiwandaronks or Neutral Nation,

the Iroquois, the Eries, the Andastes or Conestogas, the

Tuscaroras and some smaller bands. The tribes of this family

occupied a long irregular area of inland territory, stretching

from Canada to North Carolina. The northern nations were all

clustered about the great lakes; the southern bands held the

fertile valleys bordering the head-waters of the rivers which

flowed from the Allegheny mountains. The languages of all

these tribes showed a close affinity. ... The evidence of

language, so far as it has yet been examined, seems to show

that the Huron clans were the older members of the group; and

the clear and positive traditions of all the surviving tribes,

Hurons, Iroquois, and Tuscarora, point to the lower St.

Lawrence as the earliest known abode of their stock. Here the

first explorer, Cartier, found Indians of this stock at

Hochelaga and Stadaconé, now the sites of Montreal and Quebec.

... As their numbers increased, dissensions arose. The hive

swarmed, and band after band moved off to the west and south.

As they spread they encountered people of other stocks, with

whom they had frequent wars. Their most constant and most

dreaded enemies were the tribes of the Algonkin family, a

fierce and restless people, of northern origin, who everywhere

surrounded them. At one period, however, if the concurrent

traditions of both Iroquois and Algonkins can be believed,

these contending races for a time stayed their strife, and

united their forces in an alliance against a common and

formidable foe. This foe was the nation, or perhaps the

confederacy, of the Alligewi or Talligewi, the semi-civilized

'Mound-builders' of the Ohio Valley, who have left their name

to the Allegheny river and mountains, and whose vast

earthworks are still, after half-a-century of study, the

perplexity of archæologists. A desperate warfare ensued, which

lasted about a hundred years, and ended in the complete overthrow

and destruction, or expulsion, of the Alligewi. The survivors

of the conquered people fled southward. ... The time which has

elapsed since the overthrow of the Alligewi is variously

estimated. The most probable conjecture places it at a period

about a thousand years before the present day. It was

apparently soon after their expulsion that the tribes of the

Huron-Iroquois and the Algonkin stocks scattered themselves

over the wide region south of the Great Lakes, thus left open

to their occupancy."

H. Hale, Introduction to Iroquois Book of Rites.

{90}

After the coming of the Europeans into the New World, the

French were the first to be involved in hostilities with the

Iroquois, and their early wars with them produced a hatred

which could never be extinguished. Hence the English were able

to win the alliance of the Five Nations, when they struggled

with France for the mastery of the North American continent,

and they owed their victory to that alliance, probably, more

than to any other single cause. England still retained the

faithful friendship and alliance of the Iroquois when she came

to a struggle with her own colonies, and all the tribes except

the Oneidas were in arms against the Americans in the

Revolutionary War. "With the restoration of peace, the

political transaction of the League were substantially closed.

This was, in effect, the termination of their political

existence. The jurisdiction of the United States was extended

over their ancient territories, and from that time forth they

became dependent nations. During the progress of the

Revolution, the Mohawks abandoned their country and removed to

Canada, finally establishing themselves partly upon Grand

River, in the Niagara peninsula, and partly near Kingston,

where they now reside upon two reservations secured to them by

the British government. ... The policy of the State of New York

[toward the Iroquois nations] was ever just and humane.

Although their country, with the exception of that of the

Oneidas, might have been considered as forfeited by the event

of the Revolution, yet the government never enforced the

rights of conquest, but extinguished the Indian title to the

country by purchase, and treaty stipulations. A portion of the

Oneida nation [who had sold their lands to the State, from

time to time, excepting one small reservation] emigrated to a

reservation on the river Thames in Canada, where about 400 of

them now [1851] reside. Another and a larger band removed to

Green Bay, in Wisconsin, where they still make their homes to

the number of 700. But a small part of the nation have

remained around the seat of their ancient council-fire ...

near Oneida Castle, in the county of Oneida." The Onondagas

"still retain their beautiful and secluded valley of Onondaga,

with sufficient territory for their comfortable maintenance.

About 150 Onondagas now reside with the Senecas; another party

are established on Grand River, in Canada, and a few have

removed to the west. ... In the brief space of twelve years

after the first house of the white man was erected in Cayuga

county (1789) the whole nation [of the Cayugas] was uprooted

and gone. In 1795, they ceded, by treaty, all their lands to

the State, with the exception of one reservation, which they

finally abandoned about the year 1800. A portion of them

removed to Green Bay, another to Grand River, and still

another, and a much larger band, settled at Sandusky, in Ohio,

from whence they were removed by government, a few years

since, into the Indian territory, west of the Mississippi.

About 120 still reside among the Senecas, in western New York.

... The Tuscaroras, after removing from the Oneida territory,

finally located near the Niagara river, in the vicinity of

Lewiston, on a tract given to them by the Senecas. ... The

residue of the Senecas are now shut up within three small

reservations, the Tonawanda, the Cattaraugus and the Allegany,

which, united, would not cover the area of one of the lesser

counties of the State."

L. H. Morgan, The League of the Iroquois,

book 1, chapter 1.

"The Indians of the State of New York number about 5,000, and

occupy lands to the estimated extent of 87,()77 acres. With

few exceptions, these people are the direct descendants of the

native Indians, who once possessed and controlled the soil of

the entire State."

Report of Special Committee to Investigate the Indian

Problem of the State of New York 1889.

H. R. Schoolcraft, Notes on the Iroquois.

F. Parkman, The Conspiracy of Pontiac, chapter 1.

C. Colden, History of the Five Indian Nations.

J. Fiske, Discovery of America, chapter 1.

In 1715 the Five Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy became

Six Nations, by the admission of the Tuscaroras, from N.

Carolina.

See below: IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

On the relationship between the Iroquois and the Cherokees,

See above: CHEROKEES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Iroquois Confederacy.

Their Name.

"The origin and proper meaning of the word Iroquois are

doubtful. All that can be said with certainty is that the

explanation given by Charlevoix cannot possibly be correct.

The name of Iroquois, he says, is purely French, and has been

formed from the term 'hiro,' 'I have spoken,' a word by which

these Indians close all their speeches, and 'kouê,' which,

when long drawn out, is a cry of sorrow, and when briefly

uttered is an exclamation of joy. ... But ... Champlain had

learned the name from his Indian allies before he or any other

Frenchman, so far as is known, had ever seen an Iroquois. It

is probable that the origin of the word is to be sought in the

Huron language; yet, as this is similar to the Iroquois

tongue, an attempt may be made to find a solution in the

latter. According to Bruyas, the word 'garokwa' meant a pipe,

and also a piece of tobacco,--and, in its verbal form, to

smoke. This word is found, somewhat disguised by aspirates, in

the Book of Rites,--denighroghkwayen,--'let us two smoke

together.' ... In the indeterminate form the verb becomes

'ierokwa,' which is certainly very near to Iroquois. It might

be rendered 'they who smoke,' or 'they who use tobacco,' or,

briefly, 'the Tobacco People.' This name, the Tobacco Nation

('Nation du Petun') was given by the French, and probably also

by the Algonkins, to one of the Huron tribes, the Tionontates,

noted for the excellent tobacco which they raised and sold.

The Iroquois were equally well known for their cultivation of

this plant, of which they had a choice variety."

H. Hale, Iroquois Book of Rites, appendix, note A.

Iroquois Confederacy.

Their conquests and wide dominion.

"The project of a League [among the 'Five Nations' of the

Iroquois] originated with the Onondagas, among whom it was

first suggested, as a means to enable them more effectually to

resist the pressure of contiguous nations. The epoch of its

establishment cannot now be decisively ascertained; although

the circumstances attending its formation are still preserved

by tradition with great minuteness. These traditions all refer

to the northern shore of the Onondaga lake, as the place where

the Iroquois chiefs assembled in general congress, to agree

upon the terms and principles of the compact. ... After the

formation of the League, the Iroquois rose rapidly in power

and influence. ... With the first consciousness of rising

power, they turned their long-cherished resentment upon the

Adirondacks, who had oppressed them in their infancy as a

nation, and had expelled them from their country, in the first

struggle for the ascendancy.

{91}

... At the era of French discovery (1535), the latter nation

[the Adirondacks] appear to have been dispossessed of their

original country, and driven down the St. Lawrence as far as

Quebec. ... A new era commenced with the Iroquois upon the

establishment of the Dutch trading-post at Orange, now Albany,

in 1615. ... Friendly relations were established between the

Iroquois and the Dutch, which continued without interruption

until the latter surrendered their possessions upon the Hudson

to the English in 1664. During this period a trade sprang up

between them in furs, which the Iroquois exchanged for

European fabrics, but more especially for fire-arms, in the

use of which they were afterwards destined to become so

expert. The English, in turn, cultivated the same relations of

friendship. ... With the possession of fire-arms commenced not

only the rapid elevation, but absolute supremacy of the

Iroquois over other Indian nations. In 1643, they expelled the

Neuter Nation from the Niagara peninsula and established a

permanent settlement at the mouth of that river. They nearly

exterminated, in 1653, the Eries, who occupied the south side

of Lake Erie, and from thence east to the Genesee, and thus

possessed themselves of the whole area of western New York,

and the northern part of Ohio. About the year 1670, after they

had finally completed the dispersion and subjugation of the

Adirondacks and Hurons, they acquired possession of the whole

country between lakes Huron, Erie and Ontario, and of the

north bank of the St. Lawrence, to the mouth of the Ottawa

river, near Montreal. ... They also made constant inroads upon

the New England Indians. ... In 1680, the Senecas with 600

warriors invaded the country of the Illinois, upon the borders

of the Mississippi, while La Salle was among the latter. ...

At various times, both before and after this period, the

Iroquois turned their warfare against the Cherokees upon the

Tennessee, and the Catawbas in South Carolina. ... For about a

century, from the year 1600 to the year 1700, the Iroquois

were involved in an almost uninterrupted warfare. At the close

of this period, they had subdued and held in nominal

subjection all the principal Indian nations occupying the

territories which are now embraced in the states of New York,

Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, the northern and

western parts of Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Northern Tennessee,

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, a portion of the New England

States, and the principal part of Upper Canada. Over these

nations, the haughty and imperious Iroquois exercised a

constant supervision. If any of them became involved in

domestic difficulties, a delegation of chiefs went among them

and restored tranquillity, prescribing at the same time their

future conduct."

L. H. Morgan, League of the Iroquois, book 1, chapter 1.

"Their [the Iroquois's] war-parties roamed over half America,

and their name was a terror from the Atlantic to the

Mississippi; but when we ask the numerical strength of the

dreaded confederacy, when we discover that, in the days of

their greatest triumphs, their united cantons could not have

mustered 4,000 warriors, we stand amazed at the folly and

dissension which left so vast a region the prey of a handful

of bold marauders. Of the cities and villages now so thickly

scattered over the lost domain of the Iroquois, a single one

might boast a more numerous population than all the five

united tribes."

F. Parkman, The Conspiracy of Pontiac, chapter 1.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Iroquois Confederacy: A. D. 1608-1700.

Their wars with the French.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1608-1611; 1611-1616;

1634-1652; 1640-1700; 1696.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Iroquois Confederacy: A. D. 1648-1649.

Their destruction of the Hurons and the Jesuit Missions.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1634-1652;

also, above, HURONS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Iroquois Confederacy: A. D. 1684-1744.

Surrenders and conveyances to the English.

See

NEW YORK: A. D. 1684, and 1726;

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1744;

OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754;

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Iroquois Confederacy: A. D. 1778-1779.

Their part in the War of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER)

and (JULY); and 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Iroquois Tribes of the South.

See Note, Appendix E.

"The southern Iroquois tribes occupied Chowan River and its

tributary streams. They were bounded on the east by the most

southerly Lenape tribes, who were in possession of the low

country along the sea shores, and those of Albemarle and

Pamlico Sounds. Towards the south and the west they extended

beyond the river Neuse. They appear to have been known in

Virginia, in early times, under the name of Monacans, as far

north as James River. ... Lawson, in his account of the North

Carolina Indians, enumerates the Chowans, the Meherrins, and

the Nottoways, as having together 95 warriors in the year

1708. But the Meherrins or Tuteloes and the Nottoways

inhabited respectively the two rivers of that name, and were

principally seated in Virginia. We have but indistinct notices

of the Tuteloes. ... It appears by Beverly that the Nottoways

had preserved their independence and their numbers later than

the Powhatans, and that, at the end of the 17th century, they

had still 130 warriors. They do not appear to have migrated

from their original seats in a body. In the year 1820, they

are said to have been reduced to 27 souls, and were still in

possession of 7,000 acres in Southampton county, Virginia,

which had been at an early date reserved for them. ... The

Tuscaroras were by far the most powerful nation in North

Carolina, and occupied all the residue of the territory in

that colony, which has been described as inhabited by Iroquois

tribes. Their principal seats in 1708 were on the Neuse and

the Taw or Tar rivers, and according to Lawson they had 1,200

warriors in fifteen towns." In 1711 the Tuscaroras attacked

the English colonists, massacring 130 in a single day, and a

fierce war ensued. "In the autumn of 1712. all the inhabitants

south and southwest of Chowan River were obliged to live in

forts; and the Tuscaroras expected assistance from the Five

Nations. This could not have been given without involving the

confederacy in a war with Great Britain; and the Tuscaroras

were left to their own resources. A force, consisting chiefly

of southern Indians under the command of Colonel Moore, was

again sent by the government of South Carolina to assist the

northern Colonies. He besieged and took a fort of the

Tuscaroras. ... Of 800 prisoners 600 were given up to the

Southern Indians, who carried them to South Carolina to sell

them as slaves.

{92}

The Eastern Tuscaroras, whose principal town was on

the Taw, twenty miles above Washington, immediately made

peace, and a portion was settled a few years after north of

the Roanoke, near Windsor, where they continued till the year

1803. But the great body of the nation removed in 1714-15 to

the Five Nations, was received as the Sixth, and has since

shared their fate."

A. Gallatin, Synopsis of the Indian Tribes (Archæologia

Americana, volume 2), introduction, section 2.

ALSO IN

J. W. Moore, History of North Carolina, volume 1, chapter 3.

See, also, above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Itocos.

See above: CHIBCHAS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Itonamos, or Itonomos.

See above: ANDESIANS;

also BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Jivara, or Jivaro.

See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Kah-kwas.

See above: HURONS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Kalapooian Family.

"Under this family name Scouler places two tribes, the

Kalapooian, inhabiting 'the fertile Willamat plains' and the

Yamkallie, who live 'more in the interior, towards the sources

of the Willamat River.'... The tribes of the Kalapooian family

inhabited the valley of Willamette River, Oregon, above the

falls."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, page 81.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Kanawhas, or Ganawese.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Kansas, or Kaws.

See below: SIOUAN.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Kapohn.

See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Karankawan Family.

"The Karankawa formerly dwelt upon the Texan coast, according

to Sibley, upon an island or peninsula in the Bay of St.

Bernard (Matagorda Bay). ... In 1884 Mr. Gatschet found a

Tonkawe at Fort Griffin, Texas, who claimed to have formerly

lived among the Karankawa. From him a vocabulary of

twenty-five terms was obtained, which was all of the language

he remembered. The vocabulary ... such as it is, represents

all of the language that is extant. Judged by this vocabulary

the language seems to be distinct not only from the Attakapa

but from all others."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, page 82.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Karoks, or Cahrocs.

See below: MODOCS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Kaskaskias.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Kaus, or Kwokwoos.

See below: KUSAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Kaws, or Kansas.

See below: SIOUAN.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Kenai, or Blood Indians.

See above: BLACKFEET.

See Note, Appendix E.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Keresan Family.

"The ... pueblos of Keresan stock ... are situated in New

Mexico on the upper Rio Grande, on several of its small

western affluents, and on the Jemez and San Jose, which also

are tributaries of the Rio Grande."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,

page 83.

See PUEBLO.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Kikapoos.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,

and below: SACS, &c., and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Kiowan Family.

"Derivation: From the Kiowa word Kó-i, plural Kó-igu, meaning

'Káyowe man.' The Comanche term Káyowe means 'rat.' The author

who first formally separated this family appears to have been

Turner. ... Turner, upon the strength of a vocabulary

furnished by Lieutenant Whipple, dissents from the opinion

expressed by Pike and others to the effect that the language

is of the same stock as the Comanche, and, while admitting

that its relationship to Comanche is greater than to any other

family, thinks that the likeness is merely the result of long

intercommunication. His opinion that it is entirely distinct

from any other language has been indorsed by Buschmann and

other authorities. The family is represented by the Kiowa

tribe. So intimately associated with the Comanches have the

Kiowa been since known to history that it is not easy to

determine their pristine home. ... Pope definitely locates the

Kiowa in the valley of the Upper Arkansas, and of its

tributary, the Purgatory (Las Animas) River. This is in

substantial accord with the statements of other writers of

about the same period. Schermerhorn (1812) places the Kiowa on

the heads of the Arkansas and Platte. Earlier still they

appear upon the headwaters of the Platte."-

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, page 84.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Kiriri, Cuyriri.

See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Kitunahan Family.

"This family was based upon a tribe variously termed Kitunaha,

Kutenay, Cootenai, or Flatbow, living on the Kootenay River,

a branch of the Columbia in Oregon."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,

page 85.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Klamaths.

See below: MODOCS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Koluschan Family.

"Derivation: From the Aleut word kolosh, or more properly,

kaluga, meaning 'dish,' the allusion being to the dishshaped

lip ornaments. This family was based by Gallatin upon the

Koluschen tribe (the Tshinkitani of Marchand), 'who inhabit

the islands and the [Pacific] coast from the 60th to the 55th

degree of north latitude.'"

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, page 86.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Kulanapan Family.

"The main territory of the Kulanapan family is bounded on the

west by the Pacific Ocean, on the east by the Yukian and

Copohan territories, on the north by the watershed of the

Russian River, and on the south by a line drawn from Bodega

Head to the southwest corner of the Yukian territory, near

Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, page 88.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Kusan Family:

"The 'Kaus or Kwokwoos' tribe is merely mentioned by Hale as

living on a river of the same name between the Umqua and the

Clamet."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, page 89.

See Note, Appendix E.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Kwokwoos.

See above: KUSAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Lenape.

See above: DELAWARES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Machicuis.

See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Macushi.

See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Manaos.

See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Mandans, or Mandanes.

See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Manhattans.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,

and, also, MANHATTAN ISLAND.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Manioto, or Mayno.

See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Mapochins.

See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Maranha.

See above: GUCK OR Coco GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Maricopas.

See below: PUEBLOS.

{93}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Mariposan Family.

"Derivation: A Spanish word meaning 'butterfly,' applied to a

county in California and subsequently taken for the family

name. Latham mentions the remnants of three distinct bands of

the Coconoon, each with its own language, in the north of

Mariposa County. These are classed together under the above

name. More recently the tribes speaking languages allied to

the Coconun have been treated of under the family name Yokut.

As, however, the stock was established by Latham on a sound

basis, his name is here restored."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,

page 90.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Mascoutins, or Mascontens,

See below: SACS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Massachusetts,

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Mataguayas.

See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS,

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Mayas.

"In his second voyage, Columbus heard vague rumors of a

mainland westward from Jamaica and Cuba, at a distance of ten

days' journey in a canoe. ... During his fourth voyage

(1503-4), when he was exploring the Gulf southwest from Cuba,

he picked up a canoe laden with cotton clothing variously

dyed. The natives in it gave him to understand that they were

merchants, and came from a land called Maia. This is the first

mention in history of the territory now called Yucatan, and of

the race of the Mayas; for although a province of similar name

was found in the western extremity of the island of Cuba, the

similarity was accidental, as the evidence is conclusive that

no colony of the Mayas was found on the Antilles. ... Maya was

the patrial name of the natives of Yucatan. It was the proper

name of the northern portion of the peninsula. No single

province bore it at the date of the Conquest, and probably it

had been handed down as a generic term from the period, about

a century before, when this whole district was united under

one government. ... Whatever the primitive meaning and first

application of the name Maya, it is now used to signify

specifically the aborigines of Yucatan. In a more extended

sense, in the expression 'the Maya family,' it is understood

to embrace all tribes, wherever found, who speak related

dialects presumably derived from the same ancient stock as the

Maya proper. ... The total number of Indians of pure blood

speaking the Maya proper may be estimated as nearly or quite

200,000, most of them in the political limits of the

department of Yucatan; to these should be added nearly 100,000

of mixed blood, or of European descent, who use the tongue in

daily life. For it forms one of the rare examples of American

languages possessing vitality enough not only to maintain its

ground, but actually to force itself on European settlers and

supplant their native speech. ... The Mayas did not claim to

be autochthones. Their legends referred to their arrival by

the sea from the East, in remote times, under the leadership

of Itzamna, their hero-god, and also to a less numerous

immigration from the West, which was connected with the

history of another hero-god, Kukul Càn. The first of these

appears to be wholly mythical. ... The second tradition

deserves more attention from the historian. ... It cannot be

denied that the Mayas, the Kiches [or Quiches] and the

Cakchiquels, in their most venerable traditions, claimed to

have migrated from the north or west from some part of the

present country of Mexico. These traditions receive additional

importance from the presence on the shores of the Mexican

Gulf, on the waters of the river Panuco, north of Vera Cruz,

of a prominent branch of the Maya family, the Huastecs. The

idea suggests itself that these were the rear-guard of a great

migration of the Maya family from the north toward the south.

Support is given to this by their dialect, which is most

closely akin to that of the Tzendals of Tabasco, the nearest

Maya race to the south of them, and also by very ancient

traditions of the Aztecs. It is noteworthy that these two

partially civilized races, the Mayas and the Aztecs, though

differing radically in language, had legends which claimed a

community of origin in some indefinitely remote past. We find

these on the Maya side narrated in the sacred book of the

Kiches, the Popol Vuh, in the Cakchiquel 'Records of Tecpan

Atillan,' and in various pure Maya sources. ... The annals of

the Aztecs contain frequent allusions to the Huastecs."

D. G. Brinton, The Maya Chronicles, introduction.

"Closely enveloped in the dense forests of Chiapas, Gautemala,

Yucatan, and Honduras, the ruins of several ancient cities

have been discovered, which are far superior in extent and

magnificence to any seen in Aztec territory, and of which a

detailed description may be found in the fourth volume of this

work. Most of these cities were abandoned and more or less

unknown at the time of the [Spanish] Conquest. They bear

hieroglyphic inscriptions apparently identical in character;

in other respects they resemble each other more than they

resemble the Aztec ruins--or even other and apparently later

works in Guatemala and Honduras. All these remains bear

evident marks of great antiquity. ... I deem the grounds

sufficient ... for accepting this Central American

civilization of the past as a fact, referring it not to an

extinct ancient race, but to the direct ancestors of the

peoples still occupying the country with the Spaniards, and

applying to it the name Maya as that of the language which has

claims as strong as any to be considered the mother tongue of

the linguistic family mentioned. ... There are no data by

which to fix the period of the original Maya empire, or its

downfall or breaking up into rival factions by civil and

foreign wars. The cities of Yucatan, as is clearly shown by

Mr. Stephens, were, many of them, occupied by the descendants

of the builders down to the conquest, and contain some

remnants of wood-work still in good preservation, although

some of the structures appear to be built on the ruins of

others of a somewhat different type. Palenque and Copan, on

the contrary, have no traces of wood or other perishable

material, and were uninhabited and probably unknown in the

16th century. The loss of the key to what must have been an

advanced system of hieroglyphics, while the spoken language

survived, is also an indication of great antiquity, confirmed

by the fact that the Quiché structures of Guatemala differed

materially from those of the more ancient epoch. It is not

likely that the Maya empire in its integrity continued later

than the 3d or 4th century, although its cities may have been

inhabited much later, and I should fix the epoch of its

highest power at a date preceding rather than following the

Christian era."

H. H. Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States,

volume 2, chapter 2; volume 4, ch, 3-6;

volume 5, chapter 11-13.

{94}

ALSO IN

Marquis de Nadaillac, Prehistoric America, chapter 6-7.

J. L. Stephens, Incidents of Travel in Yucatan; and

Travel in Central America, &c.

B. M. Norman, Rambles in Yucatan.

D. Charnay, Ancient Cities of the New World.

See, also, MEXICO: ANCIENT, and AZTEC AND AND MAYA

PICTURE-WRITING.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Mayoruna, or Barbudo.

See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Menominees.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SACS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Metöacs.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Miamis, or Twightwees.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, ILLINOIS, and SACS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Micmacs.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Mingoes.

"The name of Mingo, or Mengwe, by which the Iroquois were

known to the Delawares and the other southern Algonkins, is

said to be a contraction of the Lenape word 'Mahongwi,'

meaning the 'People of the Springs.' The Iroquois possessed

the head-waters of the rivers which flowed through the country

of the Delawares."

H. Hale, The Iroquois Book of Rites,

appendix, note. A.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Minneconjou.

See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Minnetarees.

See above: HIDATSA;

and below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

See Note, Appendix E. 9.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Minquas.

See below: SUSQUEHANNAS;

and above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Minsis, Munsees, or Minisinks.

See above: DELAWARES, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Miranha.

See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Missouris.

See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Mixes.

See below: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Mixtecs.

See below: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Mocovis.

See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Modocs (Klamaths) and their California and Oregon neighbors.

See Note, Appendix E.

"The principal tribes occupying this region [of Northern

California from Rogue River on the north to the Eel River,

south] are the Klamaths, who live on the head waters of the

river and on the shores of the lake of that name; the Modocs,

on Lower Klamath Lake and along Lost River; the Shastas, to

the south-west of the Lakes; the Pitt River Indians; the

Euroes, on the Klamath River between Weitspek and the coast;

the Cahrocs, on the Klamath River from a short distance above

the junction of the Trinity to the Klamath Mountains; the

Hoopahs [or Hupas, a tribe of the Athapascan Family] in Hoopah

Valley on the Trinity near its junction with the Klamath;

numerous tribes on the coast from Eel River and Humboldt Bay

north, such as the Weeyots, Wallies, Tolewahs, etc., and the

Rogue River Indians, on and about the river of that name. The

Northern Californians are in every way superior to the central

and southern tribes."

H. Bancroft, The Native Races of the Pacific States, volume

1, ch, 4.

"On the Klamath there live three distinct tribes, called the

Yú-rok, Ká-rok, and Mó-dok, which names are said to mean,

respectively, 'down the river,' 'up the river,' and 'head of

the river.' ... The Karok are probably the finest tribe in

California. ... Hoopa Valley, on the Lower Trinity, is the

home of [the Hú-pá]. Next after the Ká-rok they are the finest

race in all that region, and they even excel them in their

statecraft, and in the singular influence, or perhaps brute

force, which they exercise over the vicinal tribes. They are

the Romans of Northern California in their valor and their

wide-reaching dominions; they are the French in the extended

diffusion of their language." The Modoks, "on the whole ...

are rather a cloddish, indolent, ordinarily good-natured race,

but treacherous at bottom, sullen when angered, notorious for

keeping Punic faith. But their bravery nobody can impeach or

deny; their heroic and long defense of their stronghold

against the appliances of modern civilized warfare, including

that arm so awful to savages--the artillery--was almost the

only feature that lent respectability to their wretched

tragedy of the Lava Beds [1873]."

S. Powers, Tribes of California (Contributions to N. A.

Ethnology, volume 3), chapter 1, 7, and 27.

"The home of the Klamath tribe of southwestern Oregon lies

upon the eastern slope of the southern extremity of the

Cascade Range, and very nearly coincides with what we may call

the head waters of the Klamath River, the main course of which

lies in Northern California. ... The main seat of the Modoc

people was the valley of Lost River, the shores of Tule and of

Little Klamath Lake. ... The two main bodies forming the Klamath

people are (1) the Klamath Lake Indians; (2) the Modoc

Indians. The Klamath Lake Indians number more than twice as

many as the Modoc Indians. They speak the northern dialect and

form the northern chieftaincy. ... The Klamath people possess

no historic traditions going further back in time than a

century, for the simple reason that there was a strict law

prohibiting the mention of the person or acts of a deceased

individual by using his name. ... Our present knowledge does

not allow us to connect the Klamath language genealogically

with any of the other languages compared, but ... it stands as

a linguistic family for itself."

A. S. Gatschet, The Klamath Indians (Contributions to N.

A. Ethnology, volume 2, part 1).

In Major Powell's linguistic classification, the Klamath and

Modoc dialects are embraced in a family called the Lutuamian

Family, derived from a Pit River word signifying "lake;" the

Yuroks in a family called the Weitspekan; and the Pit River

Indian dialects are provisionally set apart in a distinct

family named the Palaihnihan Family.

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, pages 89 and 97.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Mohaves (Mojaves).

See above: APACHE GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Mohawks.

See above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Mohegans, or Mahicans.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;

and below: STOCKBRIDGE INDIANS;

also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

Montagnais.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;

and ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Montauks.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Moquelumnan Family.

"Derivation: From the river and hill of the same name in

Calaveras County, California. ... It was not until 1856 that

the distinctness of the linguistic family was fully set forth

by Latham. Under the head of Moquelumne, this author gathers

several vocabularies representing different languages and

dialects of the same stock. These are the Talatui of Hale, the

Tuolumne from Schoolcraft, the Sonoma dialects as represented

by the Tshokoyem vocabulary, the Chocuyem and Youkiousme

paternosters, and the Olamentke of Kostromitonov in Bäer's

Beiträge. ... The Moquelumnan family occupies the territory

bounded on the north by the Cosumne River, on the south by the

Fresno River, on the east by the Sierra Nevada, and on the

west by the San Joaquin River, with the exception of a strip

on the east bank occupied by the Cholovone. A part of this

family occupies also a territory bounded on the south by San

Francisco Bay."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, pages 92-93.

{95}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Moquis.

See below: PUEBLOS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Morona.

See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Moxos, or Mojos.

See above: ANDESIANS;

also, BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Mundrucu.

See below: TUPI.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Munsees.

See above: DELAWARES, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;

also MANHATTAN ISLAND.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Mura.

See above: GUCK Ort Coco GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Muskhogean, or Maskoki Family.

"Among the various nationalities of the Gulf territories the

Maskoki family of tribes occupied a central and commanding

position. Not only the large extent of territory held by them,

but also their numbers, their prowess in war, and a certain

degree of mental culture and self-esteem made of the Maskoki

one of the most important groups in Indian history. From their

ethnologic condition of later times, we infer that these

tribes have extended for many centuries back in time from the

Atlantic to the Mississippi and beyond that river, and from

the Apalachian ridge to the Gulf of Mexico. With short

intermissions they kept up warfare with all the circumjacent

Indian communities, and also among each other. ... The

irresolute and egotistic policy of these tribes often caused

serious difficulties to the government of the English and

French colonies, and some of them constantly wavered in their

adhesion between the French and the English cause. The

American government overcame their opposition easily whenever

a conflict presented itself (the Seminole War forms an

exception), because, like all the Indians, they never knew how

to unite against a common foe. The two main branches of the

stock, the Creek and the Cha'hta [or Choctaw] Indians, were

constantly at war, and the remembrance of their deadly

conflicts has now passed to their descendants in the form of

folk lore. ... The only characteristic by which a subdivision

of the family can be attempted, is that of language. Following

their ancient topographic location from east to west, we

obtain the following synopsis: First branch, or Maskoki

proper: The Creek, Maskokálgi or Maskoki proper, settled on

Coosa, Tallapoosa, Upper and Middle Chatahuchi rivers. From

these branched off by segmentation the Creek portion of the

Seminoles, of the Yámassi and of the little Yamacraw

community. Second, or Apalachian branch: This southeastern

division, which may be called also 'a parte potiori' the

Hitchiti connection, anciently comprised the tribes on the

Lower Chatahuchi river, and, east from there, the extinct

Apalachi, the Mikasuki, and the Hitchiti portion of the

Seminoles, Yámassi and Yamacraws. Third, or Alibamu branch,

comprised the Alibamu villages on the river of that name; to

them belonged the Koassáti and Witumka on Coosa river, its

northern affluent. Fourth, Western or Cha'hta [Choctaw]

branch: From the main people, the Cha'hta, settled in the

middle portions of the State of Mississippi, the Chicasa,

Pascagoula, Biloxi, Huma, and other tribes once became

separated through segmentation. The strongest evidence for a

community of origin of the Maskoki tribes is furnished by the

fact that their dialects belong to one linguistic family. ...

Maskóki, Maskógi, isti Maskóki, designates a single person of

the Creek tribe, and forms, as a collective plural,

Maskokálgi, the Creek community, the Creek people, the Creek

Indians. English authors write this name Muscogee, Muskhogee,

and its plural Muscogulgee. The first syllable, as pronounced

by the Creek Indians, contains a clear short a. ... The accent

is usually laid on the middle syllable: Maskóki, Maskógi. None

of the tribes are able to explain the name from their own

language. ... Why did the English colonists call them Creek

Indians? Because, when the English traders entered the Maskoki

country from Charleston or Savannah, they had to cross a

number of streams or creeks, especially between the Chatahuchi

and Savannah rivers. Gallatin thought it probable that the

inhabitants of the country adjacent to Savannah river were

called Creeks from an early time. ... In the southern part of

the Cha'hta territory several tribes, represented to be of

Cha'hta lineage, appear as distinct from the main body, and

are always mentioned separately. The French colonists, in

whose annals they figure extensively, call them Mobilians,

Tohomes, Pascogoulas, Biloxis, Mougoulachas, Bayogoulas and

Humas (Oumas). They have all disappeared in our epoch, with

the exception of the Biloxi [Major Powell, in the Seventh

Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, places the Biloxi in

the Siouan Family], [See Note, Appendix E.] of whom scattered

remnants live in the forests of Louisiana, south of the Red

River."

A. S. Gatschet, A Migration Legend of the Creek Indians,

volume 1, part 1.

"The Uchees and the Natches, who are both incorporated in the

[Muskhogee or Creek] confederacy, speak two distinct languages

altogether different from the Muskhogee. The Natches, a

residue of the well-known nation of that name, came from the

banks of the Mississippi, and joined the Creeks less than one

hundred years ago. The original seats of the Uchees were east

of the Coosa and probably of the Chatahoochee; and they

consider themselves as the most ancient inhabitants of the

country. They may have been the same nation which is called

Apalaches in the accounts of De Soto's expedition. ... The

four great Southern nations, according to the estimates of the

War Department ... consist now [1836] of 67,000 souls, viz.:

The Cherokees, 15,000; the Choctaws (18,500), the Chicasas

(5,500), 24,000; the Muskhogees, Seminoles, and Hitchittees,

26,000; the Uchees, Alibamons, Coosadas, and Natches, 2,000.

The territory west of the Mississippi, given or offered to

them by the United States in exchange for their lands east of

that river, contains 40,000,000 acres, exclusively of

what may be allotted to the Chicasas."

A. Gallatin, Synopsis of the Indian Tribes (Archæologia

Americana, volume 2), section 3.

See below: SEMINOLES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Musquito, or Mosquito Indians.

"That portion of Honduras known as the Musquito Coast derived

its name, not from the abundance of those troublesome insects,

but from a native tribe who at the discovery occupied the

shore near Blewfield Lagoon. They are an intelligent people,

short in stature, unusually dark in color, with finely cut

features, and small straight noses--not at all negroid,

except where there has been an admixture of blood. They number

about 6,000, many of whom have been partly civilized by the

efforts of missionaries, who have reduced the language to

writing and published in it a number of works. The Tunglas are

one of the sub-tribes of the Musquitos."

D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 162.

See, also, NICARAGUA: A. D., 1850.

{96}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Nahuas.

See MEXICO, ANCIENT: THE MAYA AND NAHUA PEOPLES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Nanticokes.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Napo.

See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Narragansetts.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;

also RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636;

and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637; 1674-1675; 1675; and 1676-1678.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Natchesan Family.

When the French first entered the lower Mississippi valley,

they found the Natchez [Na'htchi] occupying a region of

country that now surrounds the city which bears their name.

"By the persevering curiosity of Gallatin, it is established

that the Natchez were distinguished from the tribes around

them less by their customs and the degree of their

civilization than by their language, which, as far as

comparisons have been instituted, has no etymological affinity

with any other whatever. Here again the imagination too

readily invents theories; and the tradition has been widely

received that the dominion of the Natchez once extended even

to the Wabash. History knows them only as a feeble and

inconsiderable nation, who in the 18th century attached

themselves to the confederacy of the Creeks."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States

(Author's last revision), volume 2, page 97.

"Chateaubriand, in his charming romances, and some of the

early French writers, who often drew upon their fancy for

their facts, have thrown an interest around the Natchez, as a

semi-civilized and noble race, that has passed into history.

We find no traces of civilization in their architecture, or in

their social life and customs. Their religion was brutal and

bloody, indicating an Aztec origin. They were perfidious and

cruel, and if they were at all superior to the neighboring

tribes it was probably due to the district they occupied--the

most beautiful, healthy and productive in the valley of the

Mississippi--and the influence of its attractions in

substituting permanent for temporary occupation. The residence

of the grand chief was merely a spacious cabin, of one

apartment, with a mat of basket work for his bed and a log for

his pillow. ... Their government was an absolute despotism.

The supreme chief was master of their labor, their property,

and their lives. ... The Natchez consisted exclusively of two

classes--the Blood Royal and its connexions, and the common

people, the Mich-i-mioki-quipe, or Stinkards. The two classes

understood each other, but spoke a different dialect. Their

customs of war, their treatment of prisoners, their ceremonies

of marriage, their feasts and fasts, their sorceries and

witchcraft, differed very little from other savages. Father

Charlevoix, who visited Natchez in 1721, saw no evidences of

civilization. Their villages consisted of a few cabins, or

rather ovens, without windows and roofed with matting. The

house of the Sun was larger, plastered with mud, and a narrow

bench for a seat and bed. No other furniture in the mansion of

this grand dignitary, who has been described by imaginative

writers as the peer of Montezuma!"

J. F. H. Claiborne, Mississippi, volume 1, chapter 4.

In 1729, the Natchez, maddened by insolent oppressions,

planned and executed a general massacre of the French within

their territory. As a consequence, the tribe was virtually

exterminated within the following two years.

C. Gayarre, Louisiana, its Colonial History and Romance,

2d series, lecture 3 and 5.

"The Na'htchi, according to Gallatin, a residue of the

well-known nation of that name, came from the banks of the

Mississippi, and joined the Creek less than one hundred years

ago. The seashore from Mobile to the Mississippi was then

inhabited by several small tribes, of which the Na'htchi was

the principal. Before 1730 the tribe lived in the vicinity of

Natchez, Miss., along St. Catherine Creek. After their

dispersion by the French in 1730 most of the remainder joined

the Chicasa and afterwards the Upper Creek. They are now in

Creek and Cherokee Nations, Indian Territory. The linguistic

relations of the language spoken by the Taensa tribe have long

been in doubt, and it is possible they will ever remain so."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, page 96.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.

See, also, above: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Natchitoches;

See Note, Appendix E.

See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Nausets.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Navajos.

See above: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY, and APACHE GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Neutral Nation.

See above: HURONS, &c.;

and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR CONQUESTS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Nez Percés, or Sahaptins.

"The Sahaptins or Nez Percés [the Shahaptian Family in Major

Powell's classification], with their affiliated tribes,

occupied the middle and upper valley of the Columbia and its

affluents, and also the passes of the mountains. They were in

contiguity with the Shoshones and the Algonkin Blackfeet, thus

holding an important position, intermediate between the eastern

and the Pacific tribes. Having the commercial instinct of the

latter, they made good use of it."

D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 107.

ALSO IN

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report of the

Bureau of Ethnology, page 106.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Niniquiquilas.

See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Nipmucs, or Nipnets.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;

also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; and 1676-1678

(KING PHILIP'S WAR).

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Nootkas.

See below: WAKASHAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Nottoways.

See above: IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Nyantics.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Ogalalas.

See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Ojibwas, or Chippewas.

"The Ojibways, with their kindred, the Pottawattamies, and

their friends the Ottawas,--the latter of whom were fugitives

from the eastward, whence they had fled from the wrath of the

Iroquois,--were banded into a sort of confederacy. They were

closely allied in blood, language, manners and character. The

Ojibways, by far the most numerous of the three, occupied the

basin of Lake Superior, and extensive adjacent regions. In

their boundaries, the career of Iroquois conquest found at

length a check. The fugitive Wyandots sought refuge in the

Ojibway hunting grounds; and tradition relates that, at the

outlet of Lake Superior, an Iroquois war-party once

encountered a disastrous repulse. In their mode of life, they

were far more rude than the Iroquois, or even the southern

Algonquin tribes."

F. Parkman, Conspiracy of Pontiac, chapter 1.

{97}

"The name of the tribe appears to be recent. It is not met

with in the older writers. The French, who were the earliest

to meet them, in their tribal seat at the falls or Sault de

Ste Marie, named them Saulteur, from this circumstance.

M'Kenzie uses the term 'Jibway,' as the equivalent of this

term, in his voyages. They are referred to, with little

difference in the orthography, in General Washington's report,

in 1754, of his trip to Le Bœuf, on Lake Erie; but are first

recognized, among our treaty-tribes, in the general treaty of

Greenville, of 1794, in which, with the Ottawas they ceded the

island of Michilimackinac, and certain dependencies, conceded

by them at former periods to the French. ... The Chippewas are

conceded, by writers on American philology ... to speak one of

the purest forms of the Algonquin."

H. R. Schoolcraft, Information respecting the History,

Condition and Prospects of the Indian Tribes, part 5, p.

142.

ALSO IN

G. Copway, The Ojibway Nation.      J. G. Kohl, Kitchi-gami.

See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR:

and above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Omahas.

See below: SIOUAN FAMILY, and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Oneidas.

See above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

Onondagas.

See above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Orejones.

See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Osages.

See below: SIOUAN FAMILY,

and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Otoes, or Ottoes.

See below: SIOUAN FAMILY,

and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Otomis.

"According to Aztec tradition, the Otomis were the earliest

owners of the soil of Central Mexico. Their language was at

the conquest one of the most widely distributed of any in this

portion of the continent. Its central regions were the States

of Queretaro and Guanajuato. ... The Otomis are below the

average stature, of dark color, the skull markedly

dolichocephalic, the nose short and flattened, the eyes

slightly oblique."

D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 135.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Ottawas.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and OJIBWAS.

See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES

Pacaguara.

See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Pacamora.

See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Pamlicoes.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Pampas Tribes.

"The chief tribe of the Pampas Indians was entitled Querandis

by the Spaniards, although they called themselves Pehuelches

[or Puelts--that is, the Eastern]. Various segments of these,

under different names, occupied the immense tract of ground,

between the river Parana and the republic of Chili. The

Querandis ... were the great opponents to settlement of the

Spaniards in Buenos Ayres. ... The Ancas or Aracaunos Indians

[see CHILE] resided on the west of the Pampas near Chili, and

from time to time assisted the Querandis in transporting

stolen cattle across the Cordilleras. The southern part of the

Pampas was occupied by the Balchitas, Uhilches, Telmelches,

and others, all of whom were branches of the original Quelches

horde. The Guarani Indians were the most famous of the South

American races. ... Of the Guayanas horde there were several

tribes--independent of each other, and speaking different

idioms, although having the same title of race. Their

territory extended from the river Guarai, one of the affluents

into the Uruguay, for many leagues northwards, and stretched

over to the Parana opposite the city of Corpus Christi. They

were some of the most vigorous opponents of the Spanish

invaders. ... The Nalicurgas Indians, who lived up to near 21°

South  latitude were reputed to dwell in caves, to be very limited in

number, and to go entirely naked. The Gausarapos, or Guuchies

dwelt in the marshy districts near where the river Gausarapo,

or Guuchie, has its source. This stream enters from the east

into the Paraguay at 19° 16' 30" South latitude. ... The Cuatos lived

inside of a lake to the west of the river Paraguay, and

constituted a very small tribe. ... The Orejones dwelt on the

eastern brows of the mountains of Santa Lucia or San

Fernando--close to the western side of Paraguay river. ...

Another tribe, the Niniquiquilas, had likewise the names of

Potreros, Simanos, Barcenos, and Lathanos. They occupied a forest

which began at about 19° South latitude, some leagues backward

from the river Paraguay, and separated the Gran Chaco from the

province of Los Chiquitos in Peru. ... The Guanas Indians were

divided into eight separate segments, for each of which there

was a particular and different name. They lived between 20°

and 22° of South latitude in the Gran Chaco to the west of Paraguay,

and they were not known to the Spaniards till the latter

crossed the last-named river in 1673. ... The Albaias and

Payaguas Indians ... in former times, were the chief tribes of

the Paraguay territory. ... The Albaias were styled Machicuis

and Enimgas by other authors. At the time of the Spaniards'

arrival here, the Albaias occupied the Gran Chaco side of the

river Paraguay from 20° to 22° South latitude. Here they entered into

a treaty offensive and defensive with the Payaguas. ... The

joined forces of Albaias and Payaguas had managed to extend

their territory in 1673 down to 24° 7' South on the eastern side

of Paraguay river. ... The Albaias were a very tall and

muscular race of people. ... The Payagua Indians, before and

up to, as well as after, the period of the conquest, were

sailors, and domineered over the river Paraguay. ... The

Guaicarus lived on the Chaco side of Paraguay river and

subsisted entirely by hunting. From the barbarous custom which

their women had of inducing abortion to avoid the pain or

trouble of child-bearing, they became exterminated soon after

the conquest. ... The Tobas, who have also the titles of

Natecœt and Yncanabaite, were among the best fighters of the

Indians. They occupy the Gran Chaco, chiefly on the banks of

the river Vermejo, and between that and the Pilcomayo. Of

these there are some remains in the present day. ... The

Mocovis are likewise still to be found in the Chaco. ... The

Abipones, who were also styled Ecusgina and Quiabanabaite,

lived in the Chaco, so low down as 28° South. This was the

tribe with whom the Jesuits incorporated, when they erected

the city of San Geronimo, in the Gran Chaco, and nearly

opposite Goya, in 1748."

T. J. Hutchinson, The Parana, chapter 6-7.

{98}

"The Abipones inhabit [in the 18th century] the province

Chaco, the centre of all Paraguay; they have no

fixed abodes, nor any boundaries, except what fear of their

neighbours has established. They roam extensively in every

direction, whenever the opportunity of attacking their

enemies, or the necessity of avoiding them renders a journey

advisable. The northern shore of the Rio Grande or Bermejo,

which the Indians call Iñatè, was their native land in the

last century [the 17th]. Thence they removed, to avoid the war

carried on against Chaco by the Spaniards ... and, migrating

towards the south, took possession of a valley formerly held

by the Calchaquis. ... From what region their ancestors came

there is no room for conjecture."

M. Dobrizhoffer, Account of the Abipones, volume 2, chapter 1.

"The Abipones are in general above the middle stature, and of

a robust constitution. In summer they go quite naked; but in

winter cover themselves with skins. ... They paint themselves

all over with different colours."

Father Charlevoix, History of Paraguay,

book 7 (volume 1).

ALSO IN

The Standard Natural History (J. S. Kingsley, editor),

volume 6, pages 256-262.

See, also, below: TUPI.--GUARANI.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Pampticokes.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Pano.

See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Papagos.

See below: PIMAN FAMILY, and PUEBLOS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Parawianas.

See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Pascogoulas.

See above: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Passé.

See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Patagonians and Fuegians.

"The Patagonians call themselves Chonek or Tzoueca, or Inaken

(men, people), and by their Pampean neighbors are referred to

as Tehuel-Che, southerners. They do not, however, belong to

the Aucanian stock, nor do they resemble the Pampeans

physically. They are celebrated for their stature, many of

them reaching from six to six feet four inches in height, and

built in proportion. In color they are a reddish brown, and

have aquiline noses and good foreheads. They care little for a

sedentary life, and roam the coast as far north as the Rio Negro.

... On the inhospitable shores of Tierra del Fuego there dwell

three nations of diverse stock, but on about the same plane of

culture. One of these is the Yahgans, or Yapoos, on the Beagle

Canal; the second is the Onas or Aonik, to the north and east

of these; and the third the Aliculufs, to the north and west.

... The opinion has been advanced by Dr. Deniker of Paris,

that the Fuegians represent the oldest type or variety of the

American race. He believes that at one time this type occupied

the whole of South America south of the Amazon, and that the

Tapuyas of Brazil and the Fuegians are its surviving members.

This interesting theory demands still further evidence before

it can be accepted."

D. G. Brinton, The American Race, pages 327-332.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Pawnee Family (named "Caddoan" by Major Powell).

"The Pawnee Family, though some of its branches have long been

known, is perhaps in history and language one of the least

understood of the important tribes of the West. In both

respects it seems to constitute a distinct group. During

recent years its extreme northern and southern branches have

evinced a tendency to blend with surrounding stocks; but the

central branch, constituting the Pawnee proper, maintains

still in its advanced decadence a bold line of demarcation

between itself and all adjacent tribes. The members of the

family are: The Pawnees, the Arikaras, the Caddos, the Huecos

or Wacos, the Keechies, the Tawaconies, and the Pawnee Picts

or Wichitas. The last five may be designated as the Southern

or Red River branches. At the date of the Louisiana purchase

the Caddos were living about 40 miles northwest of where

Shreveport now stands. Five years earlier their residence was

upon Clear Lake, in what is now Caddo Parish. This spot they

claimed was the place of their nativity, and their residence

from time immemorial. ... They have a tradition that they are

the parent stock, from which all the southern branches have

sprung, and to some extent this claim has been recognized. ...

The five [southern] bands are now all gathered upon a reserve

secured for them in the Indian Territory by the Government.

... In many respects, their method of building lodges, their

equestrianism, and certain social and tribal usages, they

quite closely resemble the Pawnees. Their connection, however,

with the Pawnee family, not till recently if ever mentioned,

is mainly a matter of vague conjecture. ... The name Pawnee is

most probably derived from 'párĭk-ĭ,' a horn; and seems to

have been once used by the Pawnees themselves to designate

their peculiar scalp-lock. From the fact that this was the

most noticeable feature in their costume, the name came

naturally to be the denominative term of the tribe. The word

in this use once probably embraced the Wichitas (i. e., Pawnee

Picts) and the Arikaras. ... The true Pawnee territory till as

late as 1833 may be described as extending from the Niobrara

south to the Arkansas. They frequently hunted considerably

beyond the Arkansas; tradition says as far as the Canadian.

... On the east they claimed to the Missouri, though in

eastern Nebraska, by a sort of tacit permit, the Otoes,

Poncas, and Omahas along that stream occupied lands extending

as far west as the Elkhorn. In Kansas, also, east of the Big

Blue, they had ceased to exercise any direct control, as

several remnants of tribes, the Wyandots, Delawares,

Kickapoos, and Iowas, had been settled there and were living

under the guardianship of the United States. ... On the west

their grounds were marked by no natural boundary, but may

perhaps be described by a line drawn from the mouth of Snake

River on the Niobrara southwest to the North Platte, thence

south to the Arkansas. ... It is not to be supposed, however,

that they held altogether undisturbed possession of this

territory. On the north they were incessantly harassed by

various bands of the Dakotas, while upon the south the Osages,

Comanches, Cheyennes, Arapahoes and Kiowas (the last three

originally northern tribes) were equally relentless in their

hostility. ... In 1833 the Pawnees surrendered to the United

States their claim upon all the above described territory

lying south of the Platte. In 1858 all their remaining

territory was ceded, except a reserve 30 miles long and 15

wide upon the Loup Fork of the Platte, its eastern limit

beginning at Beaver Creek. In 1874 they sold this tract and

removed to a reserve secured for them by the Government in the

Indian Territory, between the Arkansas and Cimarron at their

junction."

J. B. Dunbar, The Pawnee Indians (Magazine of American

History, April, 1880, v.4).

ALSO IN

G. B. Grinnell, Pawnee Hero Stories.      D. G. Brinton, The American Race, pages 95-97.      J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of

Ethnology, page 59.

See, also, above: ADAIS and BLACKFEET.

{99}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Payaguas.

See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Pehuelches, or Puelts.

See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Penacooks, or Pawtucket Indians.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Peorias.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Pequots.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;

and below: SHAWANESE;

also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Piankishaws.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SACS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Piegans.

See above: BLACKFEET.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Piman Family.

"Only a small portion of the territory occupied by this family

is included within the United States, the greater portion

being in Mexico, where it extends to the Gulf of California.

The family is represented in the United States by three

tribes, Pima alta, Sobaipuri, and Papago. The former have

lived for at least two centuries with the Maricopa on the Gila

River about 160 miles from the mouth. The Sobaipuri occupied

the Santa Cruz and San Pedro Rivers, tributaries of the Gila,

but are no longer known. The Papago territory is much more

extensive and extends to the south across the border."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, pages 98-99.

See below: PUEBLOS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Pimenteiras.

See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Piru.

See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Pit River Indians.

See above: MODOCS (KLAMATHS), &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Piutes.

See below: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Pokanokets, or Wampanoags.

See above:

ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;

also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678 (KING

PHILIP'S WAR).

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Ponkas, or Puncas.

See below: SIOUAN FAMILY;

and above: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Popolocas.

See above: CHONTALS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Pottawatomies.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, OJIBWAS, and SACS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Powhatan Confederacy.

"At the time of the first settlement by the Europeans, it has

been estimated that there were not more than 20,000 Indians

within the limits of the State of Virginia. Within a circuit

of 60 miles from Jamestown, Captain Smith says there were

about 5,000 souls, and of these scarce 1,500 were warriors.

The whole territory between the mountains and the sea was

occupied by more than 40 tribes, 30 of whom were united in a

confederacy under Powhatan, whose dominions, hereditary and

acquired by conquest, comprised the whole country between the

rivers James and Potomac, and extended into the interior as

far as the falls of the principal rivers. Campbell, in his

History of Virginia, states the number of Powhatan's subjects

to have been 8,000. Powhatan was a remarkable man; a sort of

savage Napoleon, who, by the force of his character and the

superiority of his talents, had raised himself from the rank

of a petty chieftain to something of imperial dignity and

power. He had two places of abode, one called Powhatan, where

Richmond now stands, and the other at Werowocomoco, on the

north side of York River, within the present county of

Gloucester. ... Besides the large confederacy of which

Powhatan was the chief, there were two others, with which that

was often at war. One of these, called the Mannahoacs,

consisted of eight tribes, and occupied the country between

the Rappahannoc and York rivers; the other, consisting of five

tribes, was called the Monacans, and was settled between York and

James rivers above the Falls. There were also, in addition to

these, many scattering and independent tribes."

G. S. Hillard, Life of Captain John Smith

(Library of Am. Biog.), chapter 4.

"The English invested savage life with all the

dignity of European courts. Powhatan was styled 'King,' or

'Emperor,' his principal warriors were lords of the kingdom,

his wives were queens, his daughter was a 'princess,' and his

cabins were his various seats of residence. ... In his younger

days Powhatan had been a great warrior. Hereditarily, he was

the chief or werowance of eight tribes; through conquest his

dominions had been extended. ... The name of his nation and

the Indian appellation of the James River was Powhatan. He

himself possessed several names."

E. Eggleston and L. E. Seelye, Pocahontas, chapter 3.

ALSO IN

Captain John Smith, Description of Virginia, and General

Historie of Virginia. (Arber's reprint of Works, pages 65 and

360).

See, also, above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Puans.

See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Pueblos.

"The non-nomadic semi-civilized town and agricultural peoples

of New Mexico and Arizona ... I call the Pueblos, or

Townspeople, from pueblo, town, population, people, a name

given by the Spaniards to such inhabitants of this region as

were found, when first discovered, permanently located in

comparatively well-built towns. Strictly speaking, the term

Pueblos applies only to the villagers settled along the banks

of the Rio Grande del Norte and its tributaries between

latitudes 34° 45' and 36° 30', and although the name is

employed as a general appellation for this division, it will

be used, for the most part, only in its narrower and popular

sense. In this division, besides the before mentioned Pueblos

proper, are embraced the Moquis, or villagers of eastern

Arizona, and the non-nomadic agricultural nations of the lower

Gila river,--the Pimas, Maricopas, Papagos, and cognate

tribes. The country of the Townspeople, if we may credit

Lieutenant Simpson, is one of 'almost universal barrenness,'

yet interspersed with fertile spots; that of the agricultural

nations, though dry, is more generally productive. The fame of

this so-called civilization reached Mexico at an early day ...

in exaggerated rumors of great cities to the north, which

prompted the expeditions of Marco de Niza in 1539, of Coronado

in 1540, and of Espejo in 1586 [1583]. These adventurers

visited the north in quest of the fabulous kingdoms of

Quivira, Tontonteac, Marata and others, in which great riches

were said to exist. The name of Quivira was afterwards applied

by them to one or more of the pueblo cities. The name Cibola,

from 'Cibolo,' Mexican bull, 'bos bison,' or wild ox of New

Mexico, where the Spaniards first encountered buffalo, was

given to seven of the towns which were afterwards known as the

Seven Cities of Cibola. But most of the villages known at the

present day were mentioned in the reports of the early

expeditions by their present names.

{100}

... The towns of the Pueblos are essentially unique, and are

the dominant feature of these aboriginals. Some of them are

situated in valleys, others on mesas; sometimes they are

planted on elevations almost inaccessible, reached only by

artificial grades, or by steps cut in the solid rock. Some of

the towns are of an elliptical shape, while others are square,

a town being frequently but a block of buildings. Thus a

Pueblo consists of one or more squares, each enclosed by three

or four buildings of from 300 to 400 feet in length, and about

150 feet in width at the base, and from two to seven stories

of from eight to nine feet each in height. ... The stories are

built in a series of gradations or retreating surfaces,

decreasing in size as they rise, thus forming a succession of

terraces. In some of the towns these terraces are on both

sides of the building; in others they face only towards the

outside; while again in others they are on the inside. These

terraces are about six feet wide, and extend around the three

or four sides of the square, forming a walk for the occupants

of the story resting upon it, and a roof for the story

beneath; so with the stories above. As there is no inner

communication with one another, the only means of mounting to

them is by ladders which stand at convenient distances along

the several rows of terraces, and they may be drawn up at

pleasure, thus cutting off all unwelcome intrusion. The

outside walls of one or more of the lower stories are entirely

solid, having no openings of any kind, with the exception of,

in some towns, a few loopholes. ... To enter the rooms on the

ground floor from the outside, one must mount the ladder to

the first balcony or terrace, then descend through a trap door

in the floor by another ladder on the inside. ... The several

stories of these huge structures are divided into

multitudinous compartments of greater or less size, which are

apportioned to the several families of the tribe."

H. H. Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States,

volume 1, chapter 5.

"There can be no doubt that Cibola is to be looked for in New

Mexico. ... We cannot ... refuse to adopt the views of General

Simpson and of Mr. W. W. H. Davis, and to look at the pueblo

of Zuni as occupying, if not the actual site, at least one of

the sites within the tribal area of the Seven Cities of

Cibola. Nor can we refuse to identify Tusayan with the Moqui

district, and Acuco with Acoma."

A. F. Bandelier, Historical Introduction to Studies

among the Sedentary Indians of N. Mexico (Papers of the

Archœology Institute of America: American Series,

volume 1).

ALSO IN

J. H. Simpson, The March of Coronado.

L. H. Morgan, Houses and House-life of the Am.

Aborigines (Contributions to N. Am. Ethnology, volume 4),

chapter 6.

F. H. Cushing, My Adventures in Zuñi

(Century, volume 3-4).

F. H. Cushing, Fourth Annual Report of the Bureau of

Ethnology (1882-83), pages 473-480.

F. W. Blackmar, Spanish Institutions of the Southwest,

chapter 10.

See, also, AMERICA, PREHISTORIC,

and above: PIMAN FAMILY and KERESAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Pujunan Family.

"The following tribes were placed in this group by Latham:

Pujuni, Secumne, Tsamak of Hale, and the Cushna of

Schoolcraft. The name adopted for the family is the name of a

tribe given by Hale. This was one of the two races into which,

upon the information of Captain Sutter as derived by Mr. Dana,

all the Sacramento tribes were believed to be divided. 'These

races resembled one another in every respect but language.'

... The tribes of this family have been carefully studied by

Powers, to whom we are indebted for most all we know of their

distribution. They occupied the eastern bank of the Sacramento

in California, beginning some 80 or 100 miles from its mouth,

and extended northward to within a short distance of Pit

River."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, pages 99-100.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Puncas, or Ponkas.

See below: SIOUAN FAMILY:

and above: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Purumancians.

See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Quapaws.

See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Quelches.

See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Querandis, or Pehuelches, or Puelts.

See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Quiches.--Cakchiquels.

"Of the ancient races of America, those which approached the

nearest to a civilized condition spoke related dialects of a

tongue, which from its principal members has been called the

Maya Quiche linguistic stock. Even to-day, it is estimated

that half a million persons use these dialects. They are

scattered over Yucatan, Guatemala, and the adjacent territory,

and one branch formerly occupied the hot lowlands on the Gulf

of Mexico, north of Vera Cruz. The so-called 'metropolitan'

dialects are those spoken relatively near the city of

Guatemala, and include the Cakchiquel, the Quiche, the

Pokonchi and the Tzutuhill. They are quite closely allied, and

are mutually intelligible, resembling each other about as much

as did in ancient Greece the Attic, Ionic and Doric dialects.

... The civilization of these people was such that they used

various mnemonic signs, approaching our alphabet, to record

and recall their mythology and history. Fragments, more or

less complete, of these traditions have been preserved. The

most notable of them is the national legend of the Quiches of

Guatemala, the so-called Popol Vuh. It was written at an

unknown date in the Quiche dialect, by a native who was

familiar with the ancient records."

D. G. Brinton, Essays of an Americanist, page 104.

ALSO IN,

D. G. Brinton, Annals of the Cakchiquels.

H. H. Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States,

chapter 11.

See, also, above: MAYAS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Quichuas.

See PERU.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Quijo.

See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Quoratean Family.

"The tribes occupy both banks of the lower Klamath from a

range of hills a little above Happy Camp to the junction of

the Trinity, and the Salmon River from its mouth to its

sources. On the north, Quoratean tribes extended to the

Athapascan territory near the Oregon line."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, page 101.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Rapid Indians.

A name applied by various writers to the Arapahoes, and other

tribes.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Raritans.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Remo.

See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Rogue River Indians.

See above: MODOCS, ETC.

See Note, Appendix E.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Rucanas.

See PERU.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Sabaja.

See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

{101}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Sacs (Sauks), Foxes, etc.

"The Sauks or Saukies (White Clay), and Foxes or Outagamies,

so called by the Europeans and Algonkins, but whose true name

is Musquakkiuk (Red Clay), are in fact but one nation. The

French missionaries on coming first in contact with them, in

the year 1665, at once found that they spoke the same

language, and that it differed from the Algonkin, though

belonging to the same stock; and also that this language was

common to the Kickapoos, and to those Indians they called

Maskontens. This last nation, if it ever had an existence as a

distinct tribe, has entirely disappeared. But we are informed

by Charlevoix, and Mr. Schoolcraft corroborates the fact, that

the word 'Mascontenck' means a country without woods, a

prairie. The name Mascontens was therefore used to designate

'prairie Indians.' And it appears that they consisted

principally of Sauks and Kickapoos, with an occasional mixture

of Potowotamies and Miamis, who probably came there to hunt

the Buffalo. The country assigned to those Mascontens lay

south of the Fox River of Lake Michigan and west of Illinois

River. ... When first discovered, the Sauks and Foxes had

their seats toward the southern extremity of Green Bay, on Fox

River, and generally farther east than the country which they

lately occupied. ... By the treaty of 1804, the Sauks and

Foxes ceded to the United States all their lands east of ...

the Mississippi. ... The Kickapoos by various treaties, 1809

to 1819, have also ceded all their lands to the United States.

They claimed all the country between the Illinois River and

the Wabash, north of the parallel of latitude passing by the

mouth of the Illinois and south of the Kankakee River. ... The

territory claimed by the Miamis and Piankishaws may be

generally stated as having been bounded eastwardly by the

Maumee River of Lake Erie, and to have included all the

country drained by the Wabash. The Piankishaws occupied the

country bordering on the Ohio."

A. Gallatin, Synopsis of the Indian Tribes (Archæologia

Americana, volume 2), introduction, section 2.

The Mascontens, or Mascoutins, "seldom appear alone, but

almost always in connection with their kindred, the Ottagamies

or Foxes and the Kickapoos, and like them bear a character for

treachery and deceit. The three tribes may have in earlier

days formed the Fire-Nation [of the early French writers],

but, as Gallatin observes in the Archæologia Americana, it is

very doubtful whether the Mascoutins were ever a distinct

tribe. If this be so, and there is no reason to reject it, the

disappearance of the name will not be strange."

J. G. Shea, Brief Researches Respecting the Mascoutins

(Schoolcraft's Information Respecting Indian Tribes,

part 4, page 245).

See above, ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

For an account of the Black Hawk War

See Illinois, A. D. 1832.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Sahaptins.

See above: NEZ PERCÉS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Salinan Family.

This name is given by Major Powell to the San Antonio and San

Miguel dialects spoken by two tribes on the Salinas River,

Monterey County, California.

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, page 101.

See ESSELENIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Salishan Family.

See above: FLATHEADS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Sanhikans, or Mincees.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Sans Arcs.

See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES

Santees.

See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

See Note. Appendix E.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Sarcee (Tinneh).

See above: BLACKFEET.

See Note. Appendix E.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Sastean Family.

"The single tribe upon the language of which Hale based his

name was located by him to the southwest of the Lutuami or

Klamath tribes. ... The former territory of the Sastean family

is the region drained by the Klamath River and its tributaries

from the western base of the Cascade range to the point where

the Klamath flows through the ridge of hills east of Happy

Camp, which forms the boundary between the Sastean and the

Quoratean families. In addition to this region of the Klamath,

the Shasta extended over the Siskiyou range northward as far as

Ashland, Oregon:"

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, page 106.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Savannahs.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Seminoles.

"The term 'semanóle,' or 'isti Simanóle,' signifies

'separatish' or 'runaway,' and as a tribal name points to the

Indians who left the Creek, especially the Lower Creek

settlements, for Florida, to live, hunt, and fish there in

independence. The term does not mean 'wild,' 'savage,' as

frequently stated; if applied now in this sense to animals, it

is because of its original meaning, 'what has become a

runaway.' ... The Seminoles of modern times are a people

compounded of the following elements: separatists from the

Lower Creek and Hitchiti towns; remnants of tribes partly

civilized by the Spaniards; Yamassi Indians, and some negroes.

... The Seminoles were always regarded as a sort of outcasts

by the Creek tribes from which they had seceded, and no doubt

there were reasons for this. ... These Indians showed, like

the Creeks, hostile intentions towards the thirteen states

during and after the Revolution, and conjointly with the Upper

Creeks on Tallapoosa river concluded a treaty of friendship

with the Spaniards at Pensacola in May, 1784. Although under

Spanish control, the Seminoles entered into hostilities with

the Americans in 1793 and 1812. In the latter year Payne míko

['King Payne'] was killed in a battle at Alachua, and his

brother, the influential Bowlegs, died soon after. These

unruly tribes surprised and massacred American settlers on the

Satilla river, Georgia, in 1817, and another conflict began,

which terminated in the destruction of the Mikasuki and

Suwanee river towns of the Seminoles by General Jackson, in

April, 1818. [See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.] After the cession

of Florida, and its incorporation into the American Union

(1819), the Seminoles gave up all their territory by the

treaty of Fort Moultrie, Sept. 18th, 1823, receiving in

exchange goods and annuities. When the government concluded to

move these Indians west of the Mississippi river, a treaty of

a conditional character was concluded with them at Payne's

landing, in 1832. The larger portion were removed, but the

more stubborn part dissented, and thus gave origin to one of

the gravest conflicts which ever occurred between Indians and

whites. The Seminole war began with the massacre of Major

Dade's command near Wahoo swamp, December 28th, 1835, and

continued with unabated fury for five years, entailing an

immense expenditure of money and lives. [See FLORIDA: A. D.

1835-1843.] A number of Creek warriors joined the hostile

Seminoles in 1836. A census of the Seminoles taken in 1822

gave a population of 3,899, with 800 negroes belonging to

them. The population of the Seminoles in the Indian Territory

amounted to 2,667 in 1881. ... There are some Seminoles now in

Mexico, who went there with their negro slaves."

A. S. Gatschet, A Migration Legend of the Creek Indians,

volume 1, part 1, section 2.

{102}

"Ever since the first settlement of these Indians in Florida

they have been engaged in a strife with the whites. ... In the

unanimous judgment of unprejudiced writers, the whites have

ever been in the wrong."

D. G. Brinton, Notes on the Floridian Peninsula,

page 148.

"There were in Florida, October 1, 1880, of the Indians

commonly known as Seminole, 208. They constituted 37 families,

living in 22 camps, which were gathered into five widely

separated groups or settlements. ... This people our

Government has never been able to conciliate or to conquer.

... The Seminole have always lived within our borders as

aliens. It is only of late years, and through natural

necessities, that any friendly intercourse of white man and

Indian has been secured. ... The Indians have appropriated for

their service some of the products of European civilization,

such as weapons, implements, domestic utensils, fabrics for

clothing, &c. Mentally, excepting a few religious ideas which

they received long ago from the teaching of Spanish

missionaries, and, in the southern settlements, excepting some

few Spanish words, the Seminole have accepted and appropriated

practically nothing from the white man."

C. MacCauley, The Seminole Indians of Florida (Fifth

Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1883-84),

introduction and chapter 4.

ALSO IN

J. T. Sprague, The Florida War.

S. G. Drake, The Aboriginal Races of North America.

book 4, chapter 6-21.

See, also, above: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Senecas; their name.

"How this name originated is a 'vexata quæstio' among

Indo-antiquarians and etymologists. The least plausible

supposition is, that the name has any reference to the

moralist Seneca. Some have supposed it to be a corruption of

the Dutch term for vermillion, cinebar, or cinnabar, under the

assumption that the Senecas, being the most warlike of the

Five Nations, used that pigment more than the others, and thus

gave origin to the name. This hypothesis is supported by no

authority. ... The name 'Sennecas' first appears on a Dutch

map of 1616, and again on Jean de Laet's map of 1633. ... It

is claimed by some that the word may be derived from

'Sinnekox,' the Algonquin name of a tribe of Indians spoken of

in Wassenaer's History of Europe, on the authority of Peter

Barentz, who traded with them about the year 1626. ... Without

assuming to solve the mystery, the writer contents himself

with giving some data which may possibly aid others in

arriving at a reliable conclusion. [Here follows a discussion

of the various forms of name by which the Senecas designated

themselves and were known to the Hurons, from whom the Jesuits

first heard of them.] By dropping the neuter prefix O, the

national title became 'Nan-do-wah-gaah,' or 'The great hill

people,' as now used by the Senecas. ... If the name Seneca

can legitimately be derived from the Seneca word

'Nan-do-wah-gaah' ... it can only be done by prefixing 'Son,'

as was the custom of the Jesuits, and dropping all unnecessary

letters. It would then form the word 'Son-non-do-wa-ga,' the

first two and last syllables of which, if the French sounds of

the letters are given, are almost identical in pronunciation

with Seneca. The chief difficulty, however, would be in the

disposal of the two superfluous syllables. They may have been

dropped in the process of contraction so common in the

composition of Indian words--a result which would be quite

likely to occur to a Seneca name, in its transmission through

two other languages, the Mohawk and the Dutch. The foregoing

queries and suggestions are thrown out for what they are

worth, in the absence of any more reliable theory."

O. H. Marshall, Historical Writings, page 231

See above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY, and HURONS, &c.

See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR,

For an account of Sullivan's expedition against the Senecas,

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Shacaya.

See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Shahaptian Family.

See above: NEZ PERCÉS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES

Shastas.

See above: SASTEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Shawanese, Shawnees, or Shawanoes.

"Adjacent to the Lenape [or Delawares--see above], and

associated with them in some of the most notable passages of

their history, dwelt the Shawanoes, the Chaouanons of the

French, a tribe of bold, roving, and adventurous spirit. Their

eccentric wanderings, their sudden appearances and

disappearances, perplex the antiquary, and defy research; but

from various scattered notices, we may gather that at an early

period they occupied the valley of the Ohio; that, becoming

embroiled with the Five Nations, they shared the defeat of the

Andastes, and about the year 1672 fled to escape destruction.

Some found an asylum in the country of the Lenape, where they

lived tenants at will of the Five Nations; others sought

refuge in the Carolinas and Florida, where, true to their

native instincts, they soon came to blows with the owners of

the soil. Again, turning northwards, they formed new

settlements in the valley of the Ohio, where they were now

suffered to dwell in peace, and where, at a later period, they

were joined by such of their brethren as had found refuge

among the Lenape."

F. Parkman, The Conspiracy of Pontiac, chapter 1.

"The Shawnees were not found originally in Ohio, but migrated

there after 1750. They were called Chaouanons by the French

and Shawanoes by the English. The English name Shawano changed

to Shawanee, and recently to Shawnee. Chaouanon and Shawano

are obviously attempts to represent the same sound by the

orthography of the two respective languages. ... Much industry

has been used by recent writers, especially by Dr. Brinton, to

trace this nomadic tribe to its original home; but I think

without success. ... We first find the Shawano in actual

history about the year 1660, and living along the Cumberland

river, or the Cumberland and Tennessee. Among the conjectures

as to their earlier history, the greatest probability lies for

the present with the earliest account--the account given by

Perrot, and apparently obtained by him from the Shawanoes

themselves, about the year 1680--that they formerly lived by

the lower lakes, and were driven thence by the Five Nations."

M. F. Force, Some Early Notices of the Indians of

Ohio.

"Their [the Shawnee's] dialect is more akin to the Mohegan

than to the Delaware, and when, in 1692, they first appeared

in the area of the Eastern Algonkin Confederacy, they came as

the friends and relatives of the former. They were divided

into four bands"--Piqua, properly Pikoweu, Mequachake,

Kiscapokoke, Chilicothe. "Of these, that which settled in

Pennsylvania was the Pikoweu, who occupied and gave their name

to the Pequa valley in Lancaster county. According to ancient

Mohegan tradition, the New England Pequods were members of

this band."

D. G. Brinton, The Lenape and their Legends, chapter 2.

D. G. Brinton, The Shawnees and their Migrations (History

Magazine, volume 10, 1866).

{103}

"The Shawanese, whose villages were on the western bank [of

the Susquehanna] came into the valley [of Wyoming] from their

former localities, at the 'forks of the Delaware' (the

junction of the Delaware and Lehigh, at Easton), to which

point they had been induced at some remote period to emigrate

from their earlier home, near the mouth of the river Wabash,

in the 'Ohio region,' upon the invitation of the Delawares.

This was Indian diplomacy, for the Delawares were desirous

(not being upon the most friendly terms with the Mingos, or

Six Nations) to accumulate a force against those powerful

neighbors. But, as might be expected, they did not long live

in peace with their new allies. ... The Shawanese [about 1755,

or soon after] were driven out of the valley by their more

powerful neighbors, the Delawares, and the conflict which

resulted in their leaving it grew out of, or was precipitated

by, a very trifling incident. While the warriors of the

Delawares were engaged upon the mountains in a hunting

expedition, a number of squaws or female Indians from

Maughwauwame were gathering wild fruits along the margin of

the river below the town, where they found a number of

Shawanese squaws and their children, who had crossed the river

in their canoes upon the same business. A child belonging to

the Shawanese having taken a large grasshopper, a quarrel

arose among the children for the possession of it, in which

their mothers soon took part. ... The quarrel became general.

... Upon the return of the warriors both tribes prepared for

battle. ... The Shawanese ... were not able to sustain the

conflict, and, after the loss of about half their tribe, the

remainder were forced to flee to their own side of the river,

shortly after which they abandoned their town and removed to

the Ohio." This war between the Delawares and Shawanese has

been called the Grasshopper War.

L. H. Miner, The Valley of Wyoming, page 32.

See, also, above, ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and DELAWARES

See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1765-1768;

For an account of "Lord Dunmore's War",

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Sheepeaters (Tukuarika).

See below: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Sheyennes.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Shoshonean Family.

"This important family occupied a large part of the great

interior basin of the United States. Upon the north Shoshonean

tribes extended far into Oregon, meeting Shahaptian territory

on about the 44th parallel or along the Blue Mountains. Upon

the northeast the eastern limits of the pristine habitat of

the Shoshonean tribes are unknown. The narrative of Lewis and

Clarke contains the explicit statement that the Shoshoni bands

encountered upon the Jefferson River, whose summer home was upon

the head waters of the Columbia, formerly lived within their

own recollection in the plains to the east of the Rocky

Mountains, whence they were driven to their mountain retreats

by the Minnetaree (Atsina), who had obtained firearms. ...

Later a division of the Bannock held the finest portion of

Southwestern Montana, whence apparently they were being pushed

westward across the mountains by Blackfeet. Upon the east the

Tukuarika or Sheepeaters held the Yellowstone Park country,

where they were bordered by the Siouan territory, while the

Washaki occupied southwestern Wyoming. Nearly the entire

mountainous part of Colorado was held by the several bands of

the Ute, the eastern and southeastern parts of the State being

held respectively by the Arapaho and Cheyenne (Algonquian),

and the Kaiowe (Kiowan). To the southeast the Ute country

included the northern drainage of the San Juan, extending

farther east a short distance into New Mexico. The Comanche

division of the family extended farther east than any other.

... Bourgemont found a Comanche tribe on the upper Kansas

River in 1724. According to Pike the Comanche territory

bordered the Kaiowe on the north, the former occupying the

head waters of the Upper Red River, Arkansas and Rio Grande.

How far to the southward Shoshonean tribes extended at this

early period is not known, though the evidence tends to show

that they raided far down into Texas, to the territory they

have occupied in more recent years, viz., the extensive plains

from the Rocky Mountains eastward into Indian Territory and

Texas to about 97°. Upon the south Shoshonean territory was

limited generally by the Colorado River ... while the Tusayan

(Moki) had established their seven pueblos ... to the east of

the Colorado Chiquito. In the southwest Shoshonean tribes had

pushed across California, occupying a wide band of country to

the Pacific."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report., Bureau of

Ethnology, pages 109-110.

"The Pah Utes occupy the greater part of Nevada, and extend

southward. ... The Pi Utes or Piutes inhabit Western Utah,

from Oregon to New Mexico. ... The Gosh Utes [Gosuites]

inhabit the country west of Great Salt Lake, and extend to the

Pah Utes."

H. H. Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States,

volume 1, chapter 4.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Siksikas, or Sisikas.

See above: BLACKFEET.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Siouan Family.--Sioux.

See Note, Appendix E.

"The nations which speak the Sioux language may be considered,

in reference both to their respective dialects and to their

geographical position, as consisting of four subdivisions,

viz., the Winnebagoes; the Sioux proper and the Assiniboins;

the Minetare group; and the Osages and other southern kindred

tribes. The Winnebagoes, so called by the Algonkins, but

called Puans and also Otchagras by the French, and Horoje

('fish-eaters') by the Omahaws and other southern tribes, call

themselves Hochungorah, or the 'Trout' nation. The Green Bay

of Lake Michigan derives its French name from theirs (Baye des

Puans). ... According to the War Department they amount [1836]

to 4,600 souls, and appear to cultivate the soil to a

considerable degree. Their principal seats are on the Fox

River of Lake Michigan, and towards the heads of the Rock

River of the Mississippi. ... The Sioux proper, or

Naudowessies, names given to them by the Algonkins and the

French, call themselves Dahcotas, and sometimes 'Ochente

Shakoans,' or the Seven Fires, and are divided into seven

bands or tribes, closely connected together, but apparently

independent of each other. They do not appear to have been

known to the French before the year 1660.

{104}

... The four most eastern tribes of the Dahcotas are known by

the name of the Mendewahkantoan, or 'Gens du Lac,' Wahkpatoan

and Wahkpakotoan, or 'People of the Leaves,' and Sisitoans.

... The three westerly tribes, the Yanktons, the Yanktonans,

and the Tetons, wander between the Mississippi and the

Missouri. ... The Assiniboins (Stone Indians), as they are

called by the Algonkins, are a Dahcota tribe separated from

the rest of the nation, and on that account called Hoha or

'Rebels,' by the other Sioux. They are said to have made part

originally of the Yanktons. ... Another tribe, called

Sheyennes or Cheyennes, were at no very remote period seated

on the left bank of the Red River of Lake Winnipek. ... Carver

reckons them as one of the Sioux tribes; and Mackenzie informs

us that they were driven away by the Sioux. They now [1836]

live on the headwaters of the river Sheyenne, a southwestern

tributary of the Missouri. ... I have been, however, assured

by a well-informed person who trades with them that they speak

a distinct language, for which there is no European

interpreter. ... The Minetares (Minetaree and Minetaries)

consist of three tribes, speaking three different languages,

which belong to a common stock. Its affinities with the

Dahcota are but remote, but have appeared sufficient to

entitle them to be considered as of the same family. Two of

those tribes, the Mandanes, whose number does not exceed

1,500, and the stationary Minetares, amounting to 3,000 souls,

including those called Annahawas, cultivate the soil, and live

in villages situated on or near the Missouri, between 47° and

48° north latitude. ... The third Minetare tribe, is that

known by the name of the Crow or Upsaroka [or Absaroka]

nation, probably the Keeheetsas of Lewis and Clarke. They are

an erratic tribe, who hunt south of the Missouri, between the

Little Missouri and the southeastern branches of the

Yellowstone River. ... The southern Sioux consist of eight

tribes, speaking four, or at most five, kindred dialects.

Their territory originally extended along the Mississippi,

from below the mouth of the Arkansas to the forty-first degree

of north latitude. ... Their hunting grounds extend as far

west as the Stony Mountains; but they all cultivate the soil,

and the most westerly village on the Missouri is in about 100°

west longitude. The three most westerly tribes are the Quappas

or Arkansas, at the mouth of the river of that name, and the

Osages and Kansas, who inhabited the country south of the

Missouri and of the river Kansas. ... The Osages, properly

Wausashe, were more numerous and powerful than any of the

neighbouring tribes, and perpetually at war with all the other

Indians, without excepting the Kansas, who speak the same

dialect with themselves. They were originally divided into

Great and Little Osages; but about forty years ago almost

one-half of the nation, known by the name of Chaneers, or

Clermont's Band, separated from the rest, and removed to the

river Arkansa. The villages of those several subdivisions are

now [1836] on the headwaters of the river Osage, and of the

Verdigris, a northern tributary stream of the Arkansa. They

amount to about 5,000 souls, and have ceded a portion of their

lands to the United States, reserving to themselves a

territory on the Arkansa, south of 38° North latitude,

extending from 95° to 100° West longitude, on a breadth of 45

to 50 miles. The territory allotted to the Cherokees, the

Creeks and the Choctaws lies south of that of the Osage. ...

The Kansas, who have always lived on the river of that name,

have been at peace with the Osage for the last thirty years,

and intermarry with them. They amount to 1,500 souls, and

occupy a tract of about 3,000,000 acres. ... The five other

tribes of this subdivision are the Ioways, or Pahoja (Grey

Snow), the Missouris or Neojehe, the Ottoes, or Wahtootahtah,

the Omahaws, or Mahas, and the Puncas. ... All the nations

speaking languages belonging to the Great Sioux Family may ...

be computed at more than 50,000 souls."

A. Gallatin, Synopsis of the Indian Tribes (Archœologia

Americana, volume 2), section 4.

"Owing to the fact that 'Sioux' is a word of reproach and

means snake or enemy, the term has been discarded by many

later writers as a family designation, and 'Dakota,' which

signifies friend or ally, has been employed in its stead. The

two words are, however, by no means properly synonymous. The

term 'Sioux' was used by Gallatin in a comprehensive or family

sense and was applied to all the tribes collectively known to

him to speak kindred dialects of a widespread language. It is

in this sense only, as applied to the linguistic family, that

the term is here employed. The term 'Dahcota' (Dakota) was

correctly applied by Gallatin to the Dakota tribes proper as

distinguished from the other members of the linguistic family

who are not Dakotas in a tribal sense. The use of the term

with this signification should be perpetuated. It is only

recently that a definite decision has been reached respecting

the relationship of the Catawba and Woccon, the latter an

extinct tribe known to have been linguistically related to the

Catawba. Gallatin thought that he was able to discern some

affinities of the Catawban language with 'Muskhogee and even

with Choctaw,' though these were not sufficient to induce him

to class them together. Mr. Gatschet was the first to call

attention to the presence in the Catawba language of a

considerable number of words having a Siouan affinity.

Recently Mr. Dorsey has made a critical examination of all the

Catawba linguistic material available, which has been

materially increased by the labors of Mr. Gatschet, and the

result seems to justify its inclusion as one of the dialects

of the widespread Siouan family." The principal tribes in the

Siouan Family named by Major Powell are the Dakota (including

Santee, Sisseton, Wahpeton, Yankton, Yanktonnais, Teton,--the

latter embracing Brulé, Sans Arcs, Blackfeet, Minneconjou, Two

Kettles, Ogalala, Uncpapa), Assinaboin, Omaha, Ponca, Kaw,

Osage, Quapaw, Iowa, Otoe, Missouri, Winnebago, Mandan, Gros

Ventres, Crow, Tutelo, Biloxi (see MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY), Catawba

and Woccon.

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of

Ethnology, page 112.

ALSO IN

J. O. Dorsey, Migrations of Siouan Tribes (American

Naturalist, volume 20, March).

J. O. Dorsey, Biloxi Indians of Louisiana (V. P.

address A. A. A. S., 1893).

See, above: HIDATSA.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Sissetons.

See above SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Six Nations.

See above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

{105}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Skittagetan Family.

"A family designation ... retained for the tribes of the Queen

Charlotte Archipelago which have usually been called Haida.

From a comparison of the vocabularies of the Haida language

with others of the neighboring Koluschan family, Dr. Franz

Boas is inclined to consider that the two are genetically

related. The two languages possess a considerable number of

words in common, but a more thorough investigation is

requisite for the settlement of the question."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, page 120.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Snakes.

See above: SNOSHONEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Stockbridge Indians.

"The Stockbridge Indians were originally a part of the

Housatannuck Tribe [Mohegans], to whom the Legislature of

Massachusetts granted or secured a township [afterward called

Stockbridge] in the year 1736. Their number was increased by

Wappingers and Mohikanders, and perhaps also by Indians

belonging to several other tribes, both of New England and New

York. Since their removal to New Stockbridge and Brotherton,

in the western parts of New York, they have been joined by

Mohegans and other Indians from East Connecticut, and even

from Rhode Island and Long Island."

A. Gallatin, Synopsis of Indian Tribes (Archæologia

Americana, volume 2), page 35.

ALSO IN

A. Holmes, Annals of America, 1736 (volume 2).

S. G. Drake, Aboriginal Races, page 15.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Susquehannas, or Andastes, or Conestogas.

"Dutch and Swedish writers speak of a tribe called Minquas;

... the French in Canada ... make frequent allusions to the

Gandastogués (more briefly Andastés), a tribe friendly to

their allies, the Hurons, and sturdy enemies of the Iroquois;

later still Pennsylvania writers speak of the Conestogas, the

tribe to which Logan belonged, and the tribe which perished at

the hands of the Paxton boys. Although Gallatin in his map,

followed by Bancroft, placed the Andastés near Lake Erie, my

researches led me to correct this, and identify the

Susquehannas, Minqua, Andastés or Gandastogués, and Conestogas

as being an the same tribe, the first name being apparently an

appellation given them by the Virginia tribes; the second that

given them by the Algonquins on the Delaware; while

Gandastogué as the French, or Conestoga as the English wrote

it, was their own tribal name, meaning cabin-pole men, Natio

Perticarum, from 'Andasta,' a cabin-pole. ... Prior to 1600

the Susquehannas and the Mohawks ... came into collision, and

the Susquehannas nearly exterminated the Mohawks in a war

which lasted ten years." In 1647 they offered their aid to the

Hurons against the Iroquois, having 1,300 warriors trained to

the use of fire-arms by three Swedish soldiers: but the

proposed alliance failed. During the third quarter of the 17th

century they seem to have been in almost continuous war with

the Five Nations, until, in 1675, they were completely

overthrown. A party of about 100 retreated into Maryland and

became involved there in a war with the colonists and were

destroyed. "The rest of the tribe, after making overtures to

Lord Baltimore, submitted to the Five Nations, and were

allowed to retain their ancient grounds. When Pennsylvania was

settled, they became known as Conestogas, and were always

friendly to the colonists of Penn, as they had been to the

Dutch and Swedes. In 1701 Canoodagtoh, their king, made a

treaty with Penn, and in the document they are styled Minquas,

Conestogas, or Susquehannas. They appear as a tribe in a

treaty in 1742, but were dwindling away. In 1763 the feeble

remnant of the tribe became involved in the general suspicion

entertained by the colonists against the red men, arising out

of massacres on the borders. To escape danger the poor

creatures took refuge in Lancaster jail, and here they were

all butchered by the Paxton boys, who burst into the place.

Parkman, in his Conspiracy of Pontiac, page 414, details the sad

story. The last interest of this unfortunate tribe centres in

Logan, the friend of the white man, whose speech is so

familiar to all, that we must regret that it has not sustained

the historical scrutiny of Brantz Mayer."

(Tahgahjute; or Logan and Capt. Michael Cresap, Maryland

Historical Society, May, 1851: and 8vo. Albany, 1867).

"Logan was a Conestoga, in other words a Susquehanna."

J. G. Shea, Note 46 to George Alsop's Character of the

Province of Maryland

(Gowan's Bibliotheca Americana, 5).

See, also, above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Tachies.

See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS AND THE NAME.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Tacullies.

See below: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Taensas.

See NATCHESAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Takilman Family.

See Note, Appendix E.

"This name was proposed by Mr. Gatschet for a distinct

language spoken on the coast of Oregon about the lower Rogue

River."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, page 121.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Talligewi.

See above: ALLEGHANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Tañoan Family.

"The tribes of this family in the United States resided

exclusively upon the Rio Grande and its tributary valleys from

about 33° to about 36°."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,

page 122.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Tappans.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Taranteens or Tarratines.

See above: ABNAKIS:

also, ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Tarascans.

"The Tarascans, so called from Taras, the name of a tribal

god, had the reputation of being the tallest and handsomest

people of Mexico. They were the inhabitants of the present

State of Michoacan, west of the valley of Mexico. According to

their oldest traditions, or perhaps those of their neighbors,

they had migrated from the north in company with, or about the

same time as, the Aztecs. For some 300 years before the

conquest they had been a sedentary, semi-civilized people,

maintaining their independence, and progressing steadily in

culture. When first encountered by the Spaniards they were

quite equal and in some respects ahead of the Nahuas. ... In

their costume the Tarascos differed considerably from their

neighbors. The feather garments which they manufactured

surpassed all others in durability and beauty. Cotton was,

however, the usual material."

D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 136.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Tarumi.

See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Tecuna.

See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Tehuel Che.

See above: PATAGONIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Telmelches.

See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Tequestas.

See below: TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Tetons.

See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Teutecas, or Tenez.

See below: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

{106}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Timuquanan Family.

The Tequestas.

"Beginning at the southeast, we first meet the historic

Timucua family, the tribes of which are extinct at the present

time. ... In the 16th century the Timucua inhabited the

northern and middle portion of the peninsula of Florida, and

although their exact limits to the north are unknown, they

held a portion of Florida bordering on Georgia, and some of

the coast islands in the Atlantic ocean. ... The people

received its name from one of their villages called Timagoa.

... The name means 'lord,' 'ruler,' 'master' ('atimuca,'

waited upon, 'muca,' by servants, 'ati'), and the people's

name is written Atimuca early in the 18th century. ... The

languages spoken by the Calusa and by the people next in

order, the Tequesta, are unknown to us. ... The Calusa held

the southwestern extremity of Florida, and their tribal name

is left recorded in Calusahatchi, a river south of Tampa bay.

... Of the Tequesta people on the southeastern end of the

peninsula we know still less than of the Calusa Indians. There

was a tradition that they were the same people which held the

Bahama or Lucayo Islands."

A. S. Gatschet, A Migration Legend of the Creek Indians,

volume 1, part 1.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Tinneh.

See above: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Tivitivas.

See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Tlascalans.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

T'linkets.

See above: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Tobacco Nation.

See above: HURONS;

and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR NAME.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Tobas.

See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Toltecs.

See MEXICO, ANCIENT.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Tonikan Family.

"The Tonika are known to have occupied three localities:

First, on the Lower Yazoo River (1700); second, east shore of

Mississippi River (about 1704); third, in Avoyelles Parish,

Louisiana (1817). Near Marksville, the county seat of that

parish, about twenty-five are now living."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, page 125.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Tonkawan Family.

"The Tónkawa were a migratory people and a colluvies gentium,

whose earliest habitat is unknown. Their first mention occurs

in 1719; at that time and ever since they roamed in the

western and southern parts of what is now Texas."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, page 126.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Tontos.

See above: APACHE GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Toromonos.

See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Totonacos.

"The first natives whom Cortes met on landing in Mexico were

the Totonacos. They occupied the territory of Totonicapan, now

included in the State of Vera Cruz. According to traditions of

their own, they had resided there 800 years, most of which

time they were independent, though a few generations before

the arrival of the Spaniards they had been subjected by the

arms of the Montezumas. ... Sahagun describes them as almost

white in color, their heads artificially deformed, but their

features regular and handsome. Robes of cotton beautifully

dyed served them for garments, and their feet were covered

with sandals. ... These people were highly civilized.

Cempoalla, their capital city, was situated about five miles

from the sea, at the junction of two streams. Its houses were

of brick and mortar, and each was surrounded by a small

garden, at the foot of which a stream of fresh water was

conducted. ... The affinities of the Totonacos are difficult

to make out. ... Their language has many words from Maya

roots, but it has also many more from the Nahuatl."

D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 139.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Tukuarika.

See above: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Tupi.--Guarani.--Tupuyas.

"The first Indians with whom the Portuguese came in contact,

on the discovery of Brazil, called themselves Tupinama, a term

derived by Barnhagen from Tupi and Mba, something like warrior

or nobleman; by Martius from Tupi and Anamba (relative) with

the signification 'belonging to the Tupi tribe.' These Tupi

dwell on the east coast of Brazil, and with their language the

Portuguese were soon familiar. It was found especially

serviceable as a means of communication with other tribes, and

this led the Jesuits later to develop it as much as possible,

and introduce it as a universal language of intercourse with

the Savages. Thus the 'lingua geral Brasilica' arose, which

must be regarded as a Tupi with a Portuguese pronunciation.

The result was a surprising one, for it really succeeded in

forming, for the tribes of Brazil, divided in language, a

universal means of communication. Without doubt the wide

extent of the Tupi was very favorable, especially since on

this side of the Andes, as far as the Caribbean Sea, the

continent of South America was overrun with Tupi hordes. ...

Von Martius has endeavored to trace their various migrations

and abodes, by which they have acquired a sort of ubiquity in

tropical South America. ... This history ... leads to the

supposition that, had the discovery been delayed a few

centuries, the Tupi might have become the lords of eastern

South America, and have spread a higher culture over that

region. The Tupi family may be divided, according to their

fixed abodes, into the southern, northern, eastern, western,

and central Tupi; all these are again divided into a number of

smaller tribes. The southern Tupi are usually called Guarani

(warriors), a name which the Jesuits first introduced. It

cannot be determined from which direction they came. The

greatest number are in Paraguay and the Argentine province of

Corrientes. The Jesuits brought them to a very high degree of

civilization. The eastern Tupi, the real Tupinamba, are

scattered along the Atlantic coast from St. Catherina Island

to the mouth of the Amazon. They are a very weak tribe. They

say they came from the south and west. The northern Tupi are a

weak and widely scattered remnant of a large tribe, and are

now in the province of Para, on the island of Marajo, and

along both banks of the Amazon. ... It is somewhat doubtful if

this peaceable tribe are really Tupi. ... The central Tupi

live in several free hordes between the Tocantins and Madeira.

... Cutting off the heads of enemies is in vogue among them.

... The Mundrucu are especially the head-hunting tribe. The

western Tupi all live in Bolivia. They are the only ones who

came in contact with the Inca empire, and their character and

manners show the influence of this. Some are a picture of

idyllic gayety and patriarchal mildness."

The Standard Natural History (J. S. Kingsley, editor)

volume 6, pages 248-249.

"In frequent contiguity with the Tupis was another stock, also

widely dispersed through Brazil, called the Tupuyas, of whom

the Botocudos in eastern Brazil are the most prominent tribe.

To them also belong the Ges nations, south of the lower

Amazon, and others. They are on a low grade of culture, going

quite naked, not cultivating the soil, ignorant of pottery,

and with poorly made canoes. They are dolichocephalic, and

must have inhabited the country a long time."

D. G. Brinton, Races and Peoples, pages 269-270.

{107}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Turiero.

See above: CHIBCHAS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Tuscaroras.

See above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY,

and IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Tuteloes.

See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Twightwees, or Miamis.

See above: ILLINOIS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Two Kettles.

See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Uaupe.

See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Uchean Family.

"The pristine homes of the Yuchi are not now traceable with

any degree of certainty. The Yuchi are supposed to have been

visited by De Soto during his memorable march, and the town of

Cofitachiqui chronicled by him, is believed by many

investigators to have stood at Silver Bluff, on the left bank

of the Savannah, about 25 miles below Augusta. If, as is

supposed by some authorities, Cofitachiqui was a Yuchi town,

this would locate the Yuchi in a section which, when first

known to the whites, was occupied by the Shawnee. Later the

Yuchi appear to have lived somewhat farther down the

Savannah."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,

page 126.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Uhilches.

See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Uirina.

See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Uncpapas.

See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Upsarokas, or Absarokas, or Crows.

See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Utahs.

See above: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Wabenakies, or Abnakis.

See above: ABNAKIS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Wacos, or Huecos.

See above: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Wahpetons.

See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Waiilatpuan Family.

"Hale established this family and placed under it the Cailloux

or Cayuse or Willetpoos, and the Molele. Their headquarters as

indicated by Hale are the upper part of the Walla Walla River

and the country about Mounts Hood and Vancouver."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, page 127.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Waikas.

See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Wakashan Family.

"The above family name was based upon a vocabulary of the

Wakash Indians, who, according to Gallatin, 'inhabit the

island on which Nootka Sound is situated.' ... The term

'Wakash' for this group of languages has since been generally

ignored, and in its place Nootka or Nootka-Columbian has been

adopted. ... Though by no means as appropriate a designation

as could be found, it seems clear that for the so-called

Wakash, Newittee, and other allied languages usually assembled

under the Nootka family, the term Wakash of 1836 has priority

and must be retained."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, pages 129-130.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Wampanoags, or Pokanokets.

See above: POKANOKETS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Wapisianas.

See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Wappingers.

See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Waraus.

See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Washakis.

See above: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES

Washoan Family.

"This family is represented by a single well known tribe,

whose range extended from Reno, on the line of the Central

Pacific Railroad, to the lower end of Carson Valley."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, page 131.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Wichitas, or Pawnee Picts.

See above: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Winnebagoes.

See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Wishoskan Family.

"This is a small and obscure linguistic family and little is

known concerning the dialects composing it or of the tribes

which speak it. ... The area occupied by the tribes speaking

dialects of this language was the coast from a little below

the mouth of Eel River to a little north of Mad River,

including particularly the country about Humboldt Bay."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, page 133.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Witumkas.

See above: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Woccons.

See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Wyandots.

See above: HURONS.

Yamasis and Yamacraws.

See above: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Yamco.

See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Yanan Family.

"The eastern boundary of the Yanan territory is formed by a

range of mountains a little west of Lassen Butte and

terminating near Pit River; the northern boundary by a line

running from northeast to southwest, passing near the northern

side of Round Mountain, three miles from Pit River. The

western boundary from Redding southward is on an average 10

miles to the east of the Sacramento. North of Redding it

averages double that distance or about 20 miles."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, page 135.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Yanktons and Yanktonnais.

See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Yncas, or Incas.

See PERU.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Yuchi.

See above: UCHEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Yuguarzongo.

See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Yukian Family.

"Round Valley, California, subsequently made a reservation to

receive the Yuki and other tribes, was formerly the chief seat

of the tribes of the family, but they also extended across the

mountains to the coast."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, page 136.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Yuman Family.

"The center of distribution of the tribes of this family is

generally considered to be the lower Colorado and Gila

Valleys."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, page 137.

See above: APACHE GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Yuncas.

See PERU.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Yuroks or Eurocs.

See above: MODOCS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Zaporo.

See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Zapotecs, Mixtecs, Zoques, Mixes, etc.

"The greater part of Gaxaca [Mexico] and the neighboring

regions are still occupied by the Zapytees, who call

themselves Didja-za. There are now about 265,000 of them,

about 50,000 of whom speak nothing but their native tongue. In

ancient times they constituted a powerful independent state,

the citizens of which seem to have been quite as highly

civilized as any member of the Aztec family. They were

agricultural and sedentary, living in villages and

constructing buildings of stone and mortar.

{108}

The most remarkable, but by no means the only, specimens of

these    still remaining are the ruins of Mitla. ... The Mixtecs

adjoined the Zapotecs to the west, extending along the coast

of the Pacific to about the present port of Acapulco. In

culture they were equal to the Zapotecs. ... The mountain

regions of the isthmus of Tehuantepec and the adjacent

portions of the states of Chiapas and Oaxaca are the habitats

of the Zoques, Mixes, and allied tribes. The early historians

draw a terrible picture of their valor, savagery and

cannibalism, which reads more like tales to deter the

Spaniards from approaching their domains than truthful

accounts. However this may be, they have been for hundreds of

years a peaceful, ignorant, timid part of the population,

homely, lazy and drunken. ... The faint traditions of these

peoples pointed to the South for their origin. ... The

Chinantecs inhabited Chinantla, which is a part of the state

of Oaxaca. ... The Chinantecs had been reduced by the Aztecs

and severely oppressed by them. Hence they welcomed the

Spaniards as deliverers. ... Other names by which they are

mentioned are Tenez and Teutecas. ... In speaking of the

province of Chiapas the historian Herrera informs us that it

derived its name from the pueblo so-called, 'whose inhabitants

were the most remarkable in New Spain for their traits and

inclinations.' They had early acquired the art of

horsemanship, they were skillful in all kinds of music,

excellent painters, carried on a variety of arts, and were

withal very courteous to each other. One tradition was that

they had reached Chiapas from Nicaragua. ... But the more

authentic legend of the Chapas or Chapanecs, as they were

properly called from their totemic bird the Chapa, the red

macaw, recited that the whole stock moved down from a northern

latitude, following down the Pacific coast until they came to

Soconusco, where they divided, one part entering the mountains

of Chiapas, the other proceeding on to Nicaragua."

D. G. Brinton, The American Race, pages 140-146.

ALSO IN

A. Bandelier, Report of Archæological Tour in Mexico.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Zoques.

See above: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

Zuñian Family.

"Derivation: From the Cochiti term Suinyi, said to mean 'the

people of the long nails,' referring to the surgeons of Zuñi

who always wear some of their nails very long (Cushing)."

J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of

Ethnology, page 138.

See, above, PUEBLOS;

also, AMERICA: PREHISTORIC.

----------AMERICAN ABORIGINES: End----------

AMERICAN CIVIL WAR.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER),

and after.

Statistics of. See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865 (MAY).

AMERICAN KNIGHTS, Order of.

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

AMERICAN PARTY, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.

AMERICAN SYSTEM, The.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1816-1824.

AMHERST, Lord, The Indian Administration of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

AMHERST'S CAMPAIGNS IN AMERICA.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1758 to 1760.

AMICITIÆ.

See GUILDS OF FLANDERS.

AMIDA, Sieges of.

The ancient city of Amida, now Diarbekr, on the right bank of

the Upper Tigris was thrice taken by the Persians from the

Romans, in the course of the long wars between the two

nations. In the first instance, A. D. 359, it fell after a

terrible siege of seventy-three days, conducted by the Persian

king Sapor in person, and was given up to pillage and

slaughter, the Roman commanders crucified and the few

surviving inhabitants dragged to Persia as slaves. The town

was then abandoned by the Persians, repeopled by the Romans

and recovered its prosperity and strength, only to pass

through a similar experience again in 502 A. D., when it was

besieged for eighty days by the Persian king Kobad, carried by

storm, and most of its inhabitants slaughtered or enslaved. A

century later, A. D. 605, Chosroes took Amida once more, but

with less violence.

G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 9, 19

and 24.

See, also, PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

AMIENS.--Origin of name.

See BELGÆ.

AMIENS: A. D. 1597.

Surprise by the Spaniards.

Recovery by Henry IV.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

AMIENS: A. D. 1870.

Taken by the Germans.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

----------AMIENS: End----------

AMIENS, The Mise of.

See OXFORD, PROVISIONS OF.

AMIENS, Treaty of (1527).

Negotiated by Cardinal Wolsey, between Henry VIII. of England

and Francis I. of France, establishing an alliance against the

Emperor, Charles V. The treaty was sealed and sworn to in the

cathedral church at Amiens, Aug. 18, 1527.

J. S. Brewer, Reign of Henry VIII.,

volume 2. chapter 26 and 28.

AMIENS, Treaty of (1801).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

AMIN AL, Caliph, A. D. 809-813.

AMIR.

An Arabian title, signifying chief or ruler.

AMISIA, The.

The ancient name of the river Ems.

AMISUS, Siege of.

The siege of Amisus by Lucullus was one of the important

operations of the Third Mithridatic war. The city was on the

coast of the Black Sea, between the rivers Halys and Lycus; it

is represented in site by the modern town of Samsoon. Amisus,

which was besieged in 73 B. C. held out until the following

year. Tyrannio the grammarian was among the prisoners taken

and sent to Rome.

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 3, chapter 1 and

2.

AMMANN.

This is the title of the Mayor or President of the Swiss Communal

Council or Gemeinderath.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

AMMON, The Temple and Oracle of.

The Ammonium or Oasis of Ammon, in the Libyan desert, which

was visited by Alexander the Great, has been identified with

the oasis now known as the Oasis of Siwah. "The Oasis of Siwah

was first visited and described by Browne in 1792; and its

identity with that of Ammon fully established by Major Rennell

('Geography of Herodotus,' pages 577-591). ... The site of the

celebrated temple and oracle of Ammon was first discovered by

Mr. Hamilton in 1853." "Its famous oracle was frequently

visited by Greeks from Cyrene, as well as from other parts of

the Hellenic world, and it vied in reputation with those of

Delphi and Dodona."

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 8,

section 1, and chapter 12, section 1, and note E.

An expedition of 50,000 men sent by Cambyses to Ammon, B. C.

525, is said to have perished in the desert, to the last man.

See EGYPT: B. C. 525-332.

{109}

AMMONITES, The.

According to the narrative in Genesis xix: 30-39, the

Ammonites were descended from Ben-Ammi, son of Lot's second

daughter, as the Moabites came from Moab, the eldest

daughter's son. The two people are much associated in Biblical

history. "It is hard to avoid the conclusion that, while Moab

was the settled and civilized half of the nation of Lot, the

Bene Ammon formed its predatory and Bedouin section."

G. Grove, Dictionary of the Bible.

See JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW HISTORY;

also, MOABITES.

AMMONITI, OR AMMONIZIONI, The.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1358.

AMNESTY PROCLAMATION.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A.D. 1863 (DECEMBER).

AMORIAN DYNASTY, The.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 820-1057.

AMORIAN WAR, The.

The Byzantine Emperor, Theophilus, in war with the Saracens,

took and destroyed, with peculiar animosity, the town of

Zapetra or Sozopetra, in Syria, which happened to be the

birthplace of the reigning caliph, Motassem, son of Haroun

Alraschid. The caliph had condescended to intercede for the

place, and his enemy's conduct was personally insulting to

him, as well as atrociously inhumane. To avenge the outrage he

invaded Asia Minor, A. D. 838, at the head of an enormous

army, with the special purpose of destroying the birthplace of

Theophilus. The unfortunate town which suffered that

distinction was Amorinm in Phrygia,--whence the ensuing war

was called the Amorian War. Attempting to defend Amorinm in

the field, the Byzantines were hopelessly defeated, and the

doomed city was left to its fate. It made an heroic resistance

for fifty-five days, and the siege is said to have cost the

caliph 70,000 men. But he entered the place at last with a

merciless sword, and left a heap of ruins for the monument of

his revenge.

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

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

AMORITES, The.

"The Hittites and Amorites were ... mingled together in the

mountains of Palestine like the two races which ethnologists

tell us go to form the modern Kelt. But the Egyptian monuments

teach us that they were of very different origin and

character. The Hittites were a people with yellow skins and

'Mongoloid' features, whose receding foreheads, oblique eyes,

and protruding upper jaws, are represented as faithfully on

their own monuments as they are on those of Egypt, so that we

cannot accuse the Egyptian artists of caricaturing their

enemies. If the Egyptians have made the Hittites ugly, it was

because they were so in reality. The Amorites, on the

contrary, were a tall and handsome people. They are depicted

with white skins, blue eyes, and reddish hair, all the

characteristics, in fact, of the white race. Mr. Petrie points

out their resemblance to the Dardanians of Asia Minor, who

form an intermediate link between the white-skinned tribes of

the Greek seas and the fair-complexioned Libyans of Northern

Africa. The latter are still found in large numbers in the

mountainous regions which stretch eastward from Morocco, and

are usually known among the French under the name of Kabyles.

The traveller who first meets with them in Algeria cannot fail

to be struck by their likeness to a certain part of the

population in the British Isles. Their clear-white freckled

skins, their blue eyes, their golden-red hair and tall

stature, remind him of the fair Kelts of an Irish village; and

when we find that their skulls, which are of the so-called

dolichocephalic or 'long-headed' type, are the same as the

skulls discovered in the prehistoric cromlechs of the country

they still inhabit, we may conclude that they represent the

modern descendants of the white-skinned Libyans of the

Egyptian monuments. In Palestine also we still come across

representatives of a fair-complexioned blue-eyed race in whom

we may see the descendants of the ancient Amorites, just as we

see in the Kabyles the descendants of the ancient Libyans. We

know that the Amorite type continued to exist in Judah long

after the Israelitish conquest of Canaan. The captives taken

from the southern cities of Judah br Shishak in the time of

Rehoboam, and depicted by him upon the walls of the great

temple of Karnak, are people of Amorite origin. Their 'regular

profile of sub-aquiline cast,' as Mr. Tomkins describes it,

their high cheek-bones and martial expression, are the

features of the Amorites, and not of the Jews. Tallness of

stature has always been a distinguishing characteristic of the

white race. Hence it was that the Anakim, the Amorite

inhabitants of Hebron, seemed to the Hebrew spies to be as

giants, while they themselves were but 'as grasshoppers' by,

the side of them (Numbers xiii: 33). After the Israelitish

invasion remnants of the Anakim were left in Gaza and Gath and

Ashkelon (Joshua xi: 22). and in the time of David, Goliath of

Gath and his gigantic family were objects of dread to their

neighbors (2 Samuel xxi: 15-22). It is clear, then, that the

Amorites of Canaan belonged to the same white race as the

Libyans of Northern Africa, and like them preferred the

mountains to the hot plains and valleys below. The Libyans

themselves belonged to a race which can be traced through the

peninsula of Spain and the western side of France into the

British Isles. Now it is curious that wherever this particular

branch of the white race has extended it has been accompanied

by a particular form of cromlech, or sepulchral chamber built

of large uncut stones. ... It has been necessary to enter at

this length into what has been discovered concerning the

Amorites by recent research, in order to show how carefully

they should be distinguished from the Hittites with whom they

afterwards intermingled. They must have been in possession of

Palestine long before the Hittites arrived there. They

extended over a much wider area."

A. H. Sayce, The Hittites, chapter 1.

AMPHIKTYONIC COUNCIL.

"An Amphiktyonic, or, more correctly, an Amphiktionic, body

was an assembly of the tribes who dwelt around any famous

temple, gathered together to manage the affairs of that

temple. There were other Amphiktyonic Assemblies in Greece

[besides that of Delphi], amongst which that of the isle of

Kalaureia, off the coast of Argolis, was a body of some

celebrity. The Amphiktyons of Delphi obtained greater

importance than any other Amphiktyons only because of the

greater importance of the Delphic sanctuary, and because it

incidentally happened that the greater part of the Greek

nation had some kind of representation among them.

{110}

But that body could not be looked upon as a perfect

representation of the Greek nation which, to postpone other

objections to its constitution, found no place for so large a

fraction of the Hellenic body as the Arkadians. Still the

Amphiktyons of Delphi undoubtedly came nearer than any other

existing body to the character of a general representation of

all Greece. It is therefore easy to understand how the

religious functions of such a body might incidentally assume a

political character. ... Once or twice then, in the course of

Grecian history, we do find the Amphiktyonic body acting with

real dignity in the name of united Greece. ... Though the list

of members of the Council is given with some slight variations

by different authors, all agree in making the constituent

members of the union tribes and not cities. The

representatives of the Ionic and Doric races sat and voted as

single members, side by side with the representatives of petty

peoples like the Magnêsians and Phthiôtic Achaians. When the

Council was first formed, Dorians and Ionians were doubtless

mere tribes of northern Greece, and the prodigious development

of the Doric and Ionic races in after times made no difference

in its constitution. ... The Amphiktyonic Council was not

exactly a diplomatic congress, but it was much more like a

diplomatic congress than it was like the governing assembly of

any commonwealth, kingdom, or federation. The Pylagoroi and

Hieromnêmones were not exactly Ambassadors, but they were much

more like Ambassadors than they were like members of a British

Parliament or even an American Congress. ... The nearest

approach to the Amphiktyonic Council in modern times would be

if the College of Cardinals were to consist of members chosen

by the several Roman Catholic nations of Europe and America."

E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government,

volume 1, chapter 3.

AMPHILOCHIANS, The.

See AKARNANIANS.

AMPHIPOLIS.

This town in Macedonia, occupying an important situation on

the eastern bank of the river Strymon, just below a small lake

into which it widens near its mouth, was originally called

"The Nine Ways," and was the scene of a horrible human

sacrifice made by Xerxes on his march into Greece.

Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 15.

It was subsequently taken by the Athenians, B. C. 437, and

made a capital city by them [see ATHENS: B. C. 440-437],

dominating the surrounding district, its name being changed to

Amphipolis. During the Peloponnesian War (B. C. 424), the able

Lacedæmonian general, Brasidas, led a small army into

Macedonia and succeeded in capturing Amphipolis, which caused

great dismay and discouragement at Athens. Thucydides, the

historian, was one of the generals held responsible for the

disaster and he was driven as a consequence into the fortunate

exile which produced the composition of his history. Two years

later the Athenian demagogue-leader, Cleon, took command of an

expedition sent to recover Amphipolis and other points in

Macedonia and Thrace. It was disastrously beaten and Cleon was

killed, but Brasidas fell likewise in the battle. Whether

Athens suffered more from her defeat than Sparta from her

victory is a question.

Thucydides, History, book 4, section 102-135:

book 5, section 1-11.

See, also,

ATHENS: B. C. 466-454,

and GREECE: B. C. 424-421.

Amphipolis was taken by Philip of Macedon, B. C. 358.

See GREECE: B. C. 359-358.

AMPHISSA, Siege and Capture by Philip of Macedon (B. C. 339-338).

See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

AMPHITHEATRES, Roman.

"There was hardly a town in the [Roman] empire which had not

an amphitheatre large enough to contain vast multitudes of

spectators. The savage excitement of gladiatorial combats

seems to have been almost necessary to the Roman legionaries

in their short intervals of inaction, and was the first

recreation for which they provided in the places where they

were stationed. ... Gladiatorial combats were held from early

times in the Forum, and wild beasts hunted in the Circus; but

until Curio built his celebrated double theatre of wood, which

could be made into an amphitheatre by turning the two

semi-circular portions face to face, we have no record of any

special building in the peculiar form afterwards adopted. It

may have been, therefore, that Curio's mechanical contrivance

first suggested the elliptical shape. ... As specimens of

architecture, the amphitheatres are more remarkable for the

mechanical skill and admirable adaptation to their purpose

displayed in them, than for any beauty of shape or decoration.

The hugest of all, the Coliseum, was ill-proportioned and

unpleasing in its lines when entire."

R. Burn, Rome and the Campagna, introduction.

AMPHORA.--MODIUS.

"The [Roman] unit of capacity was the Amphora or Quadrantal,

which contained a cubic foot ... equal to 5.687 imperial

gallons, or 5 gallons, 2 quarts, 1 pint, 2 gills, nearly. The

Amphora was the unit for both liquid and dry measures, but the

latter was generally referred to the Modius, which contained

one-third of an Amphora. ... The Culeus was equal to 20

Amphoræ."

W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 13.

AMRITSAR.

See SIKHS.

AMSTERDAM:

The rise of the city.

"In 1205 a low and profitless marsh upon the coast of Holland,

not far from the confines of Utrecht, had been partially

drained by a dam raised upon the hitherto squandered stream of

the Amstel. Near this dam a few huts were tenanted by poor men

who earned a scanty livelihood by fishing in the Zuyder Sea;

but so uninviting seemed that barren and desolate spot, that a

century later Amstel-dam was still an obscure seafaring town,

or rather hamlet. Its subsequent progress was more rapid. The

spirit of the land was stirring within it, and every portion

of it thrilled with new energy and life. Some of the fugitive

artizans from Flanders saw in the thriving village safety and

peace, and added what wealth they had, and, what was better,

their manufacturing intelligence and skill, to the humble

hamlet's store. Amsteldam was early admitted to the fellowship

of the Hanse League; and, in 1342, having outgrown its primary

limits, required to be enlarged. For this an expensive

process, that of driving piles into the swampy plain, was

necessary; and to this circumstance, no doubt, it is owing

that the date of each successive enlargement has been so

accurately recorded."

W. T. McCullagh, Industrial History of Three Nations,

volume 2, chapter 9.

{111}

AMT.--AMTER.

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

and SCANDINAVIAN STATES (NORWAY): A. D. 1814-1815.

AMURATH I., Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1359-1389.

Amurath II., A. D. 1421-1451.

Amurath III., A. D. 1574-1595.

Amurath IV., A. D. 1623-1640.

AMYCLÆ,

The Silence of.-

Amyclæ was the chief city of Laconia while that district of

Peloponnesus was occupied by the Achæans, before the Doric

invasion and before the rise of Sparta. It maintained its

independence against the Doric Spartans for a long period, but

succumbed at length under circumstances which gave rise to a

proverbial saying among the Greeks concerning "the silence of

Amyclæ." "The peace of Amyclæ, we are told, had been so often

disturbed by false alarms of the enemy's approach, that at

length a law was passed forbidding such reports, and the

silent city was taken by surprise."

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 7.

AMYTHAONIDÆ, The.

See ARGOS.--ARGOLIS.

AN, The City of.

See ON.

ANABAPTISTS OF MÜNSTER.

"Münster is a town in Westphalia, the seat of a bishop, walled

round, with a noble cathedral and many churches; but there is

one peculiarity about Münster that distinguishes it from all

other old German towns; it has not one old church spire in it.

Once it had a great many. How comes it that it now has none?

In Münster lived a draper, Knipperdolling by name, who was

much excited over the doctrines of Luther, and he gathered

many people in his house, and spoke to them bitter words

against the Pope, the bishops, and the clergy. The bishop at

this time was Francis of Waldeck, a man much inclined himself

to Lutheranism; indeed, later, he proposed to suppress

Catholicism in the diocese, as he wanted to seize on it and

appropriate it as a possession to his family. Moreover, in

1544, he joined the Protestant princes in a league against the

Catholics; but he did not want things to move too fast, lest

he should not be able to secure the wealthy See as personal

property. Knipperdolling got a young priest, named Rottmann,

to preach in one of the churches against the errors of

Catholicism, and he was a man of such fiery eloquence that he

stirred up a mob which rushed through the town, wrecking the

churches. The mob became daily more daring and threatening.

They drove the priests out of the town, and some of the

wealthy citizens fled, not knowing what would follow. The

bishop would have yielded to all the religious innovations if

the rioters had not threatened his temporal position and

revenue. In 1532 the pastor, Rottmann, began to preach against

the baptism of infants. Luther wrote to him remonstrating, but

in vain. The bishop was not in the town; he was at Minden, of

which See he was bishop as well. Finding that the town was in

the hands of Knipperdolling and Rottmann, who were

confiscating the goods of the churches, and excluding those

who would not agree with their opinions, the bishop advanced

to the place at the head of some soldiers. Münster closed its

gates against him. Negotiations were entered into; the

Landgrave of Hesse was called in as pacificator, and articles

of agreement were drawn up and signed. Some of the churches

were given to the Lutherans, but the Cathedral was reserved

for the Catholics, and the Lutherans were forbidden to molest

the latter, and disturb their religious services. The news of

the conversion of the city of Münster to the gospel spread,

and strangers came to it from all parts. Among these was a

tailor of Leyden, called John Bockelson. Rottmann now threw up

his Lutheranism and proclaimed himself opposed to many of the

doctrines which Luther still retained. Amongst other things he

rejected was infant baptism. This created a split among the

reformed in Münster, and the disorders broke out afresh. The

mob now fell on the cathedral and drove the Catholics from it,

and would not permit them to worship in it. They also invaded

the Lutheran churches, and filled them with uproar. On the

evening of January 28, 1534, the Anabaptists stretched chains

across the streets, assembled in armed bands, closed the gates

and placed sentinels in all directions. When day dawned there

appeared suddenly two men dressed like Prophets, with long

ragged beards and flowing mantles, staff in hand, who paced

through the streets solemnly in the midst of the crowd, who

bowed before them and saluted them as Enoch and Elias. These

men were John Bockelson, the tailor, and one John Mattheson,

head of the Anabaptists of Holland. Knipperdolling at once

associated himself with them, and shortly the place was a

scene of the wildest ecstacies. Men and women ran about the

streets screaming and leaping, and crying out that they saw

visions of angels with swords drawn urging them on to the

extermination of Lutherans and Catholics alike. ... A great

number of citizens were driven out, on a bitter day, when the

land was covered with snow. Those who lagged were beaten;

those who were sick were carried to the market-place and

re-baptized by Rottmann. ... This was too much to be borne.

The bishop raised an army and marched against the city. Thus

began a siege which was to last sixteen months, during which a

multitude of untrained fanatics, commanded by a Dutch tailor,

held out against a numerous and well-armed force. Thenceforth

the city was ruled by divine revelations, or rather, by the

crazes of the diseased brains of the prophets. One day they

declared that all the officers and magistrates were to be

turned out of their offices, and men nominated by themselves

were to take their places; another day Mattheson said it was

revealed to him that every book in the town except the Bible

was to be destroyed; accordingly all the archives and

libraries were collected in the market-place and burnt. Then

it was revealed to him that all the spires were to be pulled

down; so the church towers were reduced to stumps, from which

the enemy could be watched and whence cannon could play on

them. One day he declared he had been ordered by Heaven to go

forth, with promise of victory, against the besiegers. He

dashed forth at the head of a large band, but was surrounded

and he and his band slain. The death of Mattheson struck

dismay into the hearts of the Anabaptists, but John Bockelson

took advantage of the moment to establish himself as head. He

declared that it was revealed to him that Mattheson had been

killed because he had disobeyed the heavenly command, which

was to go forth with few. Instead of that he had gone with many.

{112}

Bockelson said he had been ordered in vision to marry

Mattheson's widow and assume his place. It was further

revealed to him that Münster was to be the heavenly Zion, the

capital of the earth, and he was to be king over it. ... Then

he had another revelation that every man was to have as many

wives as he liked, and he gave himself sixteen wives. This was

too outrageous for some to endure, and a plot was formed

against him by a blacksmith and about 200 of the more

respectable citizens, but it was frustrated and led to the

seizure of the conspirators and the execution of a number of

them. ... At last, on midsummer eve, 1536, after a siege of

sixteen months, the city was taken. Several of the citizens,

unable longer to endure the tyranny, cruelty and abominations

committed by the king, helped the soldiers of the

prince-bishop to climb the walls, open the gates, and surprise

the city. A desperate hand-to-hand fight ensued; the streets

ran with blood. John Bockelson, instead of leading his people,

hid himself, but was caught. So was Knipperdolling. When the

place was in his hands the prince-bishop entered. John of

Leyden and Knipperdolling were cruelly tortured, their flesh

plucked off with red-hot pincers, and then a dagger was thrust

into their hearts. Finally, their bodies were hung in iron

cages to the tower of a church in Münster. Thus ended this

hideous drama, which produced an indescribable effect

throughout Germany. Münster, after this, in spite of the

desire of the prince-bishop to establish Lutheranism, reverted

to Catholicism, and remains Catholic to this day."

S. Baring-Gould, The Story of Germany, chapter 36.

ALSO IN the same,

Historic Oddities and Strange Events, 2d Series.

L. von Ranke, History of the Reformation in Germany,

book 6, chapter 9 (volume 3).

C. Beard, The Reformation (Hibbert Lectures., 1883),

lecture 6.

ANAHUAC.

"The word Anahuac signifies 'near the water.' It was,

probably, first applied to the country around the lakes in the

Mexican Valley, and gradually extended to the remoter regions

occupied by the Aztecs, and the other semi-civilized races.

Or, possibly, the name may have been intended, as Veytia

suggests (Historical Antiquities, lib. 1, cap. 1), to denote

the land between the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific."

W. B. Prescott, Conquest of Mexico,

book 1, chapter 1, note 11.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

ANAKIM, The.

See HORITES, and AMORITES.

ANAKTORIUM.

See KORKYRA.

ANAPA: A. D. 1828.

Siege and Capture.

Cession to Russia.

See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

ANARCHISTS.

"The anarchists are ... a small but determined band. ...

Although their programme may be found almost word for word in

Proudhon, they profess to follow more closely Bakounine, the

Russian nihilist, who separated himself from Marx and the

Internationals, and formed secret societies in Spain,

Switzerland, France, and elsewhere, and thus propagated

nihilistic views; for anarchy and nihilism are pretty much one

and the same thing when nihilism is understood in the older,

stricter sense, which does not include, as it does in a larger

and more modern sense, those who are simply political and

constitutional reformers. Like prince Krapotkine, Bakounine

came of an old and prominent Russian family; like him, he

revolted against the cruelties and injustices he saw about

him; like him, he despaired of peaceful reform, and concluded

that no great improvement could be expected until all our

present political, economic, and social institutions were so

thoroughly demolished that of the old structure not one stone

should be left on another. Out of the ruins a regenerated

world might arise. We must be purged as by fire. Like all

anarchists and true nihilists, he was a thorough pessimist, as

far as our present manner of life was concerned. Reaction

against conservatism carried him very far. He wished to

abolish private property, state, and inheritance. Equality is

to be carried so far that all must wear the same kind of

clothing, no difference being made even for sex. Religion is

an aberration of the brain, and should be abolished. Fire,

dynamite, and assassination are approved of by at least a

large number of the party. They are brave men, and fight for

their faith with the devotion of martyrs. Imprisonment and

death are counted but as rewards. ... Forty-seven anarchists

signed a declaration of principles, which was read by one of

their number at their trial at Lyons. ... 'We wish liberty

[they declared] and we believe its existence incompatible with

the existence of any power whatsoever, whatever its origin and

form--whether it be selected or imposed, monarchical or

republican--whether inspired by divine right or by popular

right, by anointment or universal suffrage. ... The best

governments are the worst. The substitution, in a word, in

human relations, of free contract perpetually revisable and

dissoluble, is our ideal.'"

H. T. Ely, French and German Socialism in Modern Times,

chapter 8.

"In anarchism we have the extreme antithesis of socialism and

communism. The socialist desires so to extend the sphere of

the state that it shall embrace all the more important

concerns of life. The communist, at least of the older school,

would make the sway of authority and the routine which follows

therefrom universal. The anarchist, on the other hand, would

banish all forms of authority and have only a system of the

most perfect liberty. The anarchist is an extreme

individualist. ... Anarchism, as a social theory, was first

elaborately formulated by Proudhon. In the first part of his

work, 'What is Property?' he briefly stated the doctrine and

gave it the name 'anarchy,' absence of a master or sovereign.

... About 12 years before Proudhon published his views, Josiah

Warren reached similar conclusions in America."

H. L. Osgood, Scientific Anarchism

(Political Science Quarterly,  March, 1889), pages 1-2.

See, also, NIHILISM.

ANARCHISTS, The Chicago.

See Chicago: A. D. 1886-1887.

ANASTASIUS I., Roman Emperor (Eastern.) A. D. 491-518.

ANASTASIUS II., A. D. 713-716.

ANASTASIUS III., Pope, A. D. 911-913

ANASTASIUS IV., Pope., A. D. 1153-1154.

ANATOLIA.

See ASIA MINOR.

ANCALITES, The.

A tribe of ancient Britons whose home was near the Thames.

ANCASTER, Origin of.

See CAUSENNÆ.

{113}

ANCHORITES.--HERMITS.

"The fertile and peaceable lowlands of England ... offered few

spots sufficiently wild and lonely for the habitation of a

hermit; those, therefore, who wished to retire from the world

into a more strict and solitary life than that which the

monastery afforded were in the habit of immuring themselves,

as anchorites, or in old English 'Ankers,' in little cells of

stone, built usually against the wall of a church. There is

nothing new under the sun; and similar anchorites might have

been seen in Egypt, 500 years before the time of St. Antony,

immured in cells in the temples of Isis or Serapis. It is only

recently that antiquaries have discovered how common this

practice was in England, and how frequently the traces of

these cells are to be found about our parish churches."

C. Kingsley, The Hermits, page 329.

The term anchorites is applied, generally, to all religious

ascetics who lived in solitary cells.

J. Bingham, Antiquity of the Christian Church,

book 7, chapter 1, section 4.

"The essential difference between an anker or anchorite and a

hermit appears to have been that, whereas the former passed

his whole life shut up in a cell, the latter, although leading

indeed a solitary life, wandered about at liberty."

R. R. Sharpe, Introduction to "Calendar of Wills in the

Court of Husting, London," volume 2, page xxi.

ANCIENT REGIME.

The political and social system in France that was destroyed

by the Revolution of 1789 is commonly referred to as the

"ancien régime." Some writers translate this in the literal

English form--"the ancient regime;" others render it more

appropriately, perhaps, the "old regime." Its special

application is to the state of things described under FRANCE:

A. D. 1789.

ANCIENTS, The Council of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1795(JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

ANCRUM, Battle of.

A success obtained by the Scots over an English force making

an incursion into the border districts of their country A. D.

1544.

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 35 (volume 3).

ANDALUSIA:

The name.

"The Vandals, ... though they passed altogether out of Spain,

have left their name to this day in its southern part, under

the form of Andalusia, a name which, under the Saracen

conquerors, spread itself over the whole peninsula."

E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe,

chapter 4, section 3.

See, also: VANDALS: A. D. 428.

Roughly speaking, Andalusia represents the country known to

the ancients, first, as Tartessus, and, later, as Turdetania.

ANDAMAN ISLANDERS, The.

See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

ANDASTÉS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SUSQUEHANNAS.

ANDECAVI.

The ancient name of the city of Angers, France, and of the

tribe which occupied that region.

See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

ANDERIDA.--ANDERIDA SYLVA.--ANDREDSWALD.

A great forest which anciently stretched across Surrey, Sussex

and into Kent (southeastern England) was called Anderida Sylva

by the Romans and Andredswald by the Saxons. It coincided

nearly with the tract of country called in modern times the

Weald of Kent, to which it gave its name of the Wald or Weald.

On the southern coast-border of the Anderida Sylva the Romans

established the important fortress and port of Anderida, which

has been identified with modern Pevensey. Here the

Romano-Britons made an obstinate stand against the Saxons, in

the fifth century, and Anderida was only taken by Ælle after a

long siege. In the words of the Chronicle, the Saxons "slew

all that were therein, nor was there henceforth one Briton

left."

J. R. Green, The Making of England, chapter 1.

ALSO IN

T. Wright, Celt, Roman, and Saxon, chapter 5.

ANDERSON, Major Robert.

Defense of Fort Sumter.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER); 1861

(MARCH-APRIL).

ANDERSONVILLE PRISON--PENS.

See PRISONS AND PRISON-PENS, CONFEDERATE.

ANDES, OR ANDI, OR ANDECAVI, The.

See VENETI of WESTERN GAUL.

ANDESIANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES; ANDESIANS.

ANDRE, Major John, The Capture and execution of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

ANDREW I., King of Hungary, A. D. 1046-1060.

ANDREW II., King of Hungary, A. D. 1204-1235.

ANDREW III., King of Hungary, A. D. 1290-1301.

ANDRONICUS I., Emperor in the East (Byzantine or Greek), A. D.

1183-1185.

Andronicus II. (Palæologus), Greek Emperor of Constantinople, A.

D. 1282-1328.

Andronicus III. (Palæologus), A. D. 1328-1341.

ANDROS, Governor, New England and New York under.

See

NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686;

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686;

and 1686-1689;

NEW YORK: A. D. 1688;

and CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.

ANDROS, Battle of (B. C. 407).

See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.

ANGELIQUE, La Mère.

See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1602-1660.

ANGERS, Origin of.

See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

ANGEVIN KINGS AND ANGEVIN EMPIRE.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189.

ANGHIARI, Battle of (1425).

See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

ANGLES AND JUTES, The.

The mention of the Angles by Tacitus is in the following,

passage: "Next [to the Langobardi] come the Reudigni, the

Aviones, the Anglii, the Varini, the Eudoses, the Suardones,

and Nuithones, who are fenced in by rivers or forests. None of

these tribes have any noteworthy feature, except their common

worship of Ertha, or mother-Earth, and their belief that she

interposes in human affairs, and visits the nations in her

car. In an island of the ocean there is a sacred grove, and

within it a consecrated chariot, covered over with a garment.

Only one priest is permitted to touch it. He can perceive the

presence of the goddess in this sacred recess, and walks by

her side with the utmost reverence as she is drawn along by

heifers. It is a season of rejoicing, and festivity reigns

wherever she deigns to go and be received. They do not go to

battle or wear arms; every weapon is under lock; peace and

quiet are welcomed only at these times, till the goddess,

weary of human intercourse, is at length restored by the same

priest to her temple. Afterwards the car, the vestments, and,

if you like to believe it, the divinity herself, are purified

in a secret lake. Slaves perform the rite, who are instantly

swallowed up by its waters. Hence arises a mysterious terror

and a pious ignorance concerning the nature of that which is

seen only by men doomed to die.

{114}

This branch indeed of the Suevi stretches into the

remoter regions of Germany."

Tacitus, Germany; translated by Church and Brodribb,

chapter 40.

"In close neighbourhood with the Saxons in the middle of the

fourth century were the Angli, a tribe whose origin is more

uncertain and the application of whose name is still more a

matter of question. If the name belongs, in the pages of the

several geographers, to the same nation, it was situated in

the time of Tacitus east of the Elbe; in the time of Ptolemy

it was found on the middle Elbe, between the Thuringians to

the south and the Varini to the north; and at a later period

it was forced, perhaps by the growth of the Thuringian power,

into the neck of the Cimbric peninsula. It may, however, be

reasonably doubted whether this hypothesis is sound, and it is

by no means clear whether, if it be so, the Angli were not

connected more closely with the Thuringians than with the

Saxons. To the north of the Angli, after they had reached

their Schleswig home, were the Jutes, of whose early history

we know nothing, except their claims to be regarded as kinsmen

of the Goths and the close similarity between their

descendants and the neighbour Frisians."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,

volume 1, chapter 3.

"Important as are the Angles, it is not too much to say that

they are only known through their relations to us of England,

their descendants; indeed, without this paramount fact, they

would be liable to be confused with the Frisians, with the Old

Saxons, and with even Slavonians. This is chiefly because

there is no satisfactory trace or fragment of the Angles of

Germany within Germany; whilst the notices of the other

writers of antiquity tell us as little as the one we find in

Tacitus. And this notice is not only brief but complicated.

... I still think that the Angli of Tacitus were--1: The

Angles of England; 2: Occupants of the northern parts of

Hanover; 3: At least in the time of Tacitus; 4: And that to

the exclusion of any territory in Holstein, which was Frisian

to the west, and Slavonic to the east. Still the question is

one of great magnitude and numerous complications."

R. G. Latham, The Germany of Tacitus; Epilegomena, section

49.

ALSO IN J. M. Lappenberg, History of England under the

Anglo-Saxon Kings, volume 1, pages 89-95.

See, also, AVIONES, and SAXONS.

The conquests and settlements of the Jutes and the Angles in

Britain are described under ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473. and

547-633.

ANGLESEA, Ancient.

See MONA, MONAPIA, and NORMANS: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.

ANGLO-SAXON.

A term which may be considered as a compound of Angle and

Saxon, the names of the two principal Teutonic tribes which

took possession of Britain and formed the English nation by

their ultimate union. As thus regarded and used to designate

the race, the language and the institutions which resulted

from that union, it is only objectionable, perhaps, as being

superfluous, because English is the accepted name of the

people of England and all pertaining to them. But the term

Anglo-Saxon has also been more particularly employed to

designate the Early English people and their language, before

the Norman Conquest, as though they were Anglo-Saxon at that

period and became English afterwards. Modern historians are

protesting strongly against this use of the term. Mr. Freeman

(Norman Conquest, volume 1, note A), says: "The name by

which our forefathers really knew themselves and by which they

were known to other nations was English and no other. 'Angli,'

'Engle,' 'Angel-cyn,' 'Englisc,' are the true names by which

the Teutons of Britain knew themselves and their language. ...

As a chronological term, Anglo-Saxon is equally objectionable

with Saxon. The 'Anglo-Saxon period,' as far as there ever was

one, is going on still. I speak therefore of our forefathers,

not as 'Saxons,' or even as 'Anglo-Saxons,' but as they spoke

of themselves, as Englishmen--'Angli,' 'Engle,'-'Angel-cyn.'"

See, also, SAXONS, and ANGLES AND JUTES.

ANGLON, Battle of.

Fought in Armenia. A. D. 543, between the Romans and the

Persians, with disaster to the former.

G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,

chapter 20.

ANGORA, Battle of (1402).

See TIMOUR

also, TURKS: A. D. 1389-1403.

ANGOSTURA, OR BUENA VISTA, Battle of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

ANGRIVARII, The.

The Angrivarii were one of the tribes of ancient Germany. Their

settlements "were to the west of the Weser (Visurgis) in the

neighbourhood of Minden and Herford, and thus coincide to some

extent with Westphalia. Their territory was the scene of

Varus' defeat. It has been thought that the name of this tribe

is preserved in that of the town Engern."

A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb, Tacitus's Germany,

notes.

See, also, BRUCTERI.

ANI.

Storming of the Turks (1064).

See TURKS: A. D. 1063-1073.

ANILLEROS, The.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

ANJOU:

Creation of the County.

Origin of the Plantagenets.

"It was the policy of this unfairly depreciated sovereign

[Charles the Bald, grandson of Charlemagne, who received in

the dismemberment of the Carlovingian Empire the Neustrian

part, out of which was developed the modern kingdom of France,

and who reigned from 840 to 877], to recruit the failing ranks

of the false and degenerate Frankish aristocracy, by calling

up to his peerage the wise, the able, the honest and the bold

of ignoble birth. ... He sought to surround himself with new

men, the men without ancestry; and the earliest historian of

the House of Anjou both describes this system and affords the

most splendid example of the theory adopted by the king.

Pre-eminent amongst these parvenus was Torquatus or Tortulfus,

an Armorican peasant, a very rustic, a backwoodsman, who lived

by hunting and such like occupations, almost in solitude,

cultivating his 'quillets,' his 'cueillettes,' of land, and

driving his own oxen, harnessed to his plough. Torquatus

entered or was invited into the service of Charles-le-Chauve,

and rose high in his sovereign's confidence: a prudent, a

bold, and a good man. Charles appointed him Forester of the

forest called 'the Blackbird's Nest,' the 'nid du merle,' a

pleasant name, not the less pleasant for its familiarity. This

happened during the conflicts with the Northmen. Torquatus

served Charles strenuously in the wars, and obtained great

authority. Tertullus, son of Torquatus, inherited his father's

energies, quick and acute, patient of fatigue, ambitious and

aspiring; he became the liegeman of Charles; and his marriage

with Petronilla the King's cousin, Count Hugh the Abbot's

daughter, introduced him into the very circle of the royal

family. Chateau Landon and other benefices in the Gastinois

were acquired by him, possibly as the lady's dowry. Seneschal

also was Tertullus of the same ample Gastinois territory.

Ingelger, son of Tertullus and Petronilla, appears as the

first hereditary Count of Anjou Outre-Maine,--Marquis, Consul

or Count of Anjou,--for all these titles are assigned to him.

Yet the ploughman Torquatus must be reckoned as the primary

Plantagenet: the rustic Torquatus founded that brilliant

family."

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1,

chapter 3.

ALSO IN

K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings,

volume 1, chapter 2.

{115}

ANJOU: A. D. 987-1129.

The greatest of the old Counts.

"Fulc Nerra, Fulc the Black [A. D. 987-1040] is the greatest

of the Angevins, the first in whom we can trace that marked

type of character which their house was to preserve with a

fatal constancy through two hundred years. He was without

natural affection. In his youth he burned a wife at the stake,

and legend told how he led her to her doom decked out in his

gayest attire. In his old age he waged his bitterest war

against his son, and exacted from him when vanquished a

humiliation which men reserved for the deadliest of their

foes. 'You are conquered, you are conquered!' shouted the old

man in fierce exultation, as Geoffry, bridled and saddled like

a beast of burden, crawled for pardon to his father's feet.

... But neither the wrath of Heaven nor the curses of men

broke with a single mishap the fifty years of his success. At

his accession Anjou was the least important of the greater

provinces of France. At his death it stood, if not in extent,

at least in real power, first among them all. ... His

overthrow of Brittany on the field of Conquereux was followed

by the gradual absorption of Southern Touraine. ... His great

victory at Pontlevoi crushed the rival house of Blois; the

seizure of Saumur completed his conquests in the South, while

Northern Touraine was won bit by bit till only Tours resisted

the Angevin. The treacherous seizure of its Count, Herbert

Wake-dog, left Maine at his mercy ere the old man bequeathed

his unfinished work to his son. As a warrior, Geoffry Martel

was hardly inferior to his father. A decisive overthrow

wrested Tours from the Count of Blois; a second left Poitou at

his mercy; and the seizure of Le Mans brought him to the

Norman border. Here ... his advance was checked by the genius

of William the Conqueror, and with his death the greatness of

Anjou seemed for the time to have come to an end. Stripped of

Maine by the Normans, and weakened by internal dissensions,

the weak and profligate administration of Fulc Rechin left

Anjou powerless against its rivals along the Seine. It woke to

fresh energy with the accession of his son, Fulc of Jerusalem.

... Fulc was the one enemy whom Henry the First really feared.

It was to disarm his restless hostility that the King yielded

to his son, Geoffry the Handsome, the hand of his daughter

Matilda."

J. R. Green, A Short History of the English People, chapter

2, section 7.

ALSO IN

K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings, volume 1, chapter

2-4.

ANJOU: A. D. 1154.

The Counts become Kings of England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189.

ANJOU: A. D. 1204.

Wrested from the English King John.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1180-1224.

ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.

English attempts to recover the county.

The Third and Fourth Houses of Anjou.

Creation of the Dukedom.

King John, of England, did not voluntarily submit to the

sentence of the peers of France which pronounced his

forfeiture of the fiefs of Anjou and Maine, "since he invaded

and had possession of Angers again in 1206, when, Goth-like,

he demolished its ancient walls. He lost it in the following

year, and ... made no further attempt upon it until 1213. In

that year, having collected a powerful army, he landed at

Rochelle, and actually occupied Angers, without striking a

blow. But ... the year 1214 beheld him once more in retreat

from Anjou, never to reappear there, since he died on the 19th

of October, 1216. In the person of King John ended what is

called the 'Second House of Anjou.' In 1204, after the

confiscations of John's French possessions, Philip Augustus

established hereditary seneschals in that part of France, the

first of whom was the tutor of the unfortunate Young Arthur

[of Brittany], named William des Roches, who was in fact Count

in all except the name, over Anjou, Maine, and Tourraine,

owing allegiance only to the crown of France. The Seneschal,

William des Roches, died in 1222. His son-in-law, Amaury de

Craon, succeeded him," but was soon afterwards taken prisoner

during a war in Brittany and incarcerated. Henry III. of

England still claimed the title of Count of Anjou, and in 1230

he "disembarked a considerable army at St. Malo, in the view

of re-conquering Anjou, and the other forfeited possessions of

his crown. Louis IX., then only fifteen years old ... advanced

to the attack of the allies; but in the following year a peace

was concluded, the province of Guienne having been ceded to

the English crown. In 1241, Louis gave the counties of Poitou

and Auvergne to his brother Alphonso; and, in the year 1246,

he invested his brother Charles, Count of Provence, with the

counties of Anjou and Maine, thereby annulling the rank and

title of Seneschal, and instituting the Third House of Anjou.

Charles I., the founder of the proud fortunes of this Third

House, was ambitious in character, and events long favoured

his ambition. Count of Provence, through the inheritance of

his consort, had not long been invested with Anjou and Maine,

ere he was invited to the conquest of Sicily [see ITALY

(SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268]." The Third House of Anjou ended

in the person of John, who became King of France in 1350. In

1356 he invested his son Louis with Anjou and Maine, and in

1360 the latter was created the first Duke of Anjou. The

Fourth House of Anjou, which began with this first Duke, came

to an end two generations later with René, or Regnier,--the

"good King René" of history and story, whose kingdom was for

the most part a name, and who is best known to English

readers, perhaps, as the father of Margaret of Anjou, the

stout-hearted queen of Henry VI. On the death of his father,

Louis, the second duke, René became by his father's will Count

of Guise, his elder brother, Louis, inheriting the dukedom. In

1434 the brother died without issue and René succeeded him in

Anjou, Maine and Provence. He had already become Duke of Bar,

as the adopted heir of his great-uncle, the cardinal-duke, and

Duke of Lorraine (1430), by designation of the late Duke,

whose daughter he had married. In 1435 he received from Queen

Joanna of Naples the doubtful legacy of that distracted

kingdom, which she had previously bequeathed first, to

Alphonso of Aragon, and afterwards-revoking that testament--to

René's brother, Louis of Anjou. King René enjoyed the title

during his life-time, and the actual kingdom for a brief

period; but in 1442 he was expelled from Naples by his

competitor Alphonso (see ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447).

M. A. Hookham, Life and Times of Margaret of Anjou,

introduction and chapter 1-2.

----------ANJOU: End----------

{116}

ANJOU, The English House of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1155-1189.

ANJOU, The Neapolitan House of: A. D. 1266.

Conquest of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.

See ITALY: A. D. 1250-1268.

ANJOU: A. D. 1282.

Loss of Sicily.

Retention of Naples.

See ITALY: A. D. 1282-1300.

ANJOU: A. D. 1310-1382.

Possession of the Hungarian throne.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.

ANJOU: A. D. 1370-1384.

Acquisition and loss of the crown of Poland.

See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.

ANJOU: A. D. 1381-1384.

Claims of Louis of Anjou.

His expedition to Italy and his death.

See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389.

ANJOU: A. D. 1386-1399.-

Renewed contest for Naples.

Defeat of Louis II. by Ladislas.

See ITALY: A. D. 1386-1414.

ANJOU: A. D. 1423-1442.

Renewed contest for the crown of Naples.

Defeat by Alfonso of Aragon and Sicily.

See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

----------ANJOU, The Neapolitan House of: End----------

ANKENDORFF, Battle of.

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

ANKERS.

See ANCHORITES.

ANNA, Czarina of Russia, A. D. 1730-1740.

ANNALES MAXIMI, The.

See FASTI.

ANNAM: A. D. 1882-1885.

War with France.

French protectorate accepted.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

ANNAPOLIS ROYAL, NOVA SCOTIA:

Change of name from Port Royal (1710).

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.

ANNATES, OR FIRST-FRUITS.

"A practice had existed for some hundreds of years, in all the

churches of Europe, that bishops and archbishops, on

presentation to their sees, should transmit to the pope, on

receiving their bulls of investment, one year's income from

their new preferments. It was called the payment of Annates,

or first-fruits, and had originated in the time of the

crusades, as a means of providing a fund for the holy wars.

Once established it had settled into custom, and was one of

the chief resources of the papal revenue."

J. A. Froude, History of England, chapter 4.

"The claim [by the pope] to the first-fruits of bishoprics and

other promotions was apparently first made in England by

Alexander IV. in 1256, for five years; it was renewed by

Clement V. in 1306, to last for two years; and it was in a

measure successful. By John XXII. it was claimed throughout

Christendom for three years, and met with universal

resistance. ... Stoutly contested as it was in the Council of

Constance, and frequently made the subject of debate in

parliament and council the demand must have been regularly

complied with."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,

chapter 19, section 718.

See, also, QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.

ANNE, Queen of England, A. D. 1702-1714.

ANNE OF AUSTRIA, Queen-regent of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643, to 1651-1653.

ANNE BOLEYN, Marriage, trial and execution of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534, and 1536-1543.

ANSAR, The.

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

ANSIBARII, The.

See FRANKS: ORIGIN, &c.

ANSPACH, Creation of the Margravate.

See GERMANY: 13TH CENTURY.

Separation from the Electorate of Brandenburg.

See BRANDENBUHG: A. D. 1417-1640.

ANTALCIDAS, Peace of (B. C. 387).

See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

ANTES, The.

See SLAVONIC PEOPLES.

ANTESIGNANI, The.

"In each cohort [of the Roman legion, in Cæsar's time] a

certain number of the best men, probably about one-fourth of

the whole detachment, was assigned as a guard to the standard,

from whence they derived their name of Antesignani."

C. Menvale, History of the Romans, chapter 15.

ANTHEMIUS, Roman Emperor:(Western), A. D. 467-472.

ANTHESTERIA, The.

See DIONYSIA AT ATHENS.

ANTI-CORN-LAW LEAGUE.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1836-1839, and

1845-1846.

ANTI-FEDERALISTS.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.

ANTI-MASONIC PARTY, American.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1826-1832.

ANTI-MASONIC PARTY, Mexican.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.

ANTI-RENTERS.--ANTI-RENT WAR.

See LIVINGSTON MANOR.

ANTI-SLAVERY MOVEMENTS.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO.

ANTIETAM, OR SHARPSBURG, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862

(SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).

ANTIGONEA.

See MANTINEA: B. C. 222.

ANTIGONID KINGS, The.

See GREECE: B. C. 307-197.

ANTIGONUS, and the wars of the Diadochi.

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

ANTIGONUS GONATUS, The wars of.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244.

ANTILLES.--ANTILIA.

"Familiar as is the name of the Antilles, few are aware of the

antiquity of the word; while its precise significance sets

etymology at defiance. Common consent identified the Antilia

of legend with the Isle of the Seven Cities. In the year 734,

says the story, the Arabs having conquered most of the Spanish

peninsula, a number of Christian emigrants, under the

direction of seven holy bishops, among them the archbishop of

Oporto, sailed westward with all that they had, and reached an

island where they founded seven towns. Arab geographers speak

of an Atlantic island called in Arabic El-tennyn, or Al-tin

(Isle of Serpents), a name which may possibly have become by

corruption Antilia. ... The seven bishops were believed in the

16th century to be still represented by their successors, and

to preside over a numerous and wealthy people. Most

geographers of the 15th century believed in the existence of

Antilia. It was represented as lying west of the Azores. ...

As soon as it became known in Europe that Columbus had

discovered a large island, Española was at once identified

with Antilia, ... and the name ... has ever since been applied

generally to the West Indian islands."

E. J. Payne, History of the New World called America, volume

1, page 98.

See, also, WEST INDIES.

{117}

ANTINOMIAN CONTROVERSY IN PURITAN MASSACHUSETTS.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636-1638.

ANTIOCH:

Founding of the City.

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

ANTIOCH: A. D. 36-400.

The Christian Church.

See CHRISTIANITY, EARLY.

ANTIOCH: A. D. 115.

Great Earthquake.

"Early in the year 115, according to the most exact

chronology, ... the splendid capital of Syria was visited by

an earthquake, one of the most disastrous apparently of all

the similar inflictions from which that luckless city has

periodically suffered. ... The calamity was enhanced by the

presence of unusual crowds from all the cities of the east,

assembled to pay homage to the Emperor [Trajan], or to take

part in his expedition [of conquest in the east]. Among the

victims were many Romans of distinction. ... Trajan, himself,

only escaped by creeping through a window."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 65.

ANTIOCH: A. D. 260.

Surprise, massacre and pillage by Sapor, King of Persia.

See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

ANTIOCH: A. D. 526.

Destruction by Earthquake.

During the reign of Justinian (A. D. 518-565) the cities of

the Roman Empire "were overwhelmed by earthquakes more

frequent than at any other period of history. Antioch, the

metropolis of Asia, was entirely destroyed, on the 20th of

May, 526, at the very time when the inhabitants of the

adjacent country were assembled to celebrate the festival of

the Ascension; and it is affirmed that 250,000 persons were

crushed by the fall of its sumptuous edifices."

J. C. L. de Sismondi, Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter

10.

ALSO IN:

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 43.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

ANTIOCH: A. D. 540.

Stormed, pillaged and burned by Chosroes, the Persian King.

See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

ANTIOCH: A. D. 638.

Surrender to the Arabs.

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

ANTIOCH: A. D. 969.

Recapture by the Byzantines.

After having remained 328 years in the possession of the

Saracens, Antioch was retaken in the winter of A. D. 969 by

the Byzantine Emperor, Nicephorus Phokas, and became again a

Christian city. Three years later the Moslems made a great

effort to recover the city, but were defeated. The Byzantine

arms were at this time highly successful in the never ending

Saracen war, and John Zimiskes, successor of Nicephorus

Phokas, marched triumphantly to the Tigris and threatened even

Bagdad. But most of the conquests thus made in Syria and

Mesopotamia were not lasting.

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire, A. D.

716-1007, book 2, chapter 2.

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

ANTIOCH: A. D. 1097-1098.

Siege and capture by the Crusaders.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

ANTIOCH: A. D. 1099-1144.

Principality.

See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.

ANTIOCH: A. D. 1268.

Extinction of the Latin Principality.

Total destruction of the city.

Antioch fell, before the arms of Bibars, the Sultan of Egypt

and Syria, and the Latin principality was bloodily

extinguished, in 1268. "The first seat of the Christian name

was dispeopled by the slaughter of seventeen, and the

captivity of one hundred, thousand of her inhabitants." This

fate befell Antioch only twenty-three years before the last

vestige of the conquests of the crusaders was obliterated at

Acre.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 59.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

"The sultan halted for several weeks in the plain, and

permitted his soldiers to hold a large market, or fair, for

the sale of their booty. This market was attended by Jews and

pedlars from all parts of the East. ... 'It was,' says the

Cadi Mohieddin, 'a fearful and heart-rending sight. Even the

hard stones were softened with grief.' He tells us that the

captives were so numerous that a fine hearty boy might be

purchased for twelve pieces of silver, and a little girl for

five. When the work of pillage had been completed, when all

the ornaments and decorations had been carried away from the

churches, and the lead torn from the roofs, Antioch was fired

in different places, amid the loud thrilling shouts of 'Allah

Acbar,' 'God is Victorious.' The great churches of St. Paul

and St. Peter burnt with terrific fury for many days, and the

vast and venerable city was left without a habitation and

without an inhabitant."

C. G. Addison, The Knights Templars, chapter 6.

----------ANTIOCH: End----------

ANTIOCHUS SOTER, AND ANTIOCHUS THE GREAT.

See SELEUCIDÆ, THE: B. C. 281-224, and 224-187.

ANTIPATER, and the wars of the Diadochi.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.

ANTIUM.

"Antium, once a flourishing city of the Volsci, and afterwards

of the Romans, their conquerors, is at present reduced to a

small number of inhabitants. Originally it was without a port;

the harbour of the Antiates having been the neighbouring

indentation in the coast of Ceno, now Nettuno, distant more

than a mile to the eastward. ... The piracies of the ancient

Antiates all proceeded from Ceno, or Cerio, where they had 22

long ships. These Numicius took; ... some were taken to Rome

and their rostra suspended in triumph in the Forum. ... It

[Antium] was reckoned 260 stadia, or about 32 miles, from

Ostia."

Sir W. Gell, Topography of Rome, volume 1.

ANTIUM, Naval Battle of (1378).

See VENICE: A. D. 1378-1379.

ANTIVESTÆUM.

See BRITAIN, TRIBES OF CELTIC.

ANTOINE DE BOURBON, King of Navarre, A. D. 1555-1557.

ANTONINES, The.

See ROME: A. D. 138-180.

ANTONINUS, Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor, A. D. 161-180.

ANTONINUS PIUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 138-161.

ANTONY, Mark, and the Second Triumvirate.

See ROME: B. C. 44 to 31.

ANTRUSTIONES.

In the Salic law, of the Franks, there is no trace of any

recognized order of nobility. "We meet, however, with

{118}

several titles denoting temporary rank, derived from offices

political and judicial, or from a position about the person of

the king. Among these the Antrustiones, who were in constant

attendance upon the king, played a conspicuous part. ...

Antrustiones and Convivæ Regis [Romans who held the same

position] are the predecessors of the Vassi Dominici of later

times, and like these were bound to the king by an especial

oath of personal and perpetual service. They formed part, as

it were, of the king's family, and were expected to reside in

the palace, where they superintended the various departments

of the royal household."

W. C. Perry, The Franks, chapter 10.

ANTWERP:

The name of the City.

Its commercial greatness in the 16th century.--"The city was

so ancient that its genealogists, with ridiculous gravity,

ascended to a period two centuries before the Trojan war, and

discovered a giant, rejoicing in the classic name of

Antigonus, established on the Scheld. This patriarch exacted

one half the merchandise of all navigators who passed his

castle, and was accustomed to amputate and cast into the river

the right hands of those who infringed this simple tariff.

Thus 'Hand-werpen,' hand-throwing, became Antwerp, and hence,

two hands, in the escutcheon of the city, were ever held 'up

in heraldic attestation of the truth. The giant was, in his

turn, thrown into the Scheld by a hero, named Brabo, from

whose exploits Brabant derived its name. ... But for these

antiquarian researches, a simpler derivation of the name would

seem 'an t' werf,' 'on the wharf.' It had now [in the first

half of the 16th century] become the principal entrepôt and

exchange of Europe. ... the commercial capital of the world.

... Venice, Nuremburg, Augsburg, Bruges, were sinking, but

Antwerp, with its deep and convenient river, stretched its arm

to the ocean and caught the golden prize, as it fell from its

sister cities' grasp. ... No city, except Paris, surpassed it

in population, none approached it in commercial splendor."

J. L. Motley, The Rise of the Dutch Republic, Hist.

Introduction, section 13.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1313.

Made the Staple for English trade.

See STAPLE.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1566.

Riot of the Image-breakers in the Churches.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1576.--The Spanish Fury.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1577.

Deliverance of the city from its Spanish garrison.

Demolition of the Citadel.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1583.

Treacherous attempt of the Duke of Anjou.

The French Fury.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1584-1585.

Siege and reduction by Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma.

The downfall of prosperity.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1648.

Sacrificed to Amsterdam in the Treaty of Münster.

Closing of the Scheldt.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1646-1648.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1706.

Surrendered to Marlborough and the Allies.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1746-1748.

Taken by the French and restored to Austria.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747;

and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1832.

Siege of the Citadel by the French.

Expulsion of the Dutch garrison.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.

----------ANTWERP: End----------

APACHES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APACHE GROUP, and ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

APALACHES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APALACHES.

APAMEA.

Apamea, a city founded by Seleucus Nicator on the Euphrates,

the site of which is occupied by the modern town of Bir, had

become, in Strabo's time (near the beginning of the Christian

Era) one of the principal centers of Asiatic trade, second

only to Ephesus. Thapsacus, the former customary

crossing-place of the Euphrates, had ceased to be so, and the

passage was made at Apamea. A place on the opposite bank of

the river was called Zeugma, or "the bridge." Bir "is still

the usual place at which travellers proceeding from Antioch or

Aleppo towards Bagdad cross the Euphrates."

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,

chapter 22, section 1 (volume 2, pages 298 and 317).

APANAGE.

See APPANAGE.

APATURIA, The.

An annual family festival of the Athenians, celebrated for

three days in the early part of the month of October

(Pyanepsion). "This was the characteristic festival of the

Ionic race; handed down from a period anterior to the

constitution of Kleisthenes, and to the ten new tribes each

containing so many demes, and bringing together the citizens

in their primitive unions of family, gens, phratry, etc., the

aggregate of which had originally constituted the four Ionic

tribes, now superannuated. At the Apaturia, the family

ceremonies were gone through; marriages were enrolled, acts of

adoption were promulgated and certified, the names of youthful

citizens first entered on the gentile and phratric roll;

sacrifices were jointly celebrated by these family assemblages

to Zeus Phratrius, Athênê, and other deities, accompanied

with much festivity and enjoyment."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 64 (volume 7).

APELLA, The.

See SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION. &c.

APELOUSAS, The.

See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL, INHABITANTS.

APHEK, Battle of.

A great victory won by Ahab, king of Israel over Benhadad,

king of Damascus.

H. Ewald, History of Israel, book 4, section 1.

APODECTÆ, The.

"When Aristotle speaks of the officers of government to whom

the public revenues were delivered, who kept them and

distributed them to the several administrative departments,

these are called, he adds, apodectæ and treasurers. In Athens

the apodectæ were ten in number, in accordance with the number

of the tribes. They were appointed by lot. ... They had in

their possession the lists of the debtors of the state,

received the money which was paid in, registered an account of

it and noted the amount in arrear, and in the council house in

the presence of the council, erased the names of the debtors

who had paid the demands against them from the list, and

deposited this again in the archives. Finally, they, together

with the council, apportioned the sums received."

A. Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens (translated by Lamb),

book 2, chapter 4.

APOLLONIA IN ILLYRIA, The Founding of.

See KORKYRA.

{119}

APOSTASION.

See POLETÆ.

APOSTOLIC MAJESTY: Origin of the Title.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114.

APPANAGE.

"The term appanage denotes the provision made for the younger

children of a king of France. This always consisted of lands

and feudal superiorities held of the crown by the tenure of

peerage. It is evident that this usage, as it produced a new

class of powerful feudataries, was hostile to the interests

and policy of the sovereign, and retarded the subjugation of

the ancient aristocracy. But an usage coeval with the monarchy

was not to be abrogated, and the scarcity of money rendered it

impossible to provide for the younger branches of the royal

family by any other means. It was restrained however as far as

circumstances would permit."

H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 1, part 2.

"From the words 'ad' and 'panis,' meaning that it was to

provide bread for the person who held it. A portion of

appanage was now given to each of the king's younger sons,

which descended to his direct heirs, but in default of them

reverted to the crown."

T. Wright, History of France, volume 1, page 308, note.

APPIAN WAY, The.

Appius Claudius, called the Blind, who was censor at Rome from

312 to 308 B. C. [see ROME: B. C. 312], constructed during

that time "the Appian road, the queen of roads, because the

Latin road, passing by Tusculum, and through the country of

the Hernicans, was so much endangered, and had not yet been

quite recovered by the Romans: the Appian road, passing by

Terracina, Fundi and Mola, to Capua, was intended to be a

shorter and safer one. ... The Appian road, even if Appius did

carry it as far as Capua, was not executed by him with that

splendour for which we still admire it in those parts which

have not been destroyed intentionally: the closely joined

polygons of basalt, which thousands of years have not been

able to displace, are of a somewhat later origin. Appius

commenced the road because there was actual need for it; in

the year A. U. 457 [B. C. 297] peperino, and some years later

basalt (silex) was first used for paving roads, and, at the

beginning, only on the small distance from the Porta Capena to

the temple of Mars, as we are distinctly told by Livy. Roads

constructed according to artistic principles had

previously existed."

B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on the History of Rome.

lecture 45.

ALSO IN:

Sir W. Gell, Topography of Rome, volume 1.

H. G. Liddell, History of ROME, volume 1, page 251.

APPOMATTOX COURT HOUSE, Lee's Surrender at.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL, VIRGINIA).

APULEIAN LAW.

See MAJESTAS.

APULIA: A. D. 1042-1127.

Norman conquest and Dukedom.

Union with Sicily.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1000-1090, and 1081-1194.

APULIANS, The.

See SABINES; also, SAMNITES.

AQUÆ SEXTIÆ.

See SALYES.

AQUÆ SEXTIÆ, Battle of.

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

AQUÆ SOLIS.

The Roman name of the long famous watering-place known in

modern England as the city of Bath. It was splendidly adorned

in Roman times with temples and other edifices.

T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.

AQUIDAY, OR AQUETNET.

The native name of Rhode Island.

See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

AQUILA, Battle of (1424).

See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

AQUILEIA.

Aquileia, at the time of the destruction of that city by the

Huns, A. D. 452, was, "both as a fortress and a commercial

emporium, second to none in Northern Italy. It was situated at

the northernmost point of the gulf of Hadria, about twenty

miles northwest of Trieste, and the place where it once stood

is now in the Austrian dominions, just over the border which

separates them from the kingdom of Italy. In the year 181 B.

C. a Roman colony had been sent to this far corner of Italy to

serve as an outpost against some intrusive tribes, called by

the vague name of Gauls. ... Possessing a good harbour, with

which it was connected by a navigable river, Aquileia

gradually became the chief entrepôt for the commerce between

Italy and what are now the Illyrian provinces of Austria."

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 2, chapter 4.

AQUILEIA: A. D. 238.--Siege by Maximin.

See ROME: A. D. 238.

AQUILEIA: A. D. 388.--Overthrow of Maximus by Theodosius.

See ROME: A. D. 379-395.

AQUILEIA: A. D. 452.--Destruction by the Huns.

See HUNS: A. D. 452;

also, VENICE: A. D. 452.

----------AQUILEIA: End----------

AQUITAINE:

The ancient tribes.

The Roman conquest of Aquitania was achieved, B. C. 56, by one

of Cæsar's lieutenants, the Younger Crassus, who first brought

the people called the Sotiates to submission and then defeated

their combined neighbors in a murderous battle, where

three-fourths of them are said to have been slain. The tribes

which then submitted "were the Tarbelli, Bigerriones,

Preciani, Vocates, Tarusates, Elusates, Garites, Ausci,

Garumni, Sibuzates and Cocosates. The Tarbelli were in the

lower basin of the Adour. Their chief place was on the site of

the hot springs of Dax. The Bigerriones appear in the name

Bigorre. The chief place of the Elusates was Elusa, Eause; and

the town of Auch on the river Gers preserves the name of the

Ausci. The names Garites, if the name is genuine, and Garumni

contain the same element, Gar, as the river Garumna [Garonne]

and the Gers. It is stated by Walckenaer that the inhabitants

of the southern part of Les Landes are still called Cousiots.

Cocosa, Caussèque, is twenty-four miles from Dax on the road

from Dax to Bordeaux."

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 4, chapter 6.

"Before the arrival of the brachycephalic Ligurian race, the

Iberians ranged over the greater part of France. ... If, as

seems probable, we may identify them with the Aquitani, one of

the three races which occupied Gaul in the time of Cæsar, they

must have retreated to the neighbourhood of the Pyrenees

before the beginning of the historic period."

I. Taylor, Origin of the Aryans, chapter 2, section 5.

AQUITAINE: In Cæsar's time.

See GAUL DESCRIBED BY CÆSAR.

AQUITAINE: Settlement of the Visigoths.

See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419.

AQUITAINE: A. D. 567.--Divided between the Merovingian Kings.

See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

{120}

AQUITAINE: A. D. 681-768.

The independent Dukes and their subjugation.

"The old Roman Aquitania, in the first division of the spoils

of the Empire, had fallen to the Visigoths, who conquered it

without much trouble. In the struggle between them and the

Merovingians, it of course passed to the victorious party. But

the quarrels, so fiercely contested between the different

members of the Frank monarchy, prevented them from retaining a

distant possession within their grasp; and at this period

[681-718, when the Mayors of the Palace, Pepin and Carl, were

gathering the reins of government over the three

kingdoms--Austrasia, Neustria and Burgundy--into their hands].

Eudo, the duke of Aquitaine, was really an independent prince.

The population had never lost its Roman character; it was, in

fact, by far the most Romanized in the whole of Gaul. But it

had also received a new element in the Vascones or Gascons

[see BASQUES], a tribe of Pyrenean mountaineers, who

descending from their mountains, advanced towards the north

until their progress was checked by the broad waters of the

Garonne. At this time, however, they obeyed Eudo. "This duke

of Aquitaine, Eudo, allied himself with the Neustrians against

the ambitious Austrasian Mayor, Carl Martel, and shared with

them the crushing defeat at Soissons, A. D. 718, which

established the Hammerer's power. Eudo acknowledged allegiance

and was allowed to retain his dukedom. But, half-a-century

afterwards, Carl's son, Pepin, who had pushed the 'fainéant'

Merovingians from the Frank throne and seated himself upon it,

fought a nine years' war with the then duke of Aquitaine, to

establish his sovereignty. "The war, which lasted nine years

[760-768], was signalized by frightful ravages and destruction

of life upon both sides, until, at last, the Franks became

masters of Berri, Auvergne, and the Limousin, with their

principal cities. The able and gallant Guaifer [or Waifer] was

assassinated by his own subjects, and Pepin had the

satisfaction of finally uniting the grand-duchy of Aquitaine

to the monarchy of the Franks."

J. G. Sheppard, Fall of Rome, lecture 8.

ALSO IN:

P. Godwin. History of France: Ancient Gaul,

chapter 14-15.

W. H. Perry, The Franks, chapter 5-6.

AQUITAINE: A. D. 732.

Ravaged by the Moslems.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.

AQUITAINE: A. D. 781.

Erected into a separate kingdom by Charlemagne.

In the year 781 Charlemagne erected Italy and Aquitaine into

separate kingdoms, placing his two infant sons, Pepin and

Ludwig or Louis on their respective thrones. "The kingdom of

Aquitaine embraced Vasconia [Gascony], Septimania, Aquitaine

proper (that is, the country between the Garonne and the

Loire) and the county, subsequently the duchy, of Toulouse.

Nominally a kingdom, Aquitaine was in reality a province,

entirely dependent on the central or personal government of

Charles. ... The nominal designations of king and kingdom

might gratify the feelings of the Aquitanians, but it was a

scheme contrived for holding them in a state of absolute

dependence and subordination."

J. I. Mombert, History of Charles the Great,

book 2. chapter 11.

AQUITAINE: A. D. 843.

In the division of Charlemagne's Empire.

See FRANCE: A. D.843.

AQUITAINE: A. D. 884-1151.

The end of the nominal kingdom.

The disputed Ducal Title.

"Carloman [who died 884], son of Louis the Stammerer, was the

last of the Carlovingians who bore the title of king of

Aquitaine. This vast state ceased from this time to constitute

a kingdom. It had for a lengthened period been divided between

powerful families, the most illustrious of which are those of

the Counts of Toulouse, founded in the ninth century by

Fredelon, the Counts of Poitiers, the Counts of Auvergne, the

Marquises of Septimania or Gothia, and the Dukes of Gascony.

King Eudes had given William the Pius, Count of Auvergne, the

Investiture of the duchy of Aquitaine. On the extinction of

that family in 928, the Counts of Toulouse and those of Poitou

disputed the prerogatives and their quarrel stained the south

with blood for a long time. At length the Counts of Poitou

acquired the title of Dukes of Aquitaine or Guyenne [or

Guienne,--supposed to be a corruption of the name of

Aquitaine, which came into use during the Middle Ages], which

remained in their house up to the marriage of Eleanor of

Aquitaine with Henry Plantagenet I. [Henry II.], King of

England (1151)."

E. De Bonnechose, History of France, book 2, chapter 3,

foot-note.

"The duchy Aquitaine, or Guyenne, as held by Eleanor's

predecessors, consisted, roughly speaking, of the territory

between the Loire and the Garonne. More exactly, it was

bounded on the north by Anjou and Touraine, on the east by

Berry and Auvergne, on the south-east by the Quercy or County

of Cahors, and on the south-west by Gascony, which had been

united with it for the last hundred years. The old Karolingian

kingdom of Aquitania had been of far greater extent; it had,

in fact, included the whole country between the Loire, the

Pyrenees, the Rhone and the ocean. Over all this vast

territory the Counts of Poitou asserted a theoretical claim of

overlordship by virtue of their ducal title; they had,

however, a formidable rival in the house of the Counts of

Toulouse."

K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings,

volume 1, chapter 10.

See, also, TOULOUSE: 10TH AND 11TH CENTURIES.

AQUITAINE: A. D. 1137-1152.

Transferred by marriage from the crown of France to the crown

of England.

In 1137, "the last of the old line of the dukes of

Aquitaine--William IX., son of the gay crusader and troubadour

whom the Red King had hoped to succeed--died on a pilgrimage

at Compostella. His only son was already dead, and before

setting out for his pilgrimage he did what a greater personage

had done ten years before: with the consent of his barons, he

left the whole of his dominions to his daughter. Moreover, he

bequeathed the girl herself as wife to the young king Louis

[VII.] of France. This marriage more than doubled the strength

of the French crown. It gave to Louis absolute possession of

all western Aquitaine, or Guyenne as it was now beginning to

be called; that is the counties of Poitou and Gascony, with

the immediate overlordship of the whole district lying between

the Loire and the Pyrenees, the Rhone and the ocean:--a

territory five or six times as large as his own royal domain

and over which his predecessors had never been able to assert

more than the merest shadow of a nominal superiority." In 1152

Louis obtained a divorce from Eleanor, surrendering all the

great territory which she had added to his dominions, rather

than maintain an unhappy union. The same year the gay duchess

was wedded to Henry Plantagenet, then Duke of Normandy,

afterwards Henry II. King of England. By this marriage

Aquitaine became joined to the crown of England and remained

so for three hundred years.

K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings,

volume 1, chapter 8.

{121}

AQUITAINE: 12th Century.

The state of the southern parts.

See PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.

AQUITAINE: A. D. 1360-1453.

Full sovereignty possessed by the English Kings.

The final conquest and union with France.

"By the Peace of Bretigny [see FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360] Edward

III. resigned his claims on the crown of France; but he was

recognized in return as independent Prince of Aquitaine,

without any homage or superiority being reserved to the French

monarch. When Aquitaine therefore was conquered by France,

partly in the 14th, fully in the 15th century [see FRANCE: A.

D. 1431-1453], it was not the 'reunion' of a forfeited fief,

but the absorption of a distinct and sovereign state. The

feelings of Aquitaine itself seem to have been divided. The

nobles to a great extent, though far from universally,

preferred the French connexion. It better fell in with their

notions of chivalry, feudal dependency, and the like; the

privileges too which French law conferred on noble birth would

make their real interests lie that way. But the great cities

and, we have reason to believe, the mass of the people, also,

clave faithfully to their ancient Dukes; and they had good

reason to do so. The English Kings, both by habit and by

interest, naturally protected the municipal liberties of

Bourdeaux and Bayonne, and exposed no part of their subjects

to the horrors of French taxation and general oppression."

E. A. Freeman, The Franks and the Gauls (Historical

Essays, 1st Series, No.7).

----------AQUITAINE: End----------

AQUITANI, The.

See IBERIANS, THE WESTERN.

ARABIA.--ARABS:

The Name.

"There can be no doubt that the name of the Arabs was ...

given from their living at the westernmost part of Asia; and

their own word 'Gharb,' the 'West,' is another form of the

original Semitic name Arab."

G. Rawlinson, Notes to Herodotus, volume 2, page 71.

ARABIA:

The ancient succession and fusion of Races.

"The population of Arabia, after long centuries, more

especially after the propagation and triumph of Islamism,

became uniform throughout the peninsula. ... But it was not

always thus. It was very slowly and gradually that the

inhabitants of the various parts of Arabia were fused into one

race. ... Several distinct races successively immigrated into

the peninsula and remained separate for many ages. Their

distinctive characteristics, their manners and their

civilisation prove that these nations were not all of one

blood. Up to the time of Mahomet, several different languages

were spoken in Arabia, and it was the introduction of Islamism

alone that gave predominence to that one amongst them now

called Arabic. The few Arabian historians deserving of the

name, who have used any discernment in collecting the

traditions of their country, Ibn Khaldoun, for example,

distinguish three successive populations in the peninsula.

They divide these primitive, secondary, and tertiary Arabs

into three divisions, called Ariba, Motareba, and Mostareba.

... The Ariba were the first and most ancient inhabitants of

Arabia. They consisted principally of two great nations, the

Adites, sprung from Ham, and the Amalika of the race of Aram,

descendants of Shem, mixed with nations of secondary

importance, the Thamudites of the race of Ham, and the people

of the Tasm, and Jadis, of the family of Aram. The Motareba

were tribes sprung from Joktan, son of Eber, always in Arabian

tradition called Kahtan. The Mostareba of more modern origin

were Ismaelitish tribes. ... The Cushites, the first

inhabitants of Arabia, are known in the national traditions by

the name of Adites, from their progenitor, who is called Ad,

the grandson of Ham. All the accounts given of them by Arab

historians are but fanciful legends. ... In the midst of all

the fabulous traits with which these legends abound, we may

perceive the remembrance of a powerful empire founded by the

Cushites in very early ages, apparently including the whole of

Arabia Felix, and not only Yemen proper. We also find traces

of a wealthy nation, constructors of great buildings, with an

advanced civilisation analogous to that of Chaldæa, professing

a religion similar to the Babylonian; a nation, in short, with

whom material progress was allied to great moral depravity and

obscene rites. ... It was about eighteen centuries before our

era that the Joktanites entered Southern Arabia. ... According

to all appearances, the invasion, like all events of a similar

nature, was accomplished only by force. ... After this

invasion, the Cushite element of the population, being still

the most numerous, and possessing great superiority in

knowledge and civilisation over the Joktanites, who were still

almost in the nomadic state, soon recovered the moral and

material supremacy, and political dominion. A new empire was

formed in which the power still belonged to the Sabæans of the

race of Cush. ... Little by little the new nation of Ad was

formed. The centre of its power was the country of Sheba

proper, where, according to the tenth chapter of Genesis,

there was no primitive Joktanite tribe, although in all the

neighbouring provinces they were already settled. ... It was

during the first centuries of the second Adite empire that

Yemen was temporarily subjected by the Egyptians, who called

it the land of Pun. ... Conquered during the minority of

Thothmes III., and the regency of the Princess Hatasu, Yemen

appears to have been lost by the Egyptians in the troublous

times at the close of the eighteenth dynasty. Ramses II.

recovered it almost immediately after he ascended the throne,

and it was not till the time of the effeminate kings of the

twentieth dynasty, that this splendid ornament of Egyptian

power was finally lost. ... The conquest of the land of Pun

under Hatasu is related in the elegant bas-reliefs of the

temple of Deir-el-Bahari, at Thebes, published by M.

Duemichen. ... The bas-reliefs of the temple of Deir-el-Bahari

afford undoubted proofs of the existence of commerce between

India and Yemen at the time of the Egyptian expedition under

Hatasu. It was this commerce, much more than the fertility of

its own soil and its natural productions, that made Southern

Arabia one of the richest countries in the world. ... For a

long time it was carried on by land only, by means of caravans

crossing Arabia; for the navigation of the Red Sea, much more

difficult and dangerous than that of the Indian Ocean, was not

attempted till some centuries later. ...

{122}

The caravans of myrrh, incense, and balm crossing Arabia

towards the land of Canaan are mentioned in the Bible, in the

history of Joseph, which belongs to a period very near to the

first establishment of the Canaanites in Syria. As soon as

commercial towns arose in Phœnicia, we find, as the prophet

Ezekiel said, 'The merchants of Sheba and Raamah, they were

thy merchants: they occupied in thy fairs with chief of all

spices, and with all precious stones and gold.' ... A great

number of Phœnician merchants, attracted by this trade,

established themselves in Yemen, Hadramaut, Oman, and Bahrein.

Phœnician factories were also established at several places on

the Persian Gulf, amongst others in the islands of Tylos and

Arvad, formerly occupied by their ancestors. ... This

commerce, extremely flourishing during the nineteenth dynasty,

seems, together with the Egyptian dominion in Yemen, to have

ceased under the feeble and inactive successors of Ramses III.

... Nearly two centuries passed away, when Hiram and Solomon

despatched vessels down the Red Sea. ... The vessels of the

two monarchs were not content with doing merely what had once

before been done under the Egyptians of the nineteenth

dynasty, namely, fetching from the ports of Yemen the

merchandise collected there from India. They were much bolder,

and their enterprise was rewarded with success. Profiting by

the regularity of the monsoons, they fetched the products of

India at first hand, from the very place of their shipment in

the ports of the land of Ophir, or Abhira. These distant

voyages were repeated with success as long as Solomon reigned.

The vessels going to Ophir necessarily touched at the ports of

Yemen to take in provisions and await favourable winds. Thus

the renown of the two allied kings, particularly of the power

of Solomon, was spread in the land of the Adites. This was the

cause of the journey made by the queen of Sheba to Jerusalem

to see Solomon. ... The sea voyages to Ophir, and even to

Yemen, ceased at the death of Solomon. The separation of the

ten tribes, and the revolutions that simultaneously took place

at Tyre, rendered any such expeditions impracticable. ... The

empire of the second Adites lasted ten centuries, during which

the Joktanite tribes, multiplying in each generation, lived

amongst the Cushite Sabæans. ... The assimilation of the

Joktanites to the Cushites was so complete that the revolution

which gave political supremacy to the descendants of Joktan

over those of Cush produced no sensible change in the

civilisation of Yemen. But although using the same language,

the two elements of the population of Southern Arabia were

still quite distinct from each other, and antagonistic in

their interests. ... Both were called Sabæans, but the Bible

always carefully distinguishes them by a different

orthography. ... The majority of the Sabæan Cushites, however,

especially the superior castes, refused to submit to the

Joktanite yoke. A separation, therefore, took place, giving

rise to the Arab proverb, 'divided as the Sabæans,' and the

mass of the Adites emigrated to another country. According to

M. Caussin de Perceval, the passage of the Sabæans into

Abyssinia is to be attributed to the consequences of the

revolution that established Joktanite supremacy in Yemen. ...

The date of the passage of the Sabæans from Arabia into

Abyssinia is much more difficult to prove than the fact of

their having done so. ... Yarub, the conqueror of the Adites,

and founder of the new monarchy of Joktanite Arabs, was

succeeded on the throne by his son, Yashdjob, a weak and

feeble prince, of whom nothing is recorded, but that he

allowed the chiefs of the various provinces of his states to

make themselves independent. Abd Shems, surnamed Sheba, son of

Yashdjob, recovered the power his predecessors had lost. ...

Abd Shems had several children, the most celebrated being

Himyer and Kahlan, who left a numerous posterity. From these

two personages were descended the greater part of the Yemenite

tribes, who still existed at the time of the rise of Islamism.

The Himyarites seem to have settled in the towns, whilst the

Kahlanites inhabited the country and the deserts of Yemen. ...

This is the substance of all the information given by the Arab

historians."

F. Lenormant and E. Chevalier, Manual of Ancient History

of the East, book 7, chapter 1-2 (volume 2).

ARABIA:

Sabæans, The.

"For some time past it has been known that the Himyaritic

inscriptions fall into two groups, distinguished from one

another by phonological and grammatical differences. One of

the dialects is philologically older than the other,

containing fuller and more primitive grammatical forms. The

inscriptions in this dialect belong to a kingdom the capital

of which was at Ma'in, and which represents the country of the

Minæans of the ancients. The inscriptions in the other dialect

were engraved by the princes and people of Sabâ, the Sheba of

the Old Testament, the Sabæans of classical geography. The

Sabæan kingdom lasted to the time of Mohammed, when it was

destroyed by the advancing forces of Islam. Its rulers for

several generations had been converts to Judaism, and had been

engaged in almost constant warfare with the Ethiopic kingdom

of Axum, which was backed by the influence and subsidies of

Rome and Byzantium. Dr. Glaser seeks to show that the founders

of this Ethiopic kingdom were the Habâsa, or Abyssinians, who

migrated from Himyar to Africa in the second or first century

B. C.; when we first hear of them in the inscriptions they are

still the inhabitants of Northern Yemen and Mahrah. More than

once the Axumites made themselves masters of Southern Arabia.

About A. D. 300, they occupied its ports and islands, and from

350 to 378 even the Sabæan kingdom was tributary to them.

Their last successes were gained in 525, when, with Byzantine

help, they conquered the whole of Yemen. But the Sabæan

kingdom, in spite of its temporary subjection to Ethiopia, had

long been a formidable State. Jewish colonies settled in it,

and one of its princes became a convert to the Jewish faith.

His successors gradually extended their dominion as far as

Ormuz, and after the successful revolt from Axum in 378,

brought not only the whole of the southern coast under their

sway, but the western coast as well, as far north as Mekka.

Jewish influence made itself felt in the future birthplace of

Mohammed, and thus introduced those ideas and beliefs which

subsequently had so profound an effect upon the birth of

Islam. The Byzantines and Axumites endeavoured to counteract

the influence of Judaism by means of Christian colonies and

proselytism. The result was a conflict between Sabâ and its

assailants, which took the form of a conflict between the

members of the two religions.

{123}

A violent persecution was directed against the Christians of

Yemen, avenged by the Ethiopian conquest of the country and

the removal of its capital to San'a. The intervention of

Persia in the struggle was soon followed by the appearance of

Mohammedanism upon the scene, and Jew, Christian, and Parsi

were alike overwhelmed by the flowing tide of the new creed.

The epigraphic evidence makes it clear that the origin of the

kingdom of Sabâ went back to a distant date. Dr. Glaser traces

its history from the time when its princes were still but

Makârib, or 'Priests,' like Jethro, the Priest of Midian,

through the ages when they were 'kings of Sabâ,' and later

still 'kings of Sabâ and Raidân,' to the days when they

claimed imperial supremacy over all the principalities of

Southern Arabia. It was in this later period that they dated

their inscriptions by an era, which, as Halévy first

discovered, corresponds to 115 B. C. One of the kings of Sabâ

is mentioned in an inscription of the Assyrian king Sargon (B.

C. 715), and Dr. Glaser believes that he has found his name in

a 'Himyaritic' text. When the last priest, Samah'ali Darrahh,

became king of Sabâ, we do not yet know, but the age must be

sufficiently remote, if the kingdom of Sabâ already existed

when the Queen of Sheba came from Ophir to visit Solomon. The

visit need no longer cause astonishment, notwithstanding the

long journey by land which lay between Palestine and the south

of Arabia. ... As we have seen, the inscriptions of Ma'in set

before us a dialect of more primitive character than that of

Sabâ. Hitherto it had been supposed, however, that the two

dialects were spoken contemporaneously, and that the Minæan

and Sabæan kingdoms existed side by side. But geography

offered difficulties in the way of such a belief, since the

seats of Minæan power were embedded in the midst of the Sabæan

kingdom, much as the fragments of Cromarty are embedded in the

midst of other counties. Dr. Glaser has now made it clear that

the old supposition was incorrect, and that the Minæan kingdom

preceded the rise of Sabâ. We can now understand why it is

that neither in the Old Testament nor in the Assyrian

inscriptions do we hear of any princes of Ma'in, and that

though the classical writers are acquainted with the Minæan

people they know nothing of a Minæan kingdom. The Minæan

kingdom, in fact, with its culture and monuments, the relics

of which still survive, must have flourished in the grey dawn

of history, at an epoch at which, as we have hitherto

imagined, Arabia was the home only of nomad barbarism. And yet

in this remote age alphabetic writing was already known and

practised, the alphabet being a modification of the Phœnician

written vertically and not horizontally. To what an early date

are we referred for the origin of the Phœnician alphabet

itself! The Minæan Kingdom must have had a long existence. The

names of thirty-three of its kings are already known to us.

... A power which reached to the borders of Palestine must

necessarily have come into contact with the great monarchies

of the ancient world. The army of Ælius Gallus was doubtless

not the first which had sought to gain possession of the

cities and spice-gardens of the south. One such invasion is

alluded to in an inscription which was copied by M. Halévy.

... But the epigraphy of ancient Arabia is still in its

infancy. The inscriptions already known to us represent but a

small proportion of those that are yet to be discovered. ...

The dark past of the Arabian peninsula has been suddenly

lighted up, and we find that long before the days of Mohammed

it was a land of culture and literature, a seat of powerful

kingdoms and wealthy commerce, which cannot fail to have

exercised an influence upon the general history of the world."

A. H. Sayce, Ancient Arabia

(Contemporary Review., December, 1889).

ARABIA: 6th Century.

Partial conquest by the Abyssinians.

See ABYSSINIA: 6TH TO 16TH CENTURIES.

ARABIA: A. D. 609-632.

Mahomet's conquest.

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

ARABIA: A. D. 1517.

Brought under the Turkish sovereignty.

See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

----------ARABIA: End----------

ARABS, Conquests of the.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST.

ARACAN, English acquisition of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

ARACHOTI, The.

A people who dwelt anciently in the Valley of the Arghandab,

or Urgundab, in eastern Afghanistan. Herodotus gave them the

tribal name of "Pactyes," and the modern Afghans, who call

themselves "Pashtun" and "Pakhtun," signifying "mountaineers,"

are probably derived from them.

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 7, chapter 1.

ARAGON: A. D. 1035-1258.

Rise of the kingdom.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.

ARAGON: A. D. 1133.

Beginning of popular representation in the Cortes.

The Monarchical constitution.

See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

ARAGON: A. D. 1218-1238.

The first oath of allegiance to the king.

Conquest of Balearic Islands.

Subjugation of Valencia.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.

ARAGON: A. D. 1410-1475.

The Castilian dynasty.

Marriage of Ferdinand with Isabella of Castile.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.

ARAGON: A. D. 1516.

The crown united with that of Castile by Joanna,

mother of Charles V.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517.

----------ARAGON: End----------

ARAICU, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

ARAM.--ARAM NAHARAIM.--ARAM--ZOBAH.--ARAMÆANS.

See SEMITES;

also, SEMITIC LANGUAGES.

ARAMBEC.

See NORUMBEGA.

ARAPAHOES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,

and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

ARAR, The.

The ancient name of the river Saone, in France.

ARARAT.--URARDA.

See ALARODIANS.

ARATOS, and the Achaian League.

See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

ARAUCANIANS, The.

See CHILE.

ARAUSIO.

A Roman colony was founded by Augustus at Arausio, which is

represented in name and site by the modern town of Orange, in

the department of Vaucluse, France, 18 miles north of Avignon.

P. Goodwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul,

book 2, chapter 5.

ARAUSIO, Battle of (B. C. 105).

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

{124}

ARAVISCI AND OSI, The.

"Whether ... the Aravisci migrated into Pannonia from the Osi,

a German race, or whether the Osi came from the Aravisci into

Germany, as both nations still retain the same language,

institutions and customs, is a doubtful matter."--"The

locality of the Aravisci was the extreme north-eastern part of

the province of Pannonia, and would thus stretch from Vienna

(Vindobona), eastwards to Raab (Arrabo), taking in a portion

of the south-west of Hungary. ... The Osi seem to have dwelt

near the sources of the Oder and the Vistula. They would thus

have occupied a part of Gallicia."

Tacitus, Germany, translated by Church and Brodribb, with

geographical notes.

ARAWAKS, OR ARAUACAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS.

ARAXES, The.

This name seems to have been applied to a number of Asiatic

streams in ancient times, but is connected most prominently

with an Armenian river, now called the Aras, which flows into

the Caspian.

ARBAS, Battle of.

One of the battles of the Romans with the Persians in which

the former suffered defeat. Fought A. D. 581.

G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter

22.

ARBELA, or GAUGAMELA, Battle of (B. C. 331).

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330.

ARCADIA.

The central district of Peloponnesus, the great southern

peninsula of Greece--a district surrounded by a singular

mountain circle. "From the circle of mountains which has been

pointed out, all the rivers of any note take their rise, and

from it all the mountainous ranges diverge, which form the

many headlands and points of Peloponnesus. The interior part

of the country, however, has only one opening towards the

western sea, through which all its waters flow united in the

Alpheus. The peculiar character of this inland tract is also

increased by the circumstance of its being intersected by some

lower secondary chains of hills, which compel the waters of

the valleys nearest to the great chains either to form lakes,

or to seek a vent by subterraneous passages. Hence it is that

in the mountainous district in the northeast of Peloponnesus

many streams disappear and again emerge from the earth. This

region is Arcadia; a country consisting of ridges of hills and

elevated plains, and of deep and narrow valleys, with streams

flowing through channels formed by precipitous rocks; a

country so manifestly separated by nature from the rest of

Peloponnesus that, although not politically united, it was

always considered in the light of a single community. Its

climate was extremely cold; the atmosphere dense, particularly

in the mountains to the north; the effect which this had on

the character and dispositions of the inhabitants has been

described in a masterly manner by Polybius, himself a native

of Arcadia."

C. O. Müller, History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,

book 1, chapter 4.

"The later Roman poets were wont to speak of Arcadia as a

smiling land, where grassy vales, watered by gentle and

pellucid streams, were inhabited by a race of primitive and

picturesque shepherds and shepherdesses, who divided their

time between tending their flocks and making love to one

another in the most tender and romantic fashion. This idyllic

conception of the country and the people is not to be traced

in the old Hellenic poets, who were better acquainted with the

actual facts of the case. The Arcadians were sufficiently

primitive, but there was very little that was graceful or

picturesque about their land or their lives."

C. H. Hanson, The Land of Greece, pages 381-382.

ARCADIA: B. C. 371-362.

The union of Arcadian towns.

Restoration of Mantineia.

Building of Megalopolis.

Alliance with Thebes.

Wars with Sparta and Elis.

Disunion.

Battle of Mantineia.

See GREECE: B. C. 371, and 371-362.

ARCADIA: B. C. 338.

Territories restored by Philip of Macedon.

See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

ARCADIA: B. C. 243-146.

In the Achaian League.

See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

----------ARCADIA: End----------

ARCADIUS, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 395-408.

ARCHIPELAGO, The Dukes of the.

See NAXOS: THE MEDIÆVAL DUKEDOM.

ARCHON.

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

ARCIS-SUR-AUBE, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

ARCOLA, Battle of (1796).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

ARCOT: A. D. 1751.

Capture and defence by Clive.

See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.

ARCOT: A. D. 1780.

Siege and capture by Hyder Ali.

See INDIA: A. D. 1780-1783.

----------ARCOT: End----------

ARDEN, Forest of.

The largest forest in early Britain, which covered the greater

part of modern Warwickshire and "of which Shakespeare's Arden

became the dwindled representative."

J. R. Green, The Making of England, chapter 7.

ARDENNES, Forest of.

"In Cæsar's time there were in [Gaul] very extensive forests,

the largest of which was the Arduenna (Ardennes), which

extended from the banks of the lower Rhine probably as far as

the shores of the North Sea."

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 3, chapter 22.

"Ardennes is the name of one of the northern French

departments which contains a part of the forest Ardennes.

Another part is in Luxemburg and Belgium. The old Celtic name

exists in England in the Arden of Warwickshire."

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 4, chapter 14.

ARDRI, OR ARDRIGH, The.

See TUATH.

ARDSHIR, OR ARTAXERXES,

Founding of the Sassanian monarchy by.

See PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.

ARECOMICI, The.

See VOLCÆ.

ARECUNAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AREIOS.

See ARIA.

ARELATE:

The ancient name of Arles.

The territory covered by the old kingdom of Arles is sometimes

called the Arelate.

See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1127-1378,

and SALYES.

ARENGO, The.

See SAN MARINO, THE REPUBLIC OF.

AREOPAGUS, The.

"Whoever [in ancient Athens] was suspected of having blood

upon his hands had to abstain from approaching the common

altars of the land. Accordingly, for the purpose of judgments

concerning the guilt of blood, choice had been made of the

barren, rocky height which lies opposite the ascent to the

citadel. It was dedicated to Ares, who was said to have been

the first who was ever judged here for the guilt of blood; and

to the Erinyes, the dark powers of the guilt-stained

conscience. Here, instead of a single judge, a college of

twelve men of proved integrity conducted the trial. If the

accused had an equal number of votes for and against him, he

was acquitted. The court on the hill of Ares is one of the

most ancient institutions of Athens, and none achieved for the

city an earlier or more widely-spread recognition."

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

{125}

"The Areopagus, or, as it was interpreted by an ancient

legend, Mars' Hill, was an eminence on the western side of the

Acropolis, which from time immemorial had been the seat of a

highly revered court of criminal justice. It took cognizance

of charges of wilful murder, maiming, poisoning and arson. Its

forms and modes of proceeding were peculiarly rigid and

solemn. It was held in the open air, perhaps that the judges

might not be polluted by sitting under the same roof with the

criminals. ... The venerable character of the court seems to

have determined Solon to apply it to another purpose; and,

without making any change in its original jurisdiction, to

erect it into a supreme council, invested with a

superintending and controlling authority, which extended over

every part of the social system. He constituted it the

guardian of the public morals and religion, to keep watch over

the education and conduct of the citizens, and to protect the

State from the disgrace or pollution of wantonness and

profaneness. He armed it with extraordinary powers of

interfering in pressing emergencies, to avert any sudden and

imminent danger which threatened the public safety. The nature

of its functions rendered it scarcely possible precisely to

define their limits; and Solon probably thought it best to let

them remain in that obscurity which magnifies whatever is

indistinct. ... It was filled with Archons who had discharged

their office with approved fidelity, and they held their seats

for life."

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, volume 1, chapter 11.

These enlarged functions of the Areopagus were withdrawn from

it in the time of Pericles, through the agency of Ephialtes,

but were restored about B. C. 400, after the overthrow of the

Thirty.--"Some of the writers of antiquity ascribed the first

establishment of the senate of Areopagus to Solon. ... But

there can be little doubt that this is a mistake, and that the

senate of Areopagus is a primordial institution of immemorial

antiquity, though its constitution as well as its functions

underwent many changes. It stood at first alone as a permanent

and collegiate authority, originally by the side of the kings

and afterwards by the side of the archons: it would then of

course be known by the title of The Boule,--the senate, or

council; its distinctive title 'senate of Areopagus,' borrowed

from the place where its sittings were held, would not be

bestowed until the formation by Solon of the second senate, or

council, from which there was need to discriminate it."

G. Grote, History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 10 (volume 3).

See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 477-462, and 466-454.

ARETHUSA, Fountain of.

See SYRACUSE.

AREVACÆ, The.

One of the tribes of the Celtiberians in ancient Spain. Their

chief town. Numantia, was the stronghold of Celtiberian

resistance to the Roman conquest.

See NUMANTIAN WAR.

ARGADEIS, The.

See PHYLÆ.

ARGAUM, Battle of (1803).

See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

ARGENTARIA, Battle of (A. D.378).

See ALEMANNI: A. D. 378.

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: Aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI.--GUARANI.

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1515-1557.

Discovery, exploration and early settlement on La Plata.

First founding of Buenos Ayres.

See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

The final founding of the City of Buenos Ayres.

Conflicts of Spain and Portugal on the Plata.

Creation of the Viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres.

"In the year 1580 the foundations of a lasting city were laid

at Buenos Ayres by De Garay on the same situation as had twice

previously been chosen--namely, by Mendoza, and by Cabeza de

Vaca, respectively. The same leader had before this founded

the settlement of Sante Fe on the Paraná. The site selected

for the future capital of the Pampas is probably one of the

worst ever chosen for a city ... has probably the worst

harbour in the world for a large commercial town. ...

Notwithstanding the inconvenience of its harbour, Buenos Ayres

soon became the chief commercial entrepôt of the Valley of the

Plata. The settlement was not effected without some severe

fighting between De Garay's force and the Querandies. The

latter, however, were effectually quelled. ... The Spaniards

were now nominally masters of the Rio de La Plata, but they

had still to apprehend hostilities on the part of the natives

between their few and far-distant settlements [concerning

which see PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557]. Of this liability De

Garay himself was to form a lamentable example. On his passage

back to Asuncion, having incautiously landed to sleep near the

ruins of the old fort of San Espiritu, he was surprised by a

party of natives and murdered, with all his companions. The

death of this brave Biscayan was mourned as a great loss by

the entire colony. The importance of the cities founded by him

was soon apparent; and in 1620 all the settlements south of

the confluence of the rivers Parana and Paraguay were formed

into a separate, independent government, under the name of Rio

de La Plata, of which Buenos Ayres was declared the capital.

This city likewise became the seat of a bishopric. ... The

merchants of Seville, who had obtained a monopoly of the

supply of Mexico and Peru, regarded with much jealousy the

prospect of a new opening for the South American trade by way

of La Plata," and procured restrictions upon it which were

relaxed in 1618 so far as to permit the sending of two vessels

of 100 tons each every year to Spain, but subject to a duty of

50 per cent. "Under this miserable commercial legislation

Buenos Ayres continued to languish for the first century of

its existence. In 1715, after the treaty of Utrecht, the

English ... obtained the 'asiento' or contract for supplying

Spanish colonies in America with African slaves, in virtue of

which they had permission to form an establishment at Buenos

Ayres, and to send thither annually four ships with 1,200

negroes, the value of which they might export in produce of

the country. They were strictly forbidden to introduce other

goods than those necessary for their own establishments; but

under the temptation of gain on the one side and of demand on

the other, the asiento ships naturally became the means of

transacting a considerable contraband trade. ...

{126}

The English were not the only smugglers in the river Plate. By

the treaty of Utrecht, the Portuguese had obtained the

important settlement of Colonia [the first settlement of the

Banda Oriental--or 'Eastern Border'--afterwards called

Uruguay] directly facing Buenos Ayres. ... The Portuguese, ...

not contented with the possession of Colonia ... commenced a

more important settlement near Monte Video. From this place

they were dislodged by Zavala [Governor of Buenos Ayres], who,

by order of his government, proceeded to establish settlements

at that place and at Maldonado. Under the above-detailed

circumstances of contention ... was founded the healthy and

agreeable city of Monte Video. ... The inevitable consequence

of this state of things was fresh antagonism between the two

countries, which it was sought to put an end to by a treaty

between the two nations concluded in 1750. One of the articles

stipulated that Portugal should cede to Spain all of her

establishments on the eastern bank of the Plata; in return for

which she was to receive the seven missionary towns [known as

the 'Seven Reductions'] on the Uruguay. But ... the

inhabitants of the Missions naturally rebelled against the

idea of being handed over to a people known to them only by

their slave-dealing atrocities. ... The result was that when

2,000 natives had been slaughtered [in the war known as the

War of the Seven Reductions] and their settlements reduced to

ruins, the Portuguese repudiated the compact, as they could no

longer receive their equivalent, and they still therefore

retained Colonia. When hostilities were renewed in 1762, the

governor of Buenos Ayres succeeded in possessing himself of

Colonia; but in the following year it was restored to the

Portuguese, who continued in possession until 1777, when it

was definitely ceded to Spain. The continual encroachments of

the Portuguese in the Rio de La Plata, and the impunity with

which the contraband trade was carried on, together with the

questions to which it constantly gave rise with foreign

governments, had long shown the necessity for a change in the

government of that colony; for it was still under the

superintendence of the Viceroy of Peru, residing at Lima,

3,000 miles distant. The Spanish authorities accordingly

resolved to give fresh force to their representatives in the

Rio de La Plata; and in 1776 they took the important

resolution to sever the connection between the provinces of La

Plata and the Viceroyalty of Peru. The former were now erected

into a new Viceroyalty, the capital of which was Buenos Ayres.

... To this Viceroyalty was appointed Don Pedro Cevallos, a

former governor of Buenos Ayres. ... The first act of Cevallos

was to take possession of the island of St. Katherine, the

most important Portuguese possession on the coast of Brazil.

Proceeding thence to the Plate, he razed the fortifications of

Colonia to the ground, and drove the Portuguese from the

neighbourhood. In October of the following year, 1777, a

treaty of peace was signed at St. Ildefonso, between Queen

Maria of Portugal and Charles III. of Spain, by virtue of

which St. Katherine's was restored to the latter country,

whilst Portugal withdrew from the Banda Oriental or Uruguay,

and relinquished all pretensions to the right of navigating

the Rio de La Plata and its affluents beyond its own frontier

line. ... The Viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres was sub-divided into

the provinces of--(1.) Buenos Ayres, the capital of which was

the city of that name, and which comprised the Spanish

possessions that now form the Republic of Uruguay, as well as

the Argentine provinces of Buenos Ayres, Santa Fé, Entre Rios,

and Corrientes; (2.) Paraguay, the capital of which was

Asuncion, and which comprised what is now the Republic of

Paraguay; (3.) Tucuman, the capital of which was St. Iago del

Estero, and which included what are to-day the Argentine

provinces of Cordova, Tucuman, St. Iago, Salta, Catamarca,

Rioja, and Jujuy; (4.) Las Charcas or Potosi, the capital of

which was La Plata, and which now forms the Republic of

Bolivia; and (5.) Chiquito or Cuyo, the capital of which was

Mendoza, and in which were comprehended the present Argentine

provinces of St. Luiz, Mendoza, and St. Juan."

R. G. Watson, Spanish and Portuguese South America,

volume 13-14.

ALSO IN:

E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, chapter 17.

S. H. Wilcocke, History of the Viceroyalty of Buenos

Ayres.

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.

The English invasion.

The Revolution.

Independence achieved.

Confederation of the Provinces of the Plate River and its

dissolution.

"The trade of the Plate River had enormously increased since

the substitution of register ships for the annual flotilla,

and the erection of Buenos Ayres into a viceroyalty in 1778;

but it was not until the war of 1797 that the English became

aware of its real extent. The British cruisers had enough to

do to maintain the blockade: and when the English learned that

millions of hides were rotting in the warehouses of Monte

Video and Buenos Ayres, they concluded that the people would

soon see that their interests would be best served by

submission to the great naval power. The peace put an end to

these ideas; but Pitt's favourite project for destroying

Spanish influence in South America by the English arms was

revived and put in execution soon after the opening of the

second European war in 1803. In 1806 ... he sent a squadron to

the Plate River, which offered the best point of attack to the

British fleet, and the road to the most promising of the

Spanish colonies. The English, under General Beresford, though

few in number, soon took Buenos Ayres, for the Spaniards,

terrified at the sight of British troops, surrendered without

knowing how insignificant the invading force really was. When

they found this out, they mustered courage to attack Beresford

in the citadel; and the English commander was obliged to

evacuate the place. The English soon afterwards took

possession of Monte Video, on the other side of the river.

Here they were joined by another squadron, who were under

orders, after reducing Buenos Ayres, to sail round the Horn,

to take Valparaiso, and establish posts across the continent

connecting that city with Buenos Ayres, thus executing the

long-cherished plan of Lord Anson. Buenos Ayres was therefore

invested a second time. But the English land forces were too

few for their task. The Spaniards spread all round the city

strong breastworks of ox hides, and collected all their forces

for its defence. Buenos Ayres was stormed by the English at

two points on the 5th of July, 1807; but they were unable to

hold their ground against the unceasing fire of the Spaniards,

who were greatly superior in numbers, and the next day they

capitulated, and agreed to evacuate the province within two

months.

{127}

The English had imagined that the colonists would readily

flock to their standard, and throw off the yoke of Spain. This

was a great mistake; and it needed the events of 1808 to lead

the Spanish colonists to their independence. ... In 1810, when

it came to be known that the French armies had crossed the

Sierra Morena, and that Spain was a conquered country, the

colonists would no longer submit to the shadowy authority of

the colonial officers, and elected a junta of their own to

carry on the Government. Most of the troops in the colony went

over to the cause of independence, and easily overcame the

feeble resistance that was made by those who remained faithful

to the regency in the engagement of Las Piedras. The leaders

of the revolution were the advocate Castelli and General

Belgrano; and under their guidance scarcely any obstacle

stopped its progress. They even sent their armies at once into

Upper Peru and the Banda Oriental, and their privateers

carried the Independent flag to the coasts of the Pacific; but

these successes were accompanied by a total anarchy in the

Argentine capital and provinces. The most intelligent and

capable men had gone off to fight for liberty elsewhere; and

even if they had remained it would have been no easy task to

establish a new government over the scattered and

half-civilized population of this vast country. ... The first

result of independence was the formation of a not very

intelligent party of country proprietors, who knew nothing of

the mysteries of politics, and were not ill-content with the

existing order of things. The business of the old viceroyal

government was delegated to a supreme Director; but this

functionary was little more than titular. How limited the

aspirations of the Argentines at first were may be gathered

from the instructions with which Belgrano and Rivadavia were

sent to Europe in 1814. They were to go to England, and ask

for an English protectorate; if possible under an English

prince. They were next to try the same plan in France,

Austria, and Russia, and lastly in Spain itself: and if Spain

still refused, were to offer to renew the subjection of the

colony, on condition of certain specified concessions being

made. This was indeed a strange contrast to the lofty

aspirations of the Colombians. On arriving at Rio, the

Argentine delegates were assured by the English minister, Lord

Strangford, that, as things were, no European power would do

anything for them: nor did they succeed better in Spain

itself. Meanwhile the government of the Buenos Ayres junta was

powerless outside the town, and the country was fast lapsing

into the utmost disorder and confusion. At length, when

Government could hardly be said to exist at all, a general

congress of the provinces of the Plate River assembled at

Tucuman in 1816. It was resolved that all the states should

unite in a confederation to be called the United Provinces of

the Plate River: and a constitution was elaborated, in

imitation of the famous one of the United States, providing

for two legislative chambers and a president. ... The

influence of the capital, of which all the other provinces

were keenly jealous, predominated in the congress; and

Puyrredon, an active Buenos Ayres politician, was made supreme

Director of the Confederation. The people of Buenos Ayres

thought their city destined to exercise over the rural

provinces a similar influence to that which Athens, under

similar circumstances, had exercised in Greece; and able

Buenos Ayreans like Puyrredon, San Martin, and Rivadavia, now

became the leaders of the unitary party. The powerful

provincials, represented by such men as Lopez and Quiroga,

soon found out that the Federal scheme meant the supremacy of

Buenos Ayres, and a political change which would deprive them

of most of their influence. The Federal system, therefore,

could not be expected to last very long; and it did in fact

collapse after four years. Artigas led the revolt in the Banda

Oriental [now Uruguay], and the Riverene Provinces soon

followed the example. For a long time the provinces were

practically under the authority of their local chiefs, the

only semblance of political life being confined to Buenos

Ayres itself."

E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, chapter 17.

ALSO IN:

M. G. Mulhall, The English in South America, chapter 10-13,

and 16-18.

J. Miller, Memoirs of General Miller, chapter 3 (volume 1).

T. J. Page, La Plata, the Argentine Confederation and

Paraguay, chapter 31.

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.

Anarchy, civil war, despotism.

The long struggle for order and Confederation.

"A new Congress met in 1819 and made a Constitution for the

country, which was never adopted by all the Provinces.

Pueyrredon resigned, and on June 10th, 1819, José Rondeau was

elected, who, however, was in no condition to pacify the civil

war which had broken out during the government of his

predecessors. At the commencement of 1830, the last 'Director

General' was overthrown; the municipality of the city of

Buenos-Aires seized the government; the Confederation was

declared dissolved, and each of its Provinces received liberty

to organize itself as it pleased. This was anarchy officially

proclaimed. After the fall in the same year of some military

chiefs who had seized the power, Gen. Martin Rodriguez was

named Governor of Buenos-Aires, and he succeeded in

establishing some little order in this chaos. He chose M. J.

Garcia and Bernardo Rivadavia--one of the most enlightened

Argentines of his times--as his Ministers. This

administration did a great deal of good by exchanging

conventions of friendship and commerce, and entering into

diplomatic relations with foreign nations. At the end of his

term General Las Heras--9th May, 1824--took charge of the

government, and called a Constituent Assembly of all the

Provinces, which met at Buenos-Aires, December 16th, and

elected Bernardo Rivadavia President of the newly Confederated

Republic on the 7th February, 1825. This excellent Argentine,

however, found no assistance in the Congress. No understanding

could be come to on the form or the test of the Constitution, nor

yet upon the place of residence for the national Government.

Whilst Rivadavia desired a centralized Constitution--called

here 'unintarian'--and that the city of Buenos-Aires should be

declared capital of the Republic, the majority of Congress

held a different opinion, and this divergence caused the

resignation of the President on the 5th July, 1827. After this

event, the attempt to establish a Confederation which would

include all the Provinces was considered as defeated, and each

Province went on its own way, whilst Buenos-Aires elected

Manuel Dorrego, the chief of the federal party, for its

Governor.

{128}

He was inaugurated on the 13th August, 1827, and at once

undertook to organize a new Confederation of the Provinces,

opening relations to this end with the Government of Cordoba,

the most important Province of the interior. He succeeded in

reëstablishing repose in the interior, and was instrumental in

preserving a general peace, even beyond the limits of his

young country. The Emperor of Brazil did not wish to

acknowledge the rights of the United Provinces over the

Cisplatine province, or Banda Oriental [now Uruguay]. He

wished to annex it to his empire, and declared war to the

Argentine Republic on the 10th of December, 1826. An army was

soon organized by the latter, under the command of General

Alvear, which on the 20th of February, 1827, gained a complete

victory over the Brazilian forces--twice their number--at the

plains of Ituzaingó, in the Brazilian province of Rio Grande

do Sul. The navy of the Argentines also triumphed on several

occasions, so that when England offered her intervention,

Brazil renounced all claim to the territory of Uruguay by the

convention of the 27th August, 1828, and the two parties

agreed to recognize and to maintain the neutrality and

independence of that country. Dorrego, however, had but few

sympathies in the army, and a short time after his return from

Brazil, the soldiers under Lavalle rebelled and forced him to

fly to the country on the 1st December of the same year. There

he found aid from the Commander General of the country

districts, Juan Manuel Rosas, and formed a small battalion

with the intention of marching on the city of Buenos-Aires.

But Lavalle triumphed, took him prisoner, and shot him without

trial on the 13th December. ... Not only did the whole

interior of the province of Buenos-Aires rise against Lavalle,

under the direction of Rosas, but also a large part of other

Provinces considered this event as a declaration of war, and

the National Congress, then assembled at Santa-Fé, declared

Lavalle's government illegal. The two parties fought with real

fury, but in 1829, after an interview between Rosas and

Lavalle, a temporary reconciliation was effected. ... The

legislature of Buenos-Aires, which had been convoked on

account of the reconciliation between Lavalle and Rosas,

elected the latter as Governor of the Province, on December

6th, 1829, and accorded to him extraordinary powers. ...

During this the first period of his government he did not

appear in his true nature, and at its conclusion he refused a

re-election and retired to the country. General Juan R.

Balcarce was then--17th December, 1832--named Governor, but

could only maintain himself some eleven months: Viamont

succeeded him, also for a short time only. Now the moment had

come for Rosas. He accepted the almost unlimited Dictatorship

which was offered to him on the 7th March, 1835, and reigned

in a horrible manner, like a madman, until his fall. Several

times the attempt was made to deliver Buenos-Aires from his

terrible yoke, and above all the devoted and valiant efforts

of General Lavalle deserve to be mentioned; but all was in

vain; Rosas remained unshaken. Finally, General Justo José De

Urquiza, Governor of the province of Entre-Rios, in alliance

with the province of Corrientes and the Empire of Brazil, rose

against the Dictator. He first delivered the Republic of

Uruguay, and the city of Monte Video--the asylum of the

adversaries of Rosas--from the army which besieged it, and

thereafter passing the great river Parana, with a relatively

large army, he completely defeated Rosas at Monte-Caseros,

near Buenos-Aires, on the 3rd February, 1852. During the same

day, Rosas sought and received the protection of an English

war-vessel which was in the road of Buenos-Aires, in which he

went to England, where he still [1876] resides. Meantime

Urquiza took charge of the Government of the United Provinces,

under the title of 'Provisional Director,' and called a

general meeting of the Governors at San Nicolás, a frontier

village on the north of the province of Buenos-Aires. This

assemblage confirmed him in his temporary power, and called a

National Congress which met at Santa-Fé and made a National

Constitution under date of 25th May, 1853. By virtue of this

Constitution the Congress met again the following year at

Parana, a city of Entre-Rios, which had been made the capital,

and on the 5th May, elected General Urquiza the first

President of the Argentine Confederation. ... The important

province of Buenos-Aires, however, had taken no part in the

deliberations of the Congress. Previously, on the 11th

September 1852, a revolution against Urquiza, or rather

against the Provincial Government in alliance with him, had

taken place and caused a temporary separation of the Province

from the Republic. Several efforts to pacify the disputes

utterly failed, and a battle took place at Cepeda in Santa-Fé,

wherein Urquiza, who commanded the provincial troops, was

victorious, although his success led to no definite result. A

short time after, the two armies met again at Pavon--near the

site of the former battle--and Buenos-Aires won the day. This

secured the unity of the Republic of which the victorious

General Bartolomé Mitre was elected President for six years

from October, 1862. At the same time the National Government

was transferred from Paraná to Buenos-Aires, and the latter

was declared the temporary capital of the Nation. The Republic

owes much to the Government of Mitre, and it is probable that

he would have done more good, if war had not broken out with

Paraguay, in 1865 [see PARAGUAY]. The Argentines took part in

it as one of the three allied States against the Dictator of

Paraguay, Francisco Solano Lopez. On the 12th October, 1868,

Domingo Faustino Sarmiento succeeded Gen. Mitre in the

Presidency. ... The 12th October, 1874, Dr. Nicolas Avellaneda

succeeded him in the Government."

R. Napp, The Argentine Republic, chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

D. F. Sarmiento, Life in the Argentine Republic in the

Days of the Tyrants.

J. A. King, Twenty-four years in the Argentine

Republic.

{129}

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1880-1891.

The Constitution and its working.

Governmental corruption.

The Revolution of 1890, and the financial collapse.

"The Argentine constitutional system in its outward form

corresponds closely to that of the United States. ... But the

inward grace of enlightened public opinion is lacking, and

political practice falls below the level of a self-governing

democracy. Congress enacts laws, but the President as

commander-in-chief of the army, and as the head of a civil

service dependent upon his will and caprice, possesses

absolute authority in administration. The country is governed

by executive decrees rather than by constitutional laws.

Elections are carried by military pressure and manipulation of

the civil service. ... President Roca [who succeeded

Avellaneda in 1880] virtually nominated, and elected his

brother-in-law, Juarez Célman, as his successor. President

Juarez set his heart upon controlling the succession in the

interest of one of his relatives, a prominent official; but

was forced to retire before he could carry out his purpose.

... Nothing in the Argentine surprised me more than the

boldness and freedom with which the press attacked the

government of the day and exposed its corruption. ... The

government paid no heed to these attacks. Ministers did not

trouble themselves to repel charges affecting their integrity.

... This wholesome criticism from an independent press had one

important effect. It gave direction to public opinion in the

capital, and involved the organization of the Unión Cívica. If

the country had not been on the verge of a financial

revulsion, there might not have been the revolt against the

Juarez administration in July, 1890; but with ruin and

disaster confronting them, men turned against the President

whose incompetence and venality would have been condoned if

the times had been good. The Unión Cívica was founded when the

government was charged with maladministration in sanctioning

an illegal issue of $40,000,000 of paper money. ... The

government was suddenly confronted with an armed coalition of

the best battalions of the army, the entire navy, and the Unión

Cívica. The manifesto issued by the Revolutionary Junta was a

terrible arraignment of the political crimes of the Juarez

Government. ... The revolution opened with every prospect of

success. It failed from the incapacity of the leaders to

co-operate harmoniously. On July 19, 1890, the defection of

the army was discovered. On July 26 the revolt broke out. For

four days there was bloodshed without definite plan or

purpose. No determined attack was made upon the government

palace. The fleet opened a fantastic bombardment upon the

suburbs. There was inexplicable mismanagement of the insurgent

forces, and on July 29 an ignominious surrender to the

government with a proclamation of general amnesty. General

Roca remained behind the scenes, apparently master of the

situation, while President Juarez had fled to a place of

refuge on the Rosario railway, and two factions of the army

were playing at cross purposes, and the police and the

volunteers of the Unión Cívica were shooting women and

children in the streets. Another week of hopeless confusion

passed, and General Roca announced the resignation of

President Juarez and the succession of vice-President

Pellegrini. Then the city was illuminated, and for three days

there was a pandemonium of popular rejoicing over a victory

which nobody except General Roca understood. ... In June,

1891, the deplorable state of Argentine finance was revealed

in a luminous statement made by President Pellegrini. ... All

business interests were stagnant. Immigration had been

diverted to Brazil. ... All industries were prostrated except

politics, and the pernicious activity displayed by factions

was an evil augury for the return of prosperity. ... During

thirty years the country has trebled its population, its

increase being relatively much more rapid than that of the

United States during the same period. The estimate of the

present population [1892] is 4,000,000 in place of 1,160,000

in 1857. ... Disastrous as the results of political government

and financial disorder have been in the Argentine, its

ultimate recovery by slow stages is probable. It has a

magnificent railway system, an industrious working population

recruited from Europe, and nearly all the material appliances

for progress."

I. N. Ford. Tropical America, chapter 6.

See CONSTITUTION, ARGENTINE.

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1892.

Presidential Election.

Dr. Luis Saenz-Pena, former Chief Justice of the Supreme

Court, and reputed to be a man of great integrity and ability,

was chosen President, and inaugurated October 12, 1892.

----------ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: End----------

ARGINUSAE, Battle of.

See GREECE: B. C. 406.

ARGONAUTIC EXPEDITION, The.

"The ship Argo was the theme of many songs during the oldest

periods of the Grecian Epic, even earlier than the Odyssey.

The king Æêtês, from whom she is departing, the hero Jason,

who commands her, and the goddess Hêrê, who watches over him,

enabling the Argo to traverse distances and to escape dangers

which no ship had ever before encountered, are all

circumstances briefly glanced at by Odysseus in his narrative

to Alkinous. ... Jason, commanded by Pelias to depart in quest

of the golden fleece belonging to the speaking ram which had

carried away Phryxus and Hellé, was encouraged by the oracle

to invite the noblest youth of Greece to his aid, and fifty of

the most distinguished amongst them obeyed the call. Hêraklês,

Thêseus, Telamôn and Pêleus, Kastor and Pollux, Idas and

Lynkeus--Zêtês and Kalaïs, the winged sons of

Boreas--Meleager, Amphiaraus, Kêpheus, Laertês, Autolykus,

Menœtius, Aktor, Erginus, Euphêmus, Ankæus, Pœas,

Periklymenus, Augeas, Eurytus, Admêtus, Akastus, Kæneus,

Euryalus, Pêneleôs and Lêitus, Askalaphus and Ialmenus, were

among them. ... Since so many able men have treated it as an

undisputed reality, and even made it the pivot of systematic

chronological calculations, I may here repeat the opinion long

ago expressed by Heyne, and even indicated by Burmann, that

the process of dissecting the story, in search of a basis of

fact, is one altogether fruitless."

G. Grote, History of Greece, volume 1, part 1, chapter 13.

"In the rich cluster of myths which surround the captain of

the Argo and his fellows are preserved to us the whole life

and doings of the Greek maritime tribes, which gradually

united all the coasts with one another, and attracted Hellenes

dwelling in the most different seats into the sphere of their

activity. ... The Argo was said to have weighed anchor from a

variety of ports--from Iplcus in Thessaly, from Anthedon and

Siphæ in Bœotia: the home of Jason himself was on Mount Pelion

by the sea, and again on Lemnos and in Corinth; a clear proof

of how homogeneous were the influences running on various

coasts. However, the myths of the Argo were developed in the

greatest completeness on the Pagasean gulf, in the seats of

the Minyi; and they are the first with whom a perceptible

movement of the Pelasgian tribes beyond the sea--in other

words, a Greek history in Europe--begins."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 1, chapter 2-3.

{130}

ARGOS.--ARGOLIS.--ARGIVES.

"No district of Greece contains so dense a succession of

powerful citadels in a narrow space as Argolis [the eastern

peninsular projection of the Peloponnesus]. Lofty Larissa,

apparently designed by nature as the centre of the district,

is succeeded by Mycenæ, deep in the recess of the land; at the

foot of the mountain lies Midea, at the brink of the sea-coast

Tiryns; and lastly, at a farther distance of half an hour's

march, Nauplia, with its harbour. This succession of ancient

fastnesses, whose indestructible structure of stone we admire

to this day [see Schliemann's 'Mycenæ' and 'Tiryns'] is clear

evidence of mighty conflicts which agitated the earliest days

of Argos; and proves that in this one plain of Inachus several

principalities must have arisen by the side of one another,

each putting its confidence in the walls of its citadel; some,

according to their position, maintaining an intercourse with

other lands by sea, others rather a connection with the inland

country. The evidence preserved by these monuments is borne

out by that of the myths, according to which the dominion of

Danaus is divided among his successors. Exiled Prœtus is

brought home to Argos by Lycian bands, with whose help he

builds the coast-fortress of Tiryns, where he holds sway as

the first and mightiest in the land. ... The other line of the

Danaidæ is also intimately connected with Lycia; for Perseus.

... [who] on his return from the East founds Mycenæ, as the

new regal seat of the united kingdom of Argos, is himself

essentially a Lycian hero of light, belonging to the religion

of Apollo. ... Finally, Heracles himself is connected with the

family of the Perseidæ, as a prince born on the Tirynthian

fastness. ... During these divisions in the house of Danaus,

and the misfortunes befalling that of Prœtus, foreign families

acquire influence and dominion in Argos: these are of the race

of Æolus, and originally belong to the harbour-country of the

western coast of Peloponnesus--the Amythaonidæ. ... While the

dominion of the Argive land was thus sub-divided, and the

native warrior nobility subsequently exhausted itself in

savage internal feuds, a new royal house succeeded in grasping

the supreme power and giving an entirely new importance to the

country. This house was that of the Tantalidæ [or PELOPIDS,

which see], united with the forces of Achæan population. ...

The residue of fact is, that the ancient dynasty, connected by

descent with Lycia, was overthrown by the house which derived

its origin from Lydia. ... The poetic myths, abhorring long

rows of names, mention three princes as ruling here in

succession, one leaving the sceptre of Pelops to the other,

viz., Atreus, Thyestes and Agamemnon. Mycenæ is the chief seat

of their rule, which is not restricted to the district of

Argos."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 1, chapter 3.

After the Doric invasion of the Peloponnesus (see GREECE: THE

MIGRATIONS; also, DORIANS AND IONIANS), Argos appears in Greek

history as a Doric state, originally the foremost one in power

and influence, but humiliated after long years of rivalry by

her Spartan neighbours. "Argos never forgot that she had once

been the chief power in the peninsula, and her feeling towards

Sparta was that of a jealous but impotent competitor. By what

steps the decline of her power had taken place, we are unable

to make out, nor can we trace the succession of her kings

subsequent to Pheidon [8th century B. C.]. ... The title [of

king] existed (though probably with very limited functions) at

the time of the Persian War [B. C. 490-479]. ... There is some

ground for presuming that the king of Argos was even at that

time a Herakleid--since the Spartans offered to him a third

part of the command of the Hellenic force, conjointly with

their own two kings. The conquest of Thyreates by the Spartans

[about 547 B. C.] deprived the Argeians of a valuable portion

of their Periœkis, or dependent territory. But Orneæ and the

remaining portion of Kynuria still continued to belong to

them: the plain round their city was very productive; and,

except Sparta, there was no other power in Peloponnesus

superior to them. Mykenæ and Tiryns, nevertheless, seem both

to have been independent states at the time of the Persian

War, since both sent contingents to the battle of Platæa, at a

time when Argos held aloof and rather favoured the Persians."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 8 (volume 2).

ARGOS: B. C. 496-421.

Calamitous War with Sparta.

Non-action in the Persian War.

Slow recovery of the crippled State.

"One of the heaviest blows which Argos ever sustained at the

hand of her traditional foe befell her about 496 B. C., six

years before the first Persian invasion of Greece. A war with

Sparta having broken out, Cleomenes, the Lacedæmonian king,

succeeded in landing a large army, in vessels he had extorted

from the Æginetans, at Nauplia, and ravaged the Argive

territory. The Argeians mustered all their forces to resist

him, and the two armies encamp cd opposite each other near

Tiryns. Cleomenes, however, contrived to attack the Argeians

at a moment when they were unprepared, making use, if

Herodotus is to be credited, of a stratagem which proves the

extreme incapacity of the opposing generals, and completely

routed them. The Argeians took refuge in a sacred grove, to

which the remorseless Spartans set fire, and so destroyed

almost the whole of them. No fewer than 6,000 of the citizens

of Argos perished on this disastrous day. Cleomenes might have

captured the city itself; but he was, or affected to be,

hindered by unfavourable omens, and drew off his troops. The

loss sustained by Argos was so severe as to reduce her for

some years to a condition of great weakness; but this was at

the time a fortunate circumstance for the Hellenic cause,

inasmuch as it enabled the Lacedæmonians to devote their whole

energies to the work of resistance to the Persian invasion

without fear of enemies at home. In this great work Argos took

no part, on the occasion of either the first or second attempt

of the Persian kings to bring Hellas under their dominion.

Indeed, the city was strongly suspected of 'medising'

tendencies. In the period following the final overthrow of the

Persians, while Athens was pursuing the splendid career of

aggrandisement and conquest that made her the foremost state

in Greece, and while the Lacedæmonians were paralyzed by the

revolt of the Messenians, Argos regained strength and

influence, which she at once employed and increased by the

harsh policy ... of depopulating Mycenæ and Tiryns, while she

compelled several other semi-independent places in the Argolid

to acknowledge her supremacy. During the first eleven years of

the Peloponnesian war, down to the peace of Nicias (421 B.

C.), Argos held aloof from all participation in the struggle,

adding to her wealth and perfecting her military organization.

As to her domestic conditions and political system, little is

known; but it is certain that the government, unlike that of

other Dorian states, was democratic in its character, though

there was in the city a strong oligarchic and philo-Laconian

party, which was destined to exercise a decisive influence at

an important crisis."

C. H. Hanson, The Land of Greece, chapter 10.

ALSO IN:

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

{131}

ARGOS: B. C. 421-418.

League formed against Sparta.

Outbreak of War.

Defeat at Mantinea.

Revolution in the Oligarchical and Spartan interest.

See GREECE: B. C. 421-418.

ARGOS: B. C. 395-387.

Confederacy against Sparta.

The Corinthian War.

Peace of Antalcidas.

See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

ARGOS: B. C. 371.

Mob outbreak and massacre of chief citizens.

See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

ARGOS: B. C. 338.

Territories restored by Philip of Macedon.

See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

ARGOS: B. C. 271.

Repulse and death of Pyrrhus, king of Epirus.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244.

ARGOS: B. C. 229.

Liberated from Macedonian control.

See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

ARGOS: A. D. 267.--Ravaged by the Goths.

See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

ARGOS: A. D. 395.--Plundered by the Goths.

See GOTHS: A. D. 395.

ARGOS: A. D. 1463.

Taken by the Turks, retaken by the Venetians.

See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.

ARGOS: A. D. 1686.--Taken by the Venetians.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

----------ARGOS: End----------

ARGYRASPIDES, The.

"He [Alexander the Great] then marched into India, that he

might have his empire bounded by the ocean, and the extreme

parts of the East. That the equipments of his army might be

suitable to the glory of the Expedition, he mounted the

trappings of the horses and the arms of the soldiers with

silver, and called a body of his men, from having silver

shields, Argyraspides."

Justin, History (translated by J. S. Watson),

book 12, chapter 7.

ALSO IN:

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 58.

See, also, MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.

ARGYRE.

See CHRYSE.

ARIA.--AREIOS.--AREIANS.

The name by which the Herirud and its valley, the district of

modern Herat, was known to the ancient Greeks. Its inhabitants

were known as the Areians.

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 7, chapter 1.

ARIANA.

"Strabo uses the name Ariana for the land of all the nations

of Iran, except that of the Medes and Persians, i. e., for the

whole eastern half of Iran."--Afghanistan and Beloochistan.

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity,

volume 5, book 7, chapter 1.

ARIANISM.--ARIANS.

From the second century of its existence, the Christian church

was divided by bitter controversies touching the mystery of

the Trinity. "The word Trinity is found neither in the Holy

Scriptures nor in the writings of the first Christians; but it

had been employed from the beginning of the second century,

when a more metaphysical turn had been given to the minds of

men, and theologians had begun to attempt to explain the

divine nature. ... The Founder of the new religion, the Being

who had brought upon earth a divine light, was he God, was he

man, was he of an intermediate nature, and, though superior to

all other created beings, yet himself created? This latter

opinion was held by Arius, an Alexandrian priest, who

maintained it in a series of learned controversial works

between the years 318 and 325. As soon as the discussion had

quitted the walls of the schools, and been taken up by the

people, mutual accusations of the gravest kind took the place

of metaphysical subtleties. The orthodox party reproached the

Arians with blaspheming the deity himself, by refusing to

acknowledge him in the person of Christ. The Arians accused

the orthodox of violating the fundamental law of religion; by

rendering to the creature the worship due only to the Creator.

... It was difficult to decide which numbered the largest body

of followers; but the ardent enthusiastic spirits, the

populace in all the great cities (and especially at

Alexandria) the women, and the newly-founded order of the

monks of the desert ... were almost without exception

partisans of the faith which has since been declared orthodox.

... Constantine thought this question of dogma might be

decided by an assembly of the whole church. In the year 325,

he convoked the council of Nice [see NICÆA, COUNCIL OF], at

which 300 bishops pronounced in favour of the equality of the

Son with the Father, or the doctrine generally regarded as

orthodox, and condemned the Arians to exile and their books to

the flames."

J. C. L. de Sismondi, Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 4.

"The victorious faction [at the Council of Nice] ... anxiously

sought for some irreconcilable mark of distinction, the

rejection of which might involve the Arians in the guilt and

consequences of heresy. A letter was publicly read and

ignominiously torn, in which their patron, Eusebius of

Nicomedia, ingeniously confessed that the admission of the

homoousion, or consubstantial, a word already familiar to the

Platonists, was incompatible with the principles of their

theological system. The fortunate opportunity was eagerly

embraced. ... The consubstantiality of the Father and the Son

was established by the Council of Nice, and has been

unanimously received as a fundamental article of the Christian

faith by the consent of the Greek, the Latin, the Oriental and

the Protestant churches." Notwithstanding the decision of the

Council of Nice against it, the heresy of Arius continued to

gain ground in the East. Even the Emperor Constantine became

friendly to it, and the sons of Constantine, with some of the

later emperors who followed them on the eastern throne, were

ardent Arians in belief. The Homoousians, or orthodox, were

subjected to persecution, which was directed with special

bitterness against their great leader, Athanasius, the famous

bishop of Alexandria. But Arianism was weakened by

hair-splitting distinctions, which resulted in many diverging

creeds. "The sect which asserted the doctrine of a 'similar

substance' was the most numerous, at least in the provinces of

Asia. ... The Greek word which was chosen to express this

mysterious resemblance bears so close an affinity to the

orthodox symbol, that the profane of every age have derided

the furious contests which the difference of a single

diphthong excited between the Homoousians and the

Homoiousians."

{132}

The Latin churches of the West, with Rome at their head,

remained generally firm in the orthodoxy of the Homoousian

creed. But the Goths, who had received their Christianity from

the East, tinctured with Arianism, carried that heresy

westward, and spread it among their barbarian neighbors--

Vandals, Burgundians and Sueves--through the influence of the

Gothic Bible of Ulfilas, which he and his missionary

successors bore to the Teutonic peoples. "The Vandals and

Ostrogoths persevered in the profession of Arianism till the

final ruin [A. D. 533 and 553] of the kingdoms which they had

founded in Africa and Italy. The barbarians of Gaul submitted

[A. D. 507] to the orthodox dominion of the Franks: and Spain

was restored to the Catholic Church by the voluntary

conversion of the Visigoths [A. D. 589]."

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

chapters 21 and 37.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

Theodosius formally proclaimed his adhesion to Trinitarian

orthodoxy by his celebrated edict of A. D. 380, and commanded

its acceptance in the Eastern Empire.

See ROME: A. D. 379-395.

A. Neander, General History of Christian. Religion

and Church, translated by Torry, volume 2, section 4.

ALSO IN:

J. Alzog, Manual of Univ. Ch. History, section 110-114.

W. G. T. Shedd, History of Christian Doctrine, book 3.

J. H. Newman, Arians of the Fourth Century.

A. P. Stanley, Lectures on the History of the

Eastern Church, lectures 3-7.

J. A. Dorner, History of the Development of the Doctrine

of the Person of Christ, division 1 (volume 2).

See, also,

GOTHS: A. D. 341-381;

FRANKS: A. D. 481-511;

also, GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-509.

ARICA, Battle of (1880).

See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.

ARICIA, Battle of.

A victory won by the Romans over the Auruncians, B. C. 497,

which summarily ended a war that the latter had declared

against the former.

Livy, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 26.

ARICIAN GROVE, The.

The sacred grove at Aricia (one of the towns of old Latium,

near Alba Longa) was the center and meeting-place of an early

league among the Latin peoples, about which little is known.

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 3.

Sir. W. Gell, Topography of Rome, volume 1.

"On the northern shore of the lake [of Nemi] right under the

precipitous cliffs on which the modern village of Nemi is

perched, stood the sacred grove and sanctuary of Diana

Nemorensis, or Diana of the Wood. ... The site was excavated

in 1885 by Sir John Saville Lumley, English ambassador at

Rome. For a general description of the site and excavations,

see the Athenæum, 10th October, 1885. For details of

the finds see 'Bulletino dell' Instituto di Corrispondenza

Archeologica,' 1885.--The lake and the grove were

sometimes known as the lake and grove of Aricia. But the town

of Aricia (the modern La Riccia) was situated about three

miles off, at the foot of the Alban Mount. ... According to

one story, the worship of Diana at Nemi was instituted by

Orestes, who, after killing Thoas, King of the Tauric

Chersonese (the Crimea), fled with his sister to Italy,

bringing with him the image of the Tauric Diana. ... Within

the sanctuary at Nemi grew a certain tree, of which no branch

might be broken. Only a runaway slave was allowed to break

off, if he could, one of its boughs. Success in the attempt

entitled him to fight the priest in single combat, and if he

slew him he reigned in his stead with the title of King of the

Wood (Rex Nemorensis). Tradition averred that the fateful

branch was that Golden Bough which, at the Sibyl's bidding,

Æneas plucked before he essayed the perilous journey to the

world of the dead. ... This rule of succession by the sword

was observed down to imperial times; for amongst his other

freaks Caligula, thinking that the priest of Nemi had held

office too long, hired a more stalwart ruffian to slay him."

J. G. Frazer, The Golden Bough, chapter 1, section 1.

ARICONIUM.

A town of Roman Britain which appears to have been the

principal mart of the iron manufacturing industry in the

Forest of Dean.

T. Wright, The Celt, the Roman and the Saxon,

page 161.

ARII, The.

See LYGIANS.

ARIKARAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

ARIMINUM.

The Roman colony, planted in the third century B. C., which

grew into the modern city of Rimini. See ROME: B. C.

295-191.--When Cæsar entered Italy as an invader, crossing the

frontier of Cisalpine Gaul--the Rubicon--his first movement

was to occupy Ariminum. He halted there for two or three

weeks, making his preparations for the civil war which he had

now entered upon and waiting for the two legions that he had

ordered from Gaul.

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 14.

ARIOVALDUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 626-638.

ARISTEIDES, Ascendancy of.

See ATHENS: B. C. 477-462.

ARISTOCRACY.--OLIGARCHY.

"Aristocracy signifies the rule of the best men. If, however,

this epithet is referred to an absolute ideal standard of

excellence, it is manifest that an aristocratical government

is a mere abstract notion, which has nothing in history, or in

nature, to correspond to it. But if we content ourselves with

taking the same terms in a relative sense, ... aristocracy ...

will be that form of government in which the ruling few are

distinguished from the multitude by illustrious birth,

hereditary wealth, and personal merit. ... Whenever such a

change took place in the character or the relative position of

the ruling body, that it no longer commanded the respect of

its subjects, but found itself opposed to them, and compelled

to direct its measures chiefly to the preservation of its

power, it ceased to be, in the Greek sense an aristocracy; it

became a faction, an oligarchy."

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 10.

ARISTOMNEAN WAR.

See MESSENIAN WARS, FIRST AND SECOND.

ARIZONA: The Name.

"Arizona, probably Arizonac in its original form, was the

native and probably Pima name of the place of a hill, valley,

stream, or some other local feature--just south of the modern

boundary, in the mountains still so called, on the head waters

of the stream flowing past Saric, where the famous Planchas de

Plata mine was discovered in the middle of the 18th century,

the name being first known to Spaniards in that connection and

being applied to the mining camp or real de minas. The

aboriginal meaning of the term is not known, though from the

common occurrence in this region of the prefix 'ari,' the root

'son,' and the termination 'ac,' the derivation ought not to

escape the research of a competent student. Such guesses as

are extant, founded on the native tongues, offer only the

barest possibility of a partial and accidental accuracy; while

similar derivations from the Spanish are extremely absurd. ...

The name should properly be written and pronounced Arisona, as

our English sound of the z does not occur in Spanish."

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,

volume 12, page 520.

{133}

ARIZONA:

Aboriginal Inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS, APACHE GROUP, SHOSHONEAN

FAMILY, AND UTAHS.

ARIZONA: A. D. 1848.

Partial acquisition from Mexico.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

ARIZONA: A. D. 1853.

Purchase by the United States of the southern part from Mexico.

The Gadsden Treaty.

"On December 30, 1853, James Gadsden, United States minister

to Mexico, concluded a treaty by which the boundary line was

moved southward so as to give the United States, for a

monetary consideration of $10,000,000, all of modern Arizona

south of the Gila, an effort so to fix the line as to include

a port on the gulf being unsuccessful. ... On the face of the

matter this Gadsden treaty was a tolerably satisfactory

settlement of a boundary dispute, and a purchase by the United

States of a route for a southern railroad to California."

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 12,

chapter 20.

----------ARIZONA: End----------

ARKANSAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1542

Entered by Hernando de Soto.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1803.

Embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1819-1836.

Detached from Missouri.

Organized as a Territory.

Admitted as a State.

"Preparatory to the assumption of state government, the limits

of the Missouri Territory were restricted on the south by the

parallel of 36° 30' North. The restriction was made by an act

of Congress, approved March 3, 1819, entitled an 'Act

establishing a separate territorial government in the southern

portion of the Missouri Territory.' The portion thus separated

was subsequently organized into the second grade of territorial

government, and Colonel James Miller, a meritorious and

distinguished officer of the Northwestern army, was appointed

first governor. This territory was known as the Arkansas

Territory, and, at the period of its first organization,

contained an aggregate of nearly 14,000 inhabitants. Its

limits comprised all the territory on the west side of the

Mississippi between the parallels 33° and 36° 30', or between

the northern limit of Louisiana and the southern boundary of

the State of Missouri. On the west it extended indefinitely to

the Mexican territories, at least 550 miles. The Post of

Arkansas was made the seat of the new government. The

population of this extensive territory for several years was

comprised chiefly in the settlements upon the tributaries of

White River and the St. Francis; upon the Mississippi, between

New Madrid and Point Chicot; and upon both sides of the

Arkansas River, within 100 miles of its mouth, but especially

in the vicinity of the Post of Arkansas. ... So feeble was the

attraction in this remote region for the active, industrious,

and well-disposed portion of the western pioneers, that the

Arkansas Territory, in 1830, ten years after its organization,

had acquired an aggregate of only 30,388 souls, including

4,576 slaves. ... The western half of the territory had been

erected, in 1824, into a separate district, to be reserved for

the future residence of the Indian tribes, and to be known as

the Indian Territory. From this time the tide of emigration

began to set more actively into Arkansas, as well as into

other portions of the southwest. ... The territory increased

rapidly for several years, and the census of 1835 gave the

whole number of inhabitants at 58,134 souls, including 9,630

slaves. Thus the Arkansas Territory in the last five years had

doubled its population. ... The people, through the General

Assembly, made application to Congress for authority to

establish a regular form of state government. The assent of

Congress was not withheld, and a Convention was authorized to

meet at Little Rock on the first day of January, 1836, for the

purpose of forming and adopting a State Constitution. The same

was approved by Congress, and on the 13th of June following

the State of Arkansas was admitted into the Federal Union as

an independent state, and was, in point of time and order, the

twenty-fifth in the confederacy. ... Like the Missouri

Territory, Arkansas had been a slaveholding country from the

earliest French colonies. Of course, the institution of negro

slavery, with proper checks and limits, was sustained by the

new Constitution."

J. W. Monette, Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of

the Mississippi, book 5, chapter 17 (volume 2).

See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1861 (March).

Secession voted down.

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

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1861 (April).

Governor Rector's reply to President Lincoln's call for

troops.

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

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1862 (January-March).

Advance of National forces into the State.

Battle of Pea Ridge.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862

(JANUARY-MARCH: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1862 (July-September).

Progress of the Civil War.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

ARKANSAS: A. D.1862(December).

The Battle of Prairie Grove.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.

1862 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1863 (January).

The capture of Arkansas Post from the Confederates.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JANUARY: ARKANSAS).

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1863 (July).

The defence of Helena.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863

(JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1863 (August-October).

The breaking of Confederate authority.

Occupation of Little Rock by National forces.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863

(AUGUST-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-Missouri).

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1864 (March-October).

Last important operations of the War.

Price's Raid.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864

(MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

{134}

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1864.

First steps toward Reconstruction.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-JULY).

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1865-1868.

Reconstruction completed.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D.1865 (MAY-JULY), to 1868-1870.

----------ARKANSAS: End----------

ARKITES, The.

A Canaanite tribe who occupied the plain north of Lebanon.

ARKWRIGHT'S SPINNING MACHINE, OR WATER-FRAME, The invention of.

See COTTON MANUFACTURE.

ARLES: Origin.

See SALVES.

ARLES: A. D. 411.--Double siege.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.

ARLES: A. D. 425.--Besieged by the Goths.

See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 419-451.

ARLES: A. D. 508-510.

Siege by the Franks.

After the overthrow of the Visigothic kingdom of Toulouse, A.

D. 507, by the victory of Clovis, king of the Franks, at

Voclad, near Poitiers, "the great city of Aries, once the

Roman capital of Gaul, maintained a gallant defence against

the united Franks and Burgundians, and saved for generations

the Visigothic rule in Provence and southern Languedoc. Of the

siege, which lasted apparently from 508 to 510, we have some

graphic details in the life of St. Cæsarius, Bishop of Aries,

written by his disciples." The city was relieved in 510 by an

Ostrogothic army, sent by king Theodoric of Italy, after a

great battle in which 30,000 Franks were reported to be slain.

"The result of the battle of Aries was to put Theodoric in

secure possession of all Provence and of so much of Languedoc

as was needful to ensure his access to Spain"--where the

Ostrogothic king, as guardian of his infant grandson,

Amalaric, was taking care of the Visigothic kingdom.

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 4, chapter 9.

ARLES: A. D. 933.

Formation of the kingdom.

See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.

ARLES: A. D. 1032-1378.

The breaking up of the kingdom and its gradual absorption in

France.

See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032, and 1127-1378.

ARLES: 1092-1207.

The gay court of Provence.

See PROVENCE: A. D. 943-1092, and 1179-1207.

----------ARLES: End----------

ARMADA, The Spanish.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1588.

ARMAGEDDON.

See MEGIDDO.

ARMAGH, St. Patrick's School at.

See IRELAND: 5th to 8th CENTURIES.

ARMAGNAC, The counts of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1327.

ARMAGNACS.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415, and 1415-1419.

ARMENIA:

"Almost immediately to the west of the Caspian there rises a

high table-land diversified by mountains, which stretches

eastward for more than eighteen degrees, between the 37th and

41st parallels. This highland may properly be regarded as a

continuation of the great Iranean plateau, with which it is

connected at its southeastern corner. It comprises a portion

of the modern Persia, the whole of Armenia, and most of Asia

Minor. Its principal mountain ranges are latitudinal, or from

west to east, only the minor ones taking the opposite or

longitudinal direction. ... The heart of the mountain-region,

the tract extending from the district of Erivan on the east to

the upper course of the Kizil·Irmak river and the vicinity of

Sivas upon the west, was, as it still is, Armenia. Amidst

these natural fastnesses, in a country of lofty ridges, deep

and narrow valleys, numerous and copious streams, and

occasional broad plains--a country of rich pasture grounds,

productive orchards, and abundant harvests--this interesting

people has maintained itself almost unchanged from the time of

the early Persian kings to the present day. Armenia was one of

the most valuable portions of the Persian empire, furnishing,

as it did, besides stone and timber, and several most

important minerals, an annual supply of 20,000 excellent

horses to the stud of the Persian king."

G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Persia, chapter 1.

Before the Persians established their sovereignty over the

country, "it seems certain that from one quarter or another

Armenia had been Arianized; the old Turanian character had

passed away from it; immigrants had flocked in and a new

people had been formed--the real Armenians of later times,

and indeed of the present day." Submitting to Alexander, on

the overthrow of the Persian monarchy, Armenia fell afterwards

under the yoke of the Seleucidæ, but gained independence about

190 B. C., or earlier. Under the influence of Parthia, a

branch of the Parthian royal family, the Arsacids, was

subsequently placed on the throne and a dynasty established

which reigned for nearly six hundred years. The fourth of

these kings, Tigranes, who occupied the throne in the earlier

part of the last century B. C., placed Armenia in the front

rank of Asiatic kingdoms and in powerful rivalry with Parthia.

Its subsequent history is one of many wars and invasions and

much buffeting between Romans, Parthians, Persians, and their

successors in the conflicts of the eastern world. The part of

Armenia west of the Euphrates was called by the Romans Armenia

Minor. For a short period after the revolt from the Seleucid

monarchy, it formed a distinct kingdom called Sophene.

G. Rawlinson, Sixth and Seventh Great Oriental

Monarchies.

ARMENIA: B. C. 69-68.

War with the Romans.

Great defeat at Tigranocerta

Submission to Rome.

See ROME: B. C. 78-68, and 69-63.

ARMENIA: A. D. 115-117.

Annexed to the Roman Empire by Trajan and restored to

independence by Hadrian.

See ROME: A. D. 96-138.

ARMENIA: A. D. 422 (?).

Persian Conquest.

Becomes the satrapy of Persarmenia.

See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

ARMENIA: A. D. 1016-1073.

Conquest and devastation by the Seljuk Turks.

See TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1004-1063, and 1063-1073.

ARMENIA: 12th-14th Centuries.

The Mediæval Christian Kingdom.

"The last decade of the 12th century saw the establishment of

two small Christian kingdoms in the Levant, which long

outlived all other relics of the Crusades except the military

orders; and which, with very little help from the West,

sustained a hazardous existence in complete contrast with

almost everything around them. The kingdoms of Cyprus and

Armenia have a history very closely intertwined, but their

origin and most of their circumstances were very different. By

Armenia as a kingdom is meant little more than the ancient

Cilicia, the land between Taurus and the sea, from the

frontier of the principality of Antioch, eastward, to

Kelenderis or Palæopolis, a little beyond Seleucia; this

territory, which was computed to contain 16 days' journey in

length, measured from four miles of Antioch, by two in

breadth, was separated from the Greater Armenia, which before

the period on which we are now employed had fallen under the

sway of the Seljuks, by the ridges of Taurus.

{135}

The population was composed largely of the sweepings of Asia

Minor, Christian tribes which had taken refuge in the

mountains. Their religion was partly Greek, partly Armenian.

... Their rulers were princes descended from the house of the

Bagratidæ, who had governed the Greater Armenia as kings from

the year 885 to the reign of Constantine of Monomachus, and

had then merged their hazardous independence in the mass of

the Greek Empire. After the seizure of Asia Minor by the

Seljuks, the few of the Bagratidæ who had retained possession

of the mountain fastnesses of Cilicia or the strongholds of

Mesopotamia, acted as independent lords, showing little

respect for Byzantium save where there was something to be

gained. ... Rupin of the Mountain was prince [of Cilicia] at

the time of the capture of Jerusalem by Saladin; he died in

1189, and his successor, Leo, or Livon, after having

successfully courted the favour of pope and emperor, was

recognised as king of Armenia by the emperor Henry VI., and

was crowned by Conrad of Wittelsbach, Archbishop of Mainz, in

1198." The dynasty ended with Leo IV., whose "whole reign was

a continued struggle against the Moslems," and who was

assassinated about 1342. "The five remaining kings of Armenia

sprang from a branch of the Cypriot house of Lusignan [see

CYPRUS: A. D. 1192-1489] and were little more than Latin

exiles in the midst of several strange populations all alike

hostile."

William Stubbs, Lectures on the Study of Mediæval and Modern

History, lecture 8.

ARMENIA: A. D. 1623-1635.

Subjugated by Persia and regained by the Turks,

See TURKS: A. D. 1623-1640.

----------ARMENIA: End----------

ARMENIAN CHURCH, The.

The church of the Armenians is "the oldest of all national

churches. They were converted by St. Gregory, called 'The

Illuminator,' who was a relative of Dertad or Tiridates, their

prince, and had been forced to leave the country at the same

time with him, and settled at Cæsareia in Cappadocia, where he

was initiated into the Christian faith. When they returned,

both prince and people embraced the Gospel through the

preaching of Gregory, A. D. 276, and thus presented the first

instance of an entire nation becoming Christian. ... By an

accident they were unrepresented at [the Council of] Chalcedon

[A. D. 451], and, owing to the poverty of their language in

words serviceable for the purposes of theology, they had at

that time but one word for Nature and Person, in consequence

of which they misunderstood the decision of that council [that

Christ possessed two natures, divine and human, in one Person]

with sufficient clearness. ... It was not until eighty-four

years had elapsed that they finally adopted Eutychianism [the

doctrine that the divinity is the sole nature in Christ], and

an anathema was pronounced on the Chalcedonian decrees (536)."

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

"The religion of Armenia could not derive much glory from the

learning or the power of its inhabitants. The royalty expired

with the origin of their schism; and their Christian kings,

who arose and fell in the 13th century on the confines of

Cilicia, were the clients of the Latins and the vassals of the

Turkish sultan of Iconium, The helpless nation has seldom been

permitted to enjoy the tranquility of servitude. From the

earliest period to the present hour, Armenia has been the

theatre of perpetual war; the lands between Tauris and Erivan

were dispeopled by the cruel policy of the Sophis; and myriads

of Christian families were transplanted, to perish or to

propagate in the distant provinces of Persia. Under the rod of

oppression, the zeal of the Armenians is fervent and intrepid;

they have often preferred the crown of martyrdom to the white

turban of Mahomet; they devoutly hate the error and idolatry

of the Greeks."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 47.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

ARMINIANISM.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

ARMINIUS, The Deliverance of Germany by.

See GERMANY: B. C. 8--A. D. 11.

ARMORIAL BEARINGS, Origin of.

"As to armorial bearings, there is no doubt that emblems

somewhat similar have been immemorially used both in war and

peace. The shields of ancient warriors, and devices upon coins

or seals, bear no distant resemblance to modern blazonry. But

the general introduction of such bearings, as hereditary

distinctions, has been sometimes attributed to tournaments,

wherein the champions were distinguished by fanciful devices;

sometimes to the crusades, where a multitude of all nations

and languages stood in need of some visible token to denote

the banners of their respective chiefs. In fact, the peculiar

symbols of heraldry point to both these sources and have been

borrowed in part from each. Hereditary arms were perhaps

scarcely used by private families before the beginning of the

thirteenth century. From that time, however, they became very

general."

H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 2, part 2.

ARMORICA.

The peninsular projection of the coast of Gaul between the

mouths of the Seine and the Loire, embracing modern Brittany,

and a great part of Normandy, was known to the Romans as

Armorica. The most important of the Armorican tribes in

Cæsar's time was that of the Veneti. "In the fourth and fifth

centuries, the northern coast from the Loire to the frontier

of the Netherlands was called 'Tractus Aremoricus,' or

Aremorica, which in Celtic signifies 'maritime country.' The

commotions of the third century, which continued to increase

during the fourth and fifth, repeatedly drove the Romans from

that country. French antiquaries imagine that it was a

regularly constituted Gallic republic, of which Chlovis had

the protectorate, but this is wrong."

B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and

Geography, volume 2, page 318.

ALSO IN:

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,

volume 2, page 235.

See, also, VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL, and IBERIANS, THE WESTERN.

ARMSTRONG, General John, and the Newburgh Addresses.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782-1783.

ARMSTRONG, General John: Secretary of War.

Plan of descent on Montreal.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

ARMY, The Legal Creation of the British.

See MUTINY ACTS.

ARMY PURCHASE, Abolition of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1871.

ARNÆANS, The.

See GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.

{136}

ARNAULD, Jacqueline Marie, and the Monastery of Port Royal.

See PORT ROYAL and the JANSENISTS: A. D. 1602-1660.

ARNAUTS, The.

See ALBANIANS, MEDIÆVAL.

ARNAY-LE-DUC, Battle of (1570).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

ARNOLD, Benedict, and the American Revolution.

See CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776;

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

1777 (JULY-OCTOBER); 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER);

1780-1781; 1781 (JANUARY-MAY); 1781 (MAY-OCTOBER).

ARNOLD OF BRESCIA, The Republic of.

See ROME: A. D. 1145-1155.

ARNOLD VON WINKELRIED, at the Battle of Sempach.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.

ARNULF,

King of the East Franks (Germany), A. D. 888-899;

King of Italy and Emperor, A. D. 894-899.

AROGI, Battle of (1868).

See ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1854-1889.

ARPAD, Dynasty of.

See HUNGARIANS: RAVAGES IN EUROPE;

and HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114; 1114-1301.

ARPAD, Siege of.

Conducted by the Assyrian Conqueror Tiglath-Pileser, beginning

B. C. 742 and lasting two years. The fall of the city brought

with it the submission of all northern Syria.

A. H. Sayce, Assyria, chapter 2.

ARQUES, Battles at (1589).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1589-1590.

ARRABIATI, The.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

ARRAPACHITIS.

See JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW HISTORY.

ARRAPAHOES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

ARRAS: Origin.

See BELGÆ.

ARRAS: A.. D. 1583.

Submission to Spain.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

ARRAS: A. D. 1654.

Unsuccessful Siege by the Spaniards under Condé.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.

----------ARRAS: End----------

ARRAS, Treaties of (1415 and 1435).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415, and 1431-1453.

ARRETIUM, Battle of (B. C. 285).

See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

ARROW HEADED WRITING.

See CUNEIFORM WRITING.

ARSACIDÆ, The.

The dynasty of Parthian kings were so called, from the founder

of the line, Arsaces, who led the revolt of Parthia from the

rule of the Syrian Seleucidæ and raised himself to the throne.

According to some ancient writers Arsaces was a Bactrian;

according to others a Scythian.

G. Rawlinson, Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 3.

ARSEN.

In one of the earlier raids of the Seljukian Turks into

Armenia, in the eleventh century the city of Arsen was

destroyed. "It had long been the great city of Eastern Asia

Minor, the centre of Asiatic trade, the depot for merchandise

transmitted overland from Persia and India to the Eastern

Empire and Europe generally. It was full of warehouses

belonging to Armenians and Syrians and is said to have

contained 800 churches and 300,000 people. Having failed to

capture the city, Togrul's general succeeded in burning it.

The destruction of so much wealth struck a fatal blow at

Armenian commerce."

E. Pears, The Fall of Constantinople, chapter 2.

ARSENE, Lake.

An ancient name of the Lake of Van, which is also called

Thopitis by Strabo.

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,

chapter 22. section 1.

ARTABA, The.

See EPHAH.

ARTAXATA.

The ancient capital of Armenia, said to have been built under

the superintendence of Hannibal, while a refugee in Armenia.

At a later time it was called Neronia, in honor of the Roman

Emperor Nero.

ARTAXERXES LONGIMANUS, King of Persia, B. C. 465-425.

ARTAXERXES MNEMON, King of Persia, B. C. 405-359.

ARTAXERXES OCHUS, King of Persia, B. C. 359-338.

ARTAXERXES, or ARDSHIR, Founder of the Sassanian monarchy.

See PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.

ARTEMISIUM, Sea fights at.

See GREECE: B. C. 480.

ARTEMITA.

See DASTAGERD.

ARTEVELD, Jacques and Philip Van:

Their rise and fall in Ghent.

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1335-1337, to 1382.

ARTHUR, King, and the Knights of the Round Table.

"On the difficult question, whether there was a historical

Arthur or not, ... a word or two must now be devoted; ... and

here one has to notice in the first place that Welsh

literature never calls Arthur a gwledig or prince but emperor,

and it may be inferred that his historical position, in case

he had such a position, was that of one filling, after the

departure of the Romans, the office which under them was that

of the Comes Britanniæ or Count of Britain. The officer so

called had a roving commission to defend the Province wherever

his presence might be called for. The other military captains

here were the Dux Britanniarum, who had charge of the forces

in the north and especially on the Wall, and the Comes

Littoris Saxonici [Count of the Saxon Shore], who was

entrusted with the defence of the south-eastern coast of the

island. The successors of both these captains seem to have

been called in Welsh gwledigs or princes. So Arthur's

suggested position as Comes Britanniæ would be in a sense

superior to theirs, which harmonizes with his being called

emperor and not gwledig. The Welsh have borrowed the Latin

title of imperator, 'emperor,' and made it into 'amherawdyr,'

later 'amherawdwr,' so it is not impossible, that when the

Roman imperator ceased to have anything more to say to this

country, the title was given to the highest officer in the

island, namely the Comes Britanniæ, and that in the words 'Yr

Amherawdyr Arthur,' 'the Emperor Arthur,' we have a remnant of

our insular history. If this view be correct, it might be

regarded as something more than an accident that Arthur's

position relatively to that of the other Brythonic princes of

his time is exactly given by Nennius, or whoever it was that

wrote the Historia Brittonum ascribed to him: there

Arthur is represented fighting in company with the kings of

the Brythons in defence of their common country, he being

their leader in war. If, as has sometimes been argued, the

uncle of Maglocunus or Maelgwn, whom the latter is accused by

Gilda of having slain and superseded, was no other than

Arthur, it would supply one reason why that writer called

Maelgwn 'insularis draco,' 'the dragon or war-captain of the

island,' and why the latter and his successors after him were

called by the Welsh not gwledigs but kings, though their great

ancestor Cuneda was only a gwledig.

{137}

On the other hand the way in which Gildas alludes to the uncle

of Maelgwn without even giving his name, would seem to suggest

that in his estimation at least he was no more illustrious

than his predecessors in the position which he held, whatever

that may have been. How then did Arthur become famous above

them, and how came he to be the subject of so much story and

romance? The answer, in short, which one has to give to this

hard question must be to the effect, that besides a historic

Arthur there was a Brythonic divinity named Arthur, after whom

the man may have been called, or with whose name his, in case

it was of a different origin, may have become identical in

sound owing to an accident of speech; for both explanations

are possible, as we shall attempt to show later. Leaving aside

for a while the man Arthur, and assuming the existence of a

god of that name, let us see what could be made of him.

Mythologically speaking he would probably have to be regarded

as a Culture Hero; for, a model king and the institutor of the

Knighthood of the Round Table, he is represented as the leader

of expeditions to the isles of Hades, and as one who stood in

somewhat the same kind of relation to Gwalchmei as Gwydion did

to ILeu. It is needless here to dwell on the character usually

given to Arthur as a ruler: he with his knights around him may

be compared to Conehobar, in the midst of the Champions of

Emain Macha, or Woden among the Anses at Valhalla, while

Arthur's Knights are called those of the Round Table, around

which they are described sitting; and it would be interesting

to understand the signification of the term Round Table. On

the whole it is the table, probably, and not its roundness

that is the fact to which to call attention, as it possibly

means that Arthur's court was the first early court where

those present sat at a table at all in Britain. No such thing

as a common table figures at Conchobar's court or any other

described in the old legends of Ireland, and the same applies,

we believe, to those of the old Norsemen. The attribution to

Arthur of the first use of a common table would fit in well

with the character of a Culture Hero which we have ventured to

ascribe to him, and it derives countenance from the pretended

history of the Round Table; for the Arthurian legend traces it

back to Arthur's father, Uthr Bendragon, in whom we have under

one of his many names the king of Hades, the realm whence all

culture was fabled to have been derived. In a wider sense the

Round Table possibly signified plenty or abundance, and might

be compared with the table of the Ethiopians, at which Zeus

and the other gods of Greek mythology used to feast from time

to time."

J. Rhys, Studies in the Arthurian Legend, chapter 1.

See, also CUMBRIA.

ARTHUR, Chester A.

Election to Vice-Presidency.

Succession to the Presidency.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1880 and 1881.

ARTI OF FLORENCE.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.

ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION (American).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1781, and 1783-1787.

ARTICLES OF HENRY, The.

See POLAND: A. D. 1573.

ARTOIS, The House of.

See BOURBON, THE HOUSE OF.

ARTOIS: A. D. 1529.

Pretensions of the King of France to Suzerainty resigned.

See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

ARTYNI.

See DEMIURGI.

ARVADITES, The.

The Canaanite inhabitants of the island of Aradus, or Arvad,

and who also held territory on the main land.

F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History,

book 6, chapter 1.

ARVERNI, The.

See ÆDUI;

also, GAULS, and ALLOBROGES.

ARX, The.

See CAPITOLINE HILL;

also GENS, ROMAN.

ARXAMUS, Battle of.

One of the defeats sustained by the Romans in their wars with

the Persians. Battle fought A. D. 603.

G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 24.

ARYANS.--ARYAS.

"This family (which is sometimes called Japhetic, or

descendants of Japhet) includes the Hindus and Persians among

Asiatic nations, and almost all the peoples of Europe. It may

seem strange that we English should be related not only to the

Germans and Dutch and Scandinavians, but to the Russians,

French, Spanish, Romans and Greeks as well; stranger still

that we can claim kinship with such distant peoples as the

Persians and Hindus. ... What seems actually to have been the

case is this: In distant ages, somewhere about the rivers Oxus

and Jaxartes, and on the north of that mountainous range

called the Hindoo-Koosh, dwelt the ancestors of all the

nations we have enumerated, forming at this time a single and

united people, simple and primitive in their way of life, but

yet having enough of a common national life to preserve a

common language. They called themselves Aryas or Aryans, a

word which, in its very earliest sense, seems to have meant

those who move upwards, or straight; and hence, probably, came

to stand for the noble race as compared with other races on

whom, of course, they would look down. ... As their numbers

increased, the space wherein they dwelt became too small for

them who had out of one formed many different peoples. Then

began a series of migrations, in which the collection of

tribes who spoke one language and formed one people started

off to seek their fortune in new lands. ... First among them,

in all probability, started the Kelts or Celts, who,

travelling perhaps to the South of the Caspian and the North

of the Black Sea, found their way to Europe and spread far on

to the extreme West. ... Another of the great families who

left the Aryan home was the Pelasgic or the Græco-Italic.

These, journeying along first Southwards and then to the West,

passed through Asia Minor, on to the countries of Greece and

Italy, and in time separated into those two great peoples, the

Greeks (or Hellenes, as they came to call themselves), and the

Romans. ... Next we come to two other great families of

nations who seem to have taken the same route at first, and

perhaps began their travels together as the Greeks and Romans

did. These are the Teutons and the Slaves. ... The word Slave

comes from Slowan, which in old Slavonian meant to speak, and

was given by the Slavonians to themselves as the people who

could speak in opposition to other nations whom, as they were

not able to understand them, they were pleased to consider as

dumb. The Greek word barbaroi (whence our barbarians) arose in

obedience to a like prejudice, only from an imitation of

babbling such as is made by saying 'bar-bar-bar.'"

C. F. Keary, Dawn of History, chapter 4.

{138}

The above passage sets forth the older theory of an Aryan

family of nations as well as of languages in its unqualified

form. Its later modifications are indicated in the following:

"The discovery of Sanscrit and the further discovery to which

it led, that the languages now variously known as Aryan,

Aryanic, Indo-European, Indo-Germanic, Indo-Celtic and

Japhetic are closely akin to one another, spread a spell over

the world of thought which cannot be said to have yet wholly

passed away. It was hastily argued from the kinship of their

languages to the kinship of the nations that spoke them. ...

The question then arises as to the home of the 'holethnos,' or

parent tribe, before its dispersion and during the proethnic

period, at a time when as yet there was neither Greek nor

Hindoo, neither Celt nor Teuton, but only an undifferentiated

Aryan. Of course, the answer at first was--where could it have

been but in the East. And at length the glottologist found it

necessary to shift the cradle of the Aryan race to the

neighbourhood of the Oxus and the Jaxartes, so as to place it

somewhere between the Caspian Sea and the Himalayas. Then

Doctor Latham boldly raised his voice against the Asiatic

theory altogether, and stated that he regarded the attempt to

deduce the Aryans from Asia as resembling an attempt to derive

the reptiles of this country from those of Ireland. Afterwards

Benfey argued, from the presence in the vocabulary common to

the Aryan languages of words for bear and wolf, for birch and

beech, and the absence of certain others, such as those for

lion, tiger and palm, that the original home of the Aryans

must have been within the temperate zone in Europe. ... As

might be expected in the case of such a difficult question,

those who are inclined to believe in the European origin of

the Aryans are by no means agreed among themselves as to the

spot to be fixed upon. Latham placed it east, or south-east of

Lithuania, in Podolia, or Volhynia; Benfey had in view a

district above the Black Sea and not far from the Caspian;

Peschel fixed on the slopes of the Caucasus; Cuno on the great

plain of Central Europe; Fligier on the southern part of

Russia; Pösche on the tract between the Niemen and the

Dnieper; L. Geiger on central and western Germany; and Penka

on Scandinavia."

J. Rhys, Race Theories

(in New Princeton Review, January, 1888).

"Aryan, in scientific language, is utterly inapplicable to

race. It means language, and nothing but language; and, if we

speak of Aryan race at all, we should know that it means no

more than X + Aryan speech. ... I have declared again and

again that if I say Aryas, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor

hair nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan

language. The same applies to Hindus, Greeks, Romans, Germans,

Celts and Slaves. ... In that sense, and in that sense only,

do I say that even the blackest Hindus represent an earlier

stage of Aryan speech and thought than the fairest

Scandinavians. ... If an answer must be given as to the place

where our Aryan ancestors dwelt before their separation,

whether in large swarms of millions, or in a few scattered

tents and huts, I should still say, as I said forty years ago,

'Somewhere in Asia,' and no more."

F. Max Müller, Biog. of Words and Home of the Aryas,

chapter 6.

The theories which dispute the Asiatic origin of the Aryans

are strongly presented by Canon Taylor in The Origin of the

Aryans, by G. H. Rendall, in The Cradle of the

Aryans, and by Dr. O. Schrader in Prehistoric

Antiquities of the Aryan Peoples.

See, also, INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS,

and THE IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.

AS.--LIBRA.--DENARIUS.--SESTERTIUS.

"The term As [among the Romans] and the words which

denote its divisions, were not confined to weight alone, but

were applied to measures of length and capacity also, and in

general to any object which could be regarded as consisting of

twelve equal parts. Thus they were commonly used to denote

shares into which an inheritance was divided." As a unit of

weight the As, or Libra, "occupied the same position in

the Roman system as the pound does in our own. According to

the most accurate researches, the As was equal to about

11.8 oz. avoirdupois, or .7375 of an avoirdupois pound." It

"was divided into 12 equal parts called unciæ, and the unciæ

was divided into 24 equal parts called scrupula." "The

As, regarded as a coin [of copper] originally weighed,

as the name implies, one pound, and the smaller copper coins

those fractions of the pound denoted by their names. By

degrees; however, the weight of the As, regarded as a

coin, was greatly diminished. We are told that, about the

commencement of the first Punic war, it had fallen from 12

ounces to 2 ounces; in the early part of the second Punic war

(B. C. 217), it was reduced to one ounce; and not long

afterwards, by a Lex Papiria, it was fixed at half-an-ounce,

which remained the standard ever after." The silver coins of

Rome were the Denarius, equivalent (after 217 B. C.) to 16

Asses; the Quinarius and the Sestertius, which became,

respectively, one half and one fourth of the Denarius in

value. The Sestertius, at the close of the Republic, is.

estimated to have been equivalent in value to two pence

sterling of English money. The coinage was debased under the

Empire. The principal gold coin of the Empire was the Denarius

Aureus, which passed for 25 silver Denarii.

W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 13.

ASCALON, Battle of (A. D. 1099).

See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.

ASCANIENS, The.

See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 928-1142.

ASCULUM, Battle of (B. C. 279).

See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

ASCULUM, Massacre at.

See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

ASHANTEE WAR, The (1874).

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1873-1880

ASHBURTON TREATY, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.

ASHDOD.

See PHILISTINES.

ASHRAF, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1725-1730.

ASHTI, Battle of (1818).

See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.

{139}

ASIA: The Name.

"There are grounds for believing Europe and Asia to have

originally signified 'the west' and 'the east' respectively.

Both are Semitic terms, and probably passed to the Greeks from

the Phœnicians. ... The Greeks first applied the title [Asia]

to that portion of the eastern continent which lay nearest to

them, and with which they became first acquainted--the coast

of Asia Minor opposite the Cyclades; whence they extended it

as their knowledge grew. Still it had always a special

application to the country about Ephesus."

G. Rawlinson, Notes to Herodotus, volume 3, page 33.

ASIA:

The Roman Province (so called).

"As originally constituted, it corresponded to the dominions

of the kings of Pergamus ... left by the will of Attalus III.

to the Roman people (B. C. 133). ... It included the whole of

Mysia and Lydia, with Æolis, Ionia and Caria, except a small

part which was subject to Rhodes, and the greater part, if not

the whole, of Phrygia. A portion of the last region, however,

was detached from it."

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,

chapter 20, section 1.

ASIA: Central.

Mongol Conquest.

See MONGOLS.

ASIA:

Turkish Conquest.

See TURKS.

ASIA:

Russian Conquests.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876, and 1869-1881.

ASIA MINOR:

"The name of Asia Minor, so familiar to the student of ancient

geography, was not in use either among Greek or Roman writers

until a very late period. Orosius, who wrote in the fifth

century after the Christian era, is the first extant writer

who employs the term in its modern sense."

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography.,

chapter 7, section 2.

The name Anatolia, which is of Greek origin, synonymous with

"The Levant," signifying "The Sunrise," came into use among

the Byzantines, about the 10th century, and was adopted by

their successors, the Turks.

ASIA MINOR:

Earlier Kingdoms and People.

See

PHRYGIANS and MYSIANS.

LYDIANS.

CARIANS.

LYCIANS.

BITHYNIANS.

PONTUS (CAPPADOCIA).

PAPHLAGONIANS.

TROJA.

ASIA MINOR:

The Greek Colonies.

"The tumult which had been caused by the irruption of the

Thesprotians into Thessaly and the displacement of the

population of Greece [see GREECE: THE MIGRATION, &c.] did not

subside within the limits of the peninsula. From the north and

the south those inhabitants who were unable to maintain their

ground against the incursions of the Thessalians, Arnaeans, or

Dorians, and preferred exile to submission, sought new homes

in the islands of the Aegean and on the western coast of Asia

Minor. The migrations continued for several generations. When

at length they came to an end, and the Anatolian coast from

Mount Ida to the Triopian headland, with the adjacent islands,

was in the possession of the Greeks, three great divisions or

tribes were distinguished in the new settlements: Dorians,

Ionians, and Aeolians. In spite of the presence of some alien

elements, the Dorians and Ionians of Asia Minor were the same

tribes as the Dorians and Ionians of Greece. The Aeolians, on

the other hand, were a composite tribe, as their name implies.

... Of these three divisions the Aeolians lay farthest to the

north. The precise limits of their territory were differently

fixed by different authorities. ... The Aeolic cities fell

into two groups: a northern, of which Lesbos was the centre,

and a southern, composed of the cities in the immediate

neighbourhood of the Hermus, and founded from Cyme.--The

northern group included the islands of Tenedos and Lesbos. In

the latter there were originally six cities: Methymna,

Mytilene, Pyrrha, Eresus, Arisba, and Antissa, but Arisba was

subsequently conquered and enslaved by Mytilene. ... The

second great stream of migration proceeded from Athens [after

the death of Codrus--see ATHENS: FROM THE DORIAN MIGRATION TO

B. C. 683--according to Greek tradition, the younger sons of

Codrus leading these Ionian colonists across the Aegean, first

to the Carian city of Miletus--see MILETUS,--which they

captured, and then to the conquest of Ephesus and the island

of Samos]. ... The colonies spread until a dodecapolis was

established, similar to the union which the Ionians had

founded in their old settlements on the northern shore of

Peloponnesus. In some cities the Ionian population formed a

minority. ... The colonisation of Ionia was undoubtedly, in

the main, an achievement of emigrants from Attica, but it was

not accomplished by a single family, or in the space of one

life-time. ... The two most famous of the Ionian cities were

Miletus and Ephesus. The first was a Carian city previously

known as Anactoria. ... Ephesus was originally in the hands of

the Leleges and the Lydians, who were driven out by the

Ionians under Androclus. The ancient sanctuary of the tutelary

goddess of the place was transformed by the Greeks into a

temple of Artemis, who was here worshipped as the goddess of

birth and productivity in accordance with Oriental rather than

Hellenic ideas." The remaining Ionic cities and islands were

Myus (named from the mosquitoes which infested it, and which

finally drove the colony to abandon it), Priene, Erythrae,

Clazomenæ, Teos, Phocaea, Colophon, Lebedus, Samos and Chios.

"Chios was first inhabited by Cretans ... and subsequently by

Carians. ... Of the manner in which Chios became connected

with the Ionians the Chians could give no clear account. ...

The southern part of the Anatolian coast, and the

southern-most islands in the Aegean were colonised by the

Dorians, who wrested them from the Phoenician or Carian

occupants. Of the islands, Crete is the most important. ...

Crete was one of the oldest centres of civilisation in the

Aegean [see CRETE]. ... The Dorian colony in Rhodes, like that

in Crete, was ascribed to the band which left Argos under the

command of Althaemenes. ... Other islands colonised by the

Dorians were Thera, ... Melos, ... Carpathus, Calydnae,

Nisyrus, and Cos. ... From the islands, the Dorians spread to

the mainland. The peninsula of Cnidus was perhaps the first

settlement. ... Halicarnassus was founded from Troezen, and

the Ionian element must have been considerable. ... Of the

Dorian cities, six united in the common worship of Apollo on

the headland of Triopium. These were Lindus, Ialysus, and

Camirus in Rhodes, Cos, and, on the mainland, Halicarnassus

and Cnidus. . . . The territory which the Aeolians acquired is

described by Herodotus as more fertile than that occupied by

the Ionians, but of a less excellent climate. It was inhabited

by a number of tribes, among which the Troes or Teucri were

the chief. ... In Homer the inhabitants of the city of the

Troad are Dardani or Troes, and the name Teucri does not

occur. In historical times the Gergithes, who dwelt in the

town of the same name ... near Lampsacus, and also formed the

subject population of Miletus, were the only remnants of this

once famous nation.

{140}

But their former greatness was attested by the Homeric poems,

and the occurrence of the name Gergithians at various places

in the Troad [see TROJA]. To this tribe belonged the Troy of

the Grecian epic, the site of which, so far as it represents

any historical city, is fixed at Hissarlik. In the Iliad the

Trojan empire extends from the Aesepus to the Caicus; it was

divided--or, at least, later historians speak of it as

divided--into principalities which recognised Priam as their

chief. But the Homeric descriptions of the city and its

eminence are not to be taken as historically true. Whatever

the power and civilisation of the ancient stronghold exhumed

by Dr. Schliemann may have been, it was necessary for the epic

poet to represent Priam and his nation as a dangerous rival in

wealth and arms to the great kings of Mycenae and Sparta. ...

The traditional dates fix these colonies [of the Greeks in

Asia Minor] in the generations which followed the Trojan war.

... We may suppose that the colonisation of the Aegean and of

Asia Minor by the Greeks was coincident with the expulsion of

the Phoenicians. The greatest extension of the Phoenician

power in the Aegean seems to fall in the 15th century B. C.

From the 13th it was gradually on the decline, and the Greeks

were enabled to secure the trade for themselves. ... By 1100

B. C. Asia Minor may have been in the hands of the Greeks,

though the Phoenicians still maintained themselves in Rhodes

and Cyprus. But all attempts at chronology are illusory."

E. Abbott, History of Greece, chapter 4 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

E. Curtius, History of Greece,

book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1).

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapters 13-15.

J. A. Cramer, Geography and History Description of Asia

Minor, section 6 (volume 1).

See, also, MILETUS, PHOCÆANS.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539.

Prosperity of the Greek Colonies.

Their Submission to Crœsus, King of Lydia, and their conquest

and annexation to the Persian Empire.

"The Grecian colonies on the coast of Asia early rose to

wealth by means of trade and manufactures. Though we have not

the means of tracing their commerce, we know that it was

considerable, with the mother country, with Italy, and at

length Spain, with Phœnicia and the interior of Asia, whence

the productions of India passed to Greece. The Milesians, who

had fine woolen manufactures, extended their commerce to the

Euxine, on all sides of which they founded factories, and

exchanged their manufactures and other goods with the

Scythians and the neighbouring peoples, for slaves, wool, raw

hides, bees-wax, flax, hemp, pitch, etc. There is even reason

to suppose that, by means of caravans, their traders bartered

their wares not far from the confines of China [see MILETUS].

... But while they were advancing in wealth and prosperity, a

powerful monarchy formed itself in Lydia, of which the capital

was Sardes, a city at the foot of Mount Tmolus." Gyges, the

first of the Mermnad dynasty of Lydian kings (see LYDIANS),

whose reign is supposed to have begun about B. C. 724, "turned

his arms against the Ionian cities on the coast. During a

century and a half the efforts of the Lydian monarchs to

reduce these states were unavailing. At length (Ol. 55) [B. C.

568] the celebrated Crœsus mounted the throne of Lydia, and he

made all Asia this side of the River Halys (Lycia and Cilicia

excepted) acknowledge his dominion. The Aeolian, Ionian and

Dorian cities of the coast all paid him tribute; but,

according to the usual rule of eastern conquerors, he meddled

not with their political institutions, and they might deem

themselves fortunate in being insured against war by the

payment of an annual sum of money. Crœsus, moreover,

cultivated the friendship of the European Greeks." But Crœsus

was overthrown, B. C. 554, by the conquering Cyrus and his

kingdom of Lydia was swallowed up in the great Persian empire

then taking form [see PERSIA: B. C. 549-521]. Cyrus, during

his war with Crœsus, had tried to entice the Ionians away from

the latter and win them to an alliance with himself. But they

incurred his resentment by refusing. "They and the Æolians now

sent ambassadors, praying to be received to submission on the

same terms as those on which they had obeyed the Lydian

monarch; but the Milesians alone found favour: the rest had to

prepare for war. They repaired the walls of their towns, and

sent to Sparta for aid. Aid, however, was refused; but Cyrus,

being called away by the war with Babylon, neglected them for

the present. Three years afterwards (Ol. 59, 2), Harpagus, who

had saved Cyrus in his infancy from his grandfather, Astyages,

came as governor of Lydia. He instantly prepared to reduce the

cities of the coast. Town after town submitted. The Teians

abandoned theirs, and retired to Abdera in Thrace; the

Phocæans, getting on shipboard, and vowing never to return,

sailed for Corsica, and being there harassed by the

Carthagenians and Tyrrhenians, they went to Rhegion in Italy,

and at length founded Massalia (Marseilles) on the coast of

Gaul. The Grecian colonies thus became a part of the Persian

empire."

T. Keightley, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 9.

ALSO IN:

Herodotus, History, translated and edited by G. Rawlinson,

book 1, and appendix

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity,

book 8, chapter 6-7 (volume 6).

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 501-493.

The Ionian revolt and its suppression.

See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 479.

Athens assumes the protection of Ionia.

See ATHENS: B. C.479-478.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 477.

Formation of Confederacy of Delos.

See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 413.

Tribute again demanded from the Greeks by the Persian King.

Conspiracy against Athens.

See GREECE: B. C. 413.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 413-412.

Revolt of the Greek cities from Athens.

Intrigues of Alcibiades.

See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 412.

Re-submission to Persia.

See PERSIA: B. C. 486-405.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 401-400.

Expedition of Cyrus the Younger, and Retreat of the Ten

Thousand.

See PERSIA: B. C.401-400.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 399-387.

Spartan war with Persia in behalf of the Greek cities.

Their abandonment by the Peace of Antalcidas.

See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 334.

Conquest by Alexander the Great.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 301.

Mostly annexed to the Thracian Kingdom of Lysimachus.

See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 310-301.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 281-224.

Battle-ground of the warring monarchies of Syria and Egypt.

Changes of masters.

See SELEUCIDÆ.

{141}

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 191.

First Entrance of the Romans.

Their defeat of Antiochus the Great.

Their expansion of the kingdom of Pergamum and the Republic of

Rhodes.

See SELEUCIDÆ B. C. 224-187.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 120-65.

Mithridates and his kingdom.

Massacre of Italians.

Futile revolt from Rome.

Complete Roman Conquest.

See MITHRIDATIC WARS;

also ROME: B. C.78-68. and 69-63.

ASIA MINOR: A. D. 292.

Diocletian's seat of Empire established at Nicomedia.

See ROME: A. D. 284-305.

ASIA MINOR: A. D. 602-628.

Persian invasions.

Deliverance by Heraclius.

See ROME: A. D. 565-628.

ASIA MINOR: A. D. 1063-1092.

Conquest and ruin by the Seljuk Turks.

See TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1063-1073; and 1073-1092.

ASIA MINOR: A. D. 1097-1149.

Wars of the Crusaders.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099; and 1147-1149.

ASIA MINOR: A. D. 1204-1261.

The Empire of Nicæa and the Empire of Trebizond.

See GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA.

----------ASIA MINOR: End----------

ASIENTO, OR ASSIENTO, The.

See

SLAVERY: A. D. 1698-1776;

UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS OF; ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741;

and GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.

ASKELON.

See PHILISTINES.

ASKLEPIADS.

"Throughout all the historical ages [of Greece] the

descendants of Asklêpius [or Esculapius] were numerous and

widely diffused. The many families or gentes called

Asklêpiads, who devoted themselves to the study and practice

of medicine, and who principally dwelt near the temples of

Asklêpius, whither sick and suffering men came to obtain

relief--all recognized the god, not merely as the object of

their common worship, but also as their actual progenitor."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 9.

ASMONEANS, The.

See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

ASOPIA.

See SICYON.

ASOV.

See AZOF.

ASPADAN.

The ancient name of which that of Ispahan is a corrupted form.

G. Rawlinson. Five Great Monarchies: Media, chapter 1.

ASPERN--ESSLINGEN (OR THE MARCHFELD), Battle of.

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

ASPIS, The.

See PHALANX.

ASPROMONTE, Defeat of Garibaldi at (1862).

See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.

ASSAM, English Acquisition of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

ASSANDUN, Battle of.

The sixth and last battle, A. D. 1016, between Edmund

Ironsides, the English King, and his Danish rival, Cnut, or

Canute, for the Crown of England. The English were terribly

defeated and the flower of their nobility perished on the

field. The result was a division of the kingdom; but Edmund

soon died, or was killed. Ashington, in Essex, was the

battle-ground.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.

ASSASSINATIONS, Notable.

Abbas, Pasha of Egypt.

See EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869.

Alexander II. of Russia.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1879-1881.

Beatoun, Cardinal.

See SCOTLAND: A, D. 1546.

Becket, Thomas.

See ENGLAND: A. D.1162-1170,

Buckingham.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1628.

Cæsar.

See ROME; B. C. 44.

Capo d'Istrea, Count, President of Greece.

See GREECE: A. D. 1830-1862.

Cavendish, Lord Frederick, and Burke, Mr.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1882.

Concini.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619.

Danilo, Prince of Montenegro (1860).

See MONTENEGRO.

Darnley.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

Francis of Guise.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.

Garfield, President.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1881.

Gustavus III. of Sweden.

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

Henry of Guise.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

Henry III. of France.

See FRANCE; A. D. 1584-1589.

Henry IV. of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1599-1600.

Hipparchus.

See ATHENS: B. C, 560-510.

John, Duke of Burgundy.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1415-1419.

Kleber, General.

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

Kotzebue.

See GERMANY; A. D. 1817-1820.

Lincoln, President.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 14TH).

Marat.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY).

Mayo, Lord.

See INDIA; A. D. 1862-1876.

Murray, The Regent.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

Omar, Caliph.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST, &c.: A. D. 661.

Paul, Czar of Russia.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1801.

Perceval, Spencer.

See ENGLAND; A. D. 1806-1812.

Peter III.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1761-1762.

Philip of Macedon.

See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

Prim, General (1870).

See SPAIN. A. D. 1866-1843.

Rizzio.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

Rossi, Count.

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

Wallenstein (1634).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

William the Silent.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.

Witt, John and Cornelius de.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1672-1674.

ASSASSINS, The.

"I must here speak with the brevity which my limits prescribe

of that wonderful brotherhood of the Assassins, which during

the 12th and 13th centuries spread such terror through all

Asia, Mussulman and Christian. Their deeds should be studied

in Von Hammer's history of their order, of which however

there is an excellent analysis in Taylor's History of

Mohammedanism. The word Assassin, it must be remembered,

in its ordinary signification, is derived from this order, and

not the reverse. The Assassins were not so called because they

were murderers, but murderers are called assassins because the

Assassins were murderers. The origin of the word Assassin has

been much disputed by oriental scholars; but its application

is sufficiently written upon the Asiatic history of the 12th

century. The Assassins were not, strictly speaking, a dynasty,

but rather an order, like the Templars; only the office of

Grand-Master, like the Caliphate, became hereditary. They were

originally a branch of the Egyptian Ishmaelites [see MAHOMETAN

CONQUEST: A. D. 908-1171] and at first professed the

principles of that sect. But there can be no doubt that their

inner doctrine became at last a mere negation of all religion

and all morality. 'To believe nothing and to dare everything'

was the summary of their teaching. Their exoteric principle,

addressed to the non-initiated members of the order, was

simple blind obedience to the will of their superiors. If the

Assassin was ordered to take off a Caliph or a Sultan by the

dagger or the bowl, the deed was done; if he was ordered to

throw himself from the ramparts, the deed was done likewise.

... Their founder was Hassan Sabah, who, in 1090, shortly

before the death of Malek Shah, seized the castle of

Alamout--the Vulture's nest--in northern Persia, whence they

extended their possessions over a whole chain of mountain

fortresses in that country and in Syria. The Grand-Master was

the Sheikh-al-Jebal, the famous Old Man of the Mountain, at

whose name Europe and Asia shuddered."

E. A. Freeman, History and Conquests of the, Saracens,

lecture 4.

{142}

"In the Fatimide Khalif of Egypt, they [the Assassins, or

Ismailiens of Syria and Persia] beheld an incarnate deity. To

kill his enemies, in whatever way they best could, was an

action, the merit of which could not be disputed, and the

reward for which was certain." Hasan Sabah, the founder of the

Order, died at Alamout A. D. 1124. "From the day he entered

Alamut until that of his death--a period of thirty-five

years--he never emerged, but upon two occasions, from the

seclusion of his house. Pitiless and inscrutable as Destiny,

he watched the troubled world of Oriental politics, himself

invisible, and whenever he perceived a formidable foe, caused

a dagger to be driven into his heart." It was not until more

than a century after the death of its founder that the fearful

organization of the Assassins was extinguished (A. D. 1257) by

the same flood of Mongol invasion which swept Bagdad and the

Caliphate out of existence.

R. D. Osborn, Islam under the Khalifs of Bagdad,

part 3, chapter 3.

W. C. Taylor, History of Mohammedanism and its Sects,

chapter 9.

The Assassins were rooted out from all their strongholds in

Kuhistan and the neighboring region, and were practically

exterminated, in 1257, by the Mongols under Khulagu, or

Houlagou, brother of Mongu Khan, the great sovereign of the

Mongol Empire, then reigning. Alamut, the Vulture's Nest, was

demolished.

H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols, part 1, page 193;

and part 3, pages 91-108.

See BAGDAD; A. D. 1258.

ASSAYE, Battle of (1803).

See INDIA; A. D. 1798-1803.

ASSEMBLY OF THE NOTABLES IN FRANCE (1787).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1774-1788.

ASSENISIPIA, The proposed State of.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1784.

ASSIDEANS, The.

See CHASIDM, THE.

ASSIENTO, The.

See ASIENTO.

ASSIGNATS.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1791; 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL);

1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

ASSINARUS, Athenian defeat and surrender at the.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

ASSINIBOIA.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.

ASSINIBOINS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

ASSIZE, The Bloody.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (SEPTEMBER).

ASSIZE OF BREAD AND ALE.

The Assize of Bread and Ale was an English ordinance or

enactment, dating back to the time of Henry III. in the 13th

century, which fixed the price of those commodities by a scale

regulated according to the market prices of wheat, barley and

oats. "The Assize of bread was re-enacted so lately as the

beginning of the last century and was only abolished in London

and its neighbourhood about thirty years ago"--that is, early

in the present century.

G. L. Craik, History of British Commerce,

volume 1, page 137.

ASSIZE OF CLARENDON, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

ASSIZE OF JERUSALEM, The.

"No sooner had Godfrey of Bouillon [elected King of Jerusalem,

after the taking of the Holy City by the Crusaders, A. D.

1099] accepted the office of supreme magistrate than he

solicited the public and private advice of the Latin pilgrims

who were the best skilled in the statutes and customs of

Europe. From these materials, with the counsel and approbation

of the Patriarch and barons, of the clergy and laity, Godfrey

composed the Assise of Jerusalem, a precious monument of

feudal jurisprudence. The new code, attested by the seals of

the King, the Patriarch, and the Viscount of Jerusalem, was

deposited in the holy sepulchre, enriched with the

improvements of succeeding times, and respectfully consulted

as often as any doubtful question arose in the tribunals of

Palestine. With the kingdom and city all was lost; the

fragments of the written law were preserved by jealous

tradition and variable practice till the middle of the

thirteenth century. The code was restored by the pen of John

d'Ibelin, Count of Jaffa, one of the principal feudatories;

and the final revision was accomplished in the year thirteen

hundred and sixty-nine, for the use of the Latin kingdom of

Cyprus."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 58.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

ASSIZES.

"The formal edicts known under the name of Assizes, the

Assizes of Clarendon and Northampton, the Assize of Arms, the

Assize of the Forest, and the Assizes of Measures, are the

only relics of the legislative work of the period [reign of

Henry II. in England]. These edicts are chiefly composed of

new regulations for the enforcement of royal justice, ... In

this respect they strongly resemble the capitularies of the

Frank Kings, or, to go farther back, the edicts of the Roman

prætors. ... The term Assize, which comes into use in this

meaning about the middle of the twelfth century, both on the

continent and in England, appears to be the proper Norman name

for such edicts. ... In the 'Assize of Jerusalem' it simply

means a law; and the same in Henry's legislation. Secondarily,

it means a form of trial established by the particular law, as

the Great Assize, the Assize of Mort d' Ancester; and thirdly

the court held to hold such trials, in which sense it is

commonly used at the present day."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 13.

ASSUR.

See ASSYRIA.

ASSYRIA.

For matter relating to Assyrian history, the reader is

referred to the caption SEMITES, under which it will be given.

The subject is deferred to that part of this work which will

go later into print, for the reason that every month is adding

to the knowledge of the students of ancient oriental history

and clearing away disputed questions. It is quite possible

that the time between the publication of our first volume and

our fourth or fifth may make important additions to the scanty

literature of the subject in English. Modern excavation on the

sites of the ancient cities in the East, bringing to light

large library collections of inscribed clay tablets,--sacred

and historical writings, official records, business contracts

and many varieties of inscriptions,--have almost

revolutionized the study of ancient history and the views of

antiquity derived from it.

{143}

"M. Botta, who was appointed French consul at Mosul in 1842,

was the first to commence excavations on the sites of the

buried cities of Assyria, and to him is due the honour of the

first discovery of her long lost palaces. M. Botta commenced

his labours at Kouyunjik, the large mound opposite Mosul, but

he found here very little to compensate for his labours. New

at the time to excavations, he does not appear to have worked

in the best manner; M. Botta at Kouyunjik contented himself

with sinking pits in the mound, and on these proving

unproductive abandoning them. While M. Botta was excavating at

Kouyunjik, his attention was called to the mounds of Khorsabad

by a native of the village on that site; and he sent a party

of workmen to the spot to commence excavation. In a few days

his perseverance was rewarded by the discovery of some

sculptures, after which, abandoning the work at Kouyunjik, he

transferred his establishment to Khorsabad and thoroughly

explored that site. ... The palace which M. Botta had

discovered ... is one of the most perfect Assyrian buildings

yet explored, and forms an excellent example of Assyrian

architecture. Beside the palace on the mound of Khorsabad, M.

Botta also opened the remains of a temple, and a grand porch

decorated by six winged bulls. ... The operations of M. Botta

were brought to a close in 1845, and a splendid collection of

sculptures and other antiquities, the fruits of his labours,

arrived in Paris in 1846 and was deposited in the Louvre.

Afterwards the French Government appointed M. Place consul at

Mosul, and he continued some of the excavations of his

predecessor. ... Mr. Layard, whose attention was early turned

in this direction, visited the country in 1840, and afterwards

took a great interest in the excavations of M. Botta. At

length, in 1845, Layard was enabled through the assistance of

Sir Stratford Canning to commence excavations in Assyria

himself. On the 8th of November he started from Mosul, and

descended the Tigris to Nimroud. ... Mr. Layard has described

in his works with great minuteness his successive excavations,

and the remarkable and interesting discoveries he made. ...

After making these discoveries in Assyria, Mr. Layard visited

Babylonia, and opened trenches in several of the mounds there.

On the return of Mr. Layard to England, excavations were

continued in the Euphrates valley under the superintendence of

Colonel (now Sir Henry) Rawlinson. Under his directions, Mr.

Hormuzd Rassam, Mr. Loftus, and Mr. Taylor excavated various

sites and made numerous discoveries, the British Museum

receiving the best of the monuments. The materials collected

in the national museums of France and England, and the

numerous inscriptions published, attracted the attention of

the learned, and very soon considerable light was thrown on

the history, language, manners, and customs of ancient Assyria

and Babylonia."

G. Smith, Assyrian Discoveries, chapter 1.

"One of the most important results of Sir A. H. Layard's

explorations at Nineveh was the discovery of the ruined

library of the ancient city, now buried under the mounds of

Kouyunjik. The broken clay tablets belonging to this library

not only furnished the student with an immense mass of

literary matter, but also with direct aids towards a knowledge

of the Assyrian syllabary and language. Among the literature

represented in the library of Kouyunjik were lists of

characters, with their various phonetic and ideographic

meanings, tables of synonymes, and catalogues of the names of

plants and animals. This, however, was not all. The inventors

of the cuneiform system of writing had been a people who

preceded the Semites in the occupation of Babylonia, and who

spoke an agglutinative language utterly different from that of

their Semitic successors. These Accadians, as they are usually

termed, left behind them a considerable amount of literature,

which was highly prized by the Semitic Babylonians and

Assyrians. A large portion of the Ninevite tablets,

accordingly, consists of interlinear or parallel translations

from Accadian into Assyrian, as well as of reading books,

dictionaries, and grammars, in which the Accadian original is

placed by the side of its Assyrian equivalent. ... The

bilingual texts have not only enabled scholars to recover the

long-forgotten Accadian language; they have also been of the

greatest possible assistance to them in their reconstruction

of the Assyrian dictionary itself. The three expeditions

conducted by Mr. George Smith [1873-1876], as well as the

later ones of Mr. Hormuzd Rassam, have added largely to the

stock of tablets from Kouyunjik originally acquired for the

British Museum by Sir A. H. Layard, and have also brought to

light a few other tablets from the libraries of Babylonia."

A. H. Sayce, Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies:

The Second Monarchy, chapter 9.

Mr. Duncker, History of Antiquity, books 3-4.

George Smith, Ancient History from the Monuments:

Assyria.

See, also, BABYLONIA and SEMITES.

ASSYRIA, Eponym Canon of.

"Just as there were archons at Athens and consuls at Rome who

were elected annually, so among the Assyrians there was a

custom of electing one man to be over the year, whom they

called 'limu,' or 'eponym.' ... Babylonian and Assyrian

documents were more generally dated by the names of these

eponyms than by that of the reigning King. ... In 1862 Sir

Henry Rawlinson discovered the fragment of the eponym canon of

Assyria. It was one of the grandest and most important

discoveries ever made, for it has decided definitely a great

many points which otherwise could never have been cleared up.

Fragments of seven copies of this canon were found, and from

these the chronology of Assyria has been definitely settled

from B. C. 1330 to about B. C. 620."

E. A. W. Budge, Babylonian Life and History, chapter 3.

ASTOLF, King of the Lombards, A. D. 749-759.

ASTRAKHAN:

The Khanate.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.

ASTRAKHAN: A. D. 1569.

Russian repulse of the Turks.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1569-1571.

ASTURIANS, The.

See CANTABRIANS.

ASTURIAS:

Resistance to the Moorish Conquest.

See SPAIN: A. D. 713-737.

ASTY, OR ASTU, The.

The ancient city of Athens proper, as distinguished from its

connected harbors, was called the Asty, or Astu.

J. A. St. John, The Hellenes, book 1, chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

W. M. Leake, Topography of Athens, section 10.

See also, ATHENS: AREA, &c.

A Logical Outline of Athenian and Greek History

[Red  ]  Physical or material.

[Blue ]  Ethnological.

[Green]  Social and political.

[Brown]  Intellectual, moral and religious.

[Black]  Foreign.

In which the dominant conditions and influences

are distinguished by colors.

The Land

The most capable people of early times, placed in the most

favorable environment that the world in those times could offer

them, worked out a civilization--perfect in all refinements

except the moral--which has been the admiration and the marvel of

later days.

Under modern conditions, the country of the Greeks gives no

marked advantage to its inhabitants; but in the age of fiercer

struggles, when war among men was tribal, universal, and hand to

hand, and when the larger possibilities of pacific intercourse

were bounded by one small sea, its intersecting mountains, its

separated valleys and plains, its penetrating gulfs and bays, its

clustered peninsulas in peninsulas, were helpful beyond measure

to their social and political advance. In no other region of

Europe could the independent city-states of ancient Hellas have

grown up in shelter so safe, under skies so kindly, amid

influences from the outer world so urgent and so strong.

It is reasonable to say that these happy conditions had

much to do with the shaping of the character and career of the

Greek people as a whole. But they differed very greatly from one

another in their various political groups, and by differences

that cannot be traced to varied surroundings of earth, or air, or

sea, or human neighborhood. When every circumstance which

distinguishes Athens in situation from Sparta, or from Corinth,

or from Argos, has been weighed and reckoned,  the Athenian

is still parted from the Spartan, from the Corinthian and from

the Argive, by a distinction which we name and do not explain by

calling it family or race.

Ionians and Dorians.

At some time in the unknown past, there had been a parting of

kindred among the ancestors of the Greeks, and the current of

descent ran, for many centuries, perhaps, in two clearly divided

streams, which acquired (in what manner, who can guess?) very

different characteristics and qualities in their course. Then, in

time, the great migrations, which are at the beginning of the

traditions of the Greeks, brought these two branches of the race

(the Doric and the Ionic, as they are named), into contact

again, and associated them in a common career. In the inherited

nature of the Ionian Greeks there was something which made them

more sensitive to the finer delights of the mind, and prepared

them to be more easily moved by every impulse toward philosophy

and art, from the civilizations that were older than their own.

In the Dorians there was less of this. They shared in equal

measure, perhaps, the keen, clear Greek intellect, but they

narrowed it to commoner aims.

Achaians.--Mycenæ.

It is possible that all which the Athenians came to be, their

elder kindred, the Achaians, might have been. Their peninsula of

Argolis is the peninsula of Attica in duplicate,--washed by the

same waves, and reaching out to the same eastern world. They were

first to touch hands with Phœnicia and with Egypt, and first to

borrow arts and ideas from Memphis and Tyre. But their

civilization, which they had raised to the height which Homer

portrays, was overwhelmed by the Doric conquest; and the fact

that these invaders, succeeding to the same vantage ground,

remained as poor in culture as the Argives and their final

masters, the Spartans, appear to have been, gives evidence of the

strange difference that was rooted in the constitution of the two

branches of the race.

Sparta.-Athens.

By force of this difference, the Spartans formed their state upon

the grim lines of a military camp, and took leadership among the

Greeks in practical affairs; the Athenians adorned a free city

with great and beautiful works, made it hospitable to all genius

and all the knowledge of the time, and created a capital for the

civilization of the ancient world.

In all the Greek communities there was a primitive stage in which

kings ruled over therm in a patriarchal way. In most of them the

kingship surrendered to an oligarchy,--the oligarchy in time, was

overthrown by some bold adventurer, who led a rising of the

people and snatched power in the turmoil to make himself a

"tyrant,"--and the tyrant in his turn fell after no long reign.

In Athens that course of revolution was run; but it did not end

as with the rest. The Athenian tyranny gave way to the purest

democracy that has ever had trial in the world.

Æthel democracy.

That this Athenian democracy was wise in itself may be open to

doubt; but it produced wise men, and, for the century of its

great career, it was wonderfully led. How far that came to it

from superiority of race, and how far as the fruitage of free

institutions, no man can say; but the succession of statesmen who

raised Athens to her pitch of greatness, without shattering the

government of the people by the people, has no parallel in the

annals of so small a state.

Sparta, not Athens, was the military head of Greece; but when a

great emergency came upon the whole Greek world, it was the

larger intelligence and higher spirit of the Attic state which

inspired and guided the defence of the land and drove the

Persians back.

B.C. 498-479.  The Persian War.

B.C. 477. Confederacy of Delos.

B.C. 445-429. Age of Pericles.

Making prompt use of the ascendancy she had won in the Persian

War, Athens rose rapidly in power and wealth. Under the guise of

a federation of the Ionian cities of the islands and of Asia

Minor, she created an empire subject to her rule. She commanded

the sea with superior fleets, and became first in commerce, as

she was first in knowledge, in politics and in arts. Her coffers

overran with the riches poured into them by her tribute-gatherers

and her men of trade, and she employed them with a noble

prodigality upon her temples and the buildings of the state. Her

abounding genius yielded fruits, in learning, letters, and art,

which surpass the whole experience of the world, before and

since, when measured against the smallness of the numbers from

which they came.

B. C. 431-404.  Peloponnesian War.

But the power attained by the Athenian democracy was arrogantly

and harshly used; its sovereignty was exercised without

generosity or restraint. It provoked the hatred of its subjects,

and the bitter jealousy of rival states. Hence war in due time

was inevitable, and Athens, alone in the war, was thrown down

from her high estate. The last of the great leaders of her golden

age died when her need of him was greatest, and her citizens were

given over to demagogues who beguiled them to the ruin of the

republic.

B.C. 404-379--Sparta

B.C. 379-362--Thebes

Sparta regained the supremacy in Greece, and her rude domination,

imposed upon all, was harder to bear than the superiority of

Athens had been. Under the lead of Epaminondas of Thebes--the

most high-souled statesman who ever swayed the Hellenic race--the

Spartan yoke was broken.

B.C. 338--Macedonian supremacy.

But, in breaking it, all unity in Hellas was destroyed, and all

hope of resistance to any common foe. The foe who first appeared

was the half-Greek Macedonian, King Philip, who subdued the whole

peninsula with ease, and found none to defend it so heroically as

the orator Demosthenes.

B. C. 384-328.

Alexander's conquests.

Hellenization of the East.

But the subjugated Greeks were not yet at the end of their

career. With Philip's great son they went forth to a new and

higher destiny than the building of petty states. Unwittingly he

made conquest of an empire for them, and not for himself. They

Hellenized it from the Euxine to the Nile. In Egypt, in Syria,

and in Asia Minor, they entered and took possession of every

field of activity, an put their impress on every movement of

thought. Their philosophy and their literature fed all the

intellectual hunger of the age; their energy was its civilizing

force.

B. C. 197-146.--Roman conquest.

Then the Romans came, to conquer and be conquered by the spirit

of Athenian Greece, and to do for Europe, in the West, what the

Macedonians had done in the East. They effaced Greece from

history, in the political sense; but they kneeled to her

teaching, and became the servants of her civilization, to carry

it wherever the Roman eagles went.

Christianity.

A little later, when that civilization was changed by the

transforming spirit of the Gospel of Christ, it did not cease to

be essentially Greek; for Hellenism and Hebraism were fused in

the theology of the rising Christian Church, and Greek thought

ruled mankind again in an altered phase.

A. D. 476-1458.--The Eastern Empire.

At last, when Roman imperialism was driven from the West, Greece

drew it to herself, and reigned in the great name of Rome, and

fought gloriously with barbarians and with infidels for a

thousand added years, defending the Christian world till it grew

strong and stood in peril no more.

{144}

ASTYNOMI.

Certain police officials in ancient Athens, ten in number.

"They were charged with all that belongs to street

supervision, e. g., the cleansing of the streets, for which

purpose the coprologi, or street-sweepers, were under their

orders; the securing of morality and decent behaviour in the

streets."

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

part 3, chapter 3.

ASUNCION: A. D. 1537.

The founding of the city.

See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.

ATABEGS, ATTABEGS, OR ATTABECKS.

"From the decline of the dynasty of Seljook to the conquest of

Persia by Hulakoo Khan, the son of Chenghis, a period of more

than a century, that country was distracted by the contests of

petty princes, or governors, called Attabegs; who, taking

advantage of the weakness of the last Seljookian monarchs, and

of the distractions which followed their final extinction,

established their authority over some of the finest provinces

of the Empire. Many of these petty dynasties acquired such a

local fame as, to this day, gives an importance to their

memory with the inhabitants of the countries over which they

ruled. ... The word Attabeg is Turkish: it is a compound word

of 'atta,' master, or tutor, and 'beg,' lord; and signifies a

governor, or tutor, of a lord or prince."

Sir J. Malcolm, History of Persia, volume 1; chapter 9.

"It is true that the Atabeks appear but a short space as

actors on the stage of Eastern history; but these 'tutors of

princes' occupy a position neither insignificant nor

unimportant in the course of events which occurred in Syria

and Persia at the time they flourished."-

W. H. Morley, Preface to Mirkhond's History of the

Atabeks.

See, also, SALADIN, THE EMPIRE OF.

ATAHUALPA, The Inca.

See PERU: A. D. 1581-1533.

ATELIERS NATIONAUX OF 1848, AT PARIS.

See FRANCE; A. D. 1848 (FEBRUARY-MAY),

and (APRIL-DECEMBER).

ATHABASCA, The District of.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.

ATHABASCANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHABASCAN FAMILY.

ATHALAYAS.

See SARDINIA, THE ISLAND: NAME AND EARLY HISTORY.

ATHEL.--ATHELING.--ATHELBONDE,

See ADEL.

ATHENRY, Battle of.

The most desperate battle fought by the Irish in resisting the

English conquest of Ireland. They were terribly slaughtered

and the chivalry of Connaught was crushed. The battle occurred

Aug. 10, A. D. 1316.

M. Haverty, History of Ireland, p, 282.

----------ATHENRY: End----------

ATHENS:

ATHENS:

The Preëminence of Athens.

"When we speak of Greece we think first of Athens. ... To

citizens and to strangers by means of epic recitations and

dramatic spectacles, she presented an idealised image of life

itself. She was the home of new ideas, the mother-city from

which poetry, eloquence, and philosophy spread to distant

lands. While the chief dialects of Greece survive, each not as

a mere dialect but as the language of literature,--a thing

unknown in the history of any other people,--the Attic idiom,

in which the characteristic elements of other dialects met and

were blended, has become to us, as it did to the ancients, the

very type of Hellenic speech. Athens was not only the 'capital

of Greece,' the 'school of Greece;' it deserves the name

applied to it in an epitaph on Euripides: 'his country is

Athens, Greece of Greece.' The rays of the Greek genius here

found a centre and a focus."

S. H. Butcher, Some Aspects of the Greek Genius, pages 38-39.

"Our interest in ancient history, it may be said, lies not in

details but in large masses. It matters little how early the

Arcadians acquired a political unity or what Nabis did to

Mycenæ; that which interests us is the constitution of Athens,

the repulse of Persia, the brief bloom of Thebes. Life is not

so long that we can spend our days over the unimportant fates

of uninteresting tribes and towns."

ATHENS:

Area and Population.

"The entire circuit of the Asty [the lower city, or Athens

proper], Long Walls and maritime city, taken as one inclosure,

is equal to about 17 English miles, or 148 stades. This is

very different from the 200 stades which Dion Chrysostom

states to have been the circumference of the same walls, an

estimate exceeding by more than 20 stades even the sum of the

peripheries of the Asty and Peimic towns, according to the

numbers of Thucydides. ... Rome was circular, Syracuse

triangular, and Athens consisted of two circular cities,

joined by a street of four miles in length,--a figure, the

superficies of which was not more than the fourth part of that

of a city of an equal circumference, in a circular form.

Hence, when to Rome within the walls were added suburbs of

equal extent, its population was greater than that of all

Attica. That of Athens, although the most populous city in

Greece, was probably never greater than 200,000."

W. M. Leake, Topography of Athens, section 10.

Ionian Origin.

See DORIANS AND IONIANS.

ATHENS:

The Beginning of the city-state.

How Attica was absorbed in its capital.

"In the days of Cecrops and the first kings [see ATTICA] down

to the reign of Theseus, Attica was divided into communes,

having their own town-halls and magistrates. Except in case of

alarm the whole people did not assemble in council under the

king, but administered their own affairs, and advised together

in their several townships. Some of them at times even went to

war with him, as the Eleusinians under Eumolpus with

Erectheus. But when Theseus came to the throne, he, being a

powerful as well as a wise ruler, among other improvements in

the administration of the country, dissolved the councils and

separate governments, and united all the inhabitants of Attica

in the present city, establishing one council and town-hall.

They continued to live on their own lands, but he compelled

them to resort to Athens as their metropolis, and henceforward

they were all inscribed in the roll of her citizens. A great

city thus arose which was handed down by Theseus to his

descendants, and from his day to this the Athenians have

regularly celebrated the national festival of the Synoecia, or

'union of the communes' in honour of the goddess Athenè.

Before his time, what is now the Acropolis and the ground

lying under it to the south was the city. Many reasons may be

urged in proof of this statement."

Thucydides, History (Jowett's  translation), book 2,

section 15.

ALSO IN:

M. Duncker, History of Greece, book 3, chapter 7 (volume 2).

{145}

PLAN OF ATHENS.

From "Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens,"

by Jane E. Harrison and Margaret de G. Verrall.

[Image: Map]

HARBORS OF ATHENS.

{146}

ATHENS:

From the Dorian Migration to B. C. 683.

End of kingship and institution of the Archons.

At the epoch of the Boeotian and Dorian migrations (see

GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS), Attica was flooded by fugitives, both

from the north and from the Peloponnesus. "But the bulk of the

refugees passed on to Asia, and built up the cities of Ionia.

... When the swarms of emigrants cleared off, and Athens is

again discernable, the crown has passed from the old royal

house of the Cecropidæ to a family of exiles from

Peloponnesus. ... A generation later the Dorian invasion,

which had overwhelmed Corinth and torn away Megara from the

Attic dominion, swept up to the very gates of Athens. An

oracle declared that the city would never fall if its ruler

perished by the hand of the invaders; therefore King Codrus

disguised himself as a peasant, set out for the Dorian camp,

struck down the first man he met, and was himself slain by the

second. The invasion failed, and the Athenians, to perpetuate

the memory of their monarch's patriotism, would not allow the

title of 'king' to be borne by the descendants who succeeded

him on the throne, but changed the name to 'archon,' or

'ruler.' ... These legends evidently cover some obscure

changes in the internal history of Attica."

C. W. C. Oman, History of Greece, chapter 11.

"After the death of Codrus the nobles, taking advantage,

perhaps, of the opportunity afforded by the dispute between

his sons, are said to have abolished the title of king, and to

have substituted for it that of Archon. This change, however,

seems to have been important, rather as it indicated the new,

precarious tenure by which the royal power was held, than as

it immediately affected the nature of the office. It was,

indeed, still held for life; and Medon, the son of Codrus,

transmitted it to his posterity. ... After twelve reigns,

ending with that of Alcmæon [B. C. 752], the duration of the

office was limited to ten years; and through the guilt or

calamity of Hippomenes, the fourth decennial archon, the house

of Medon was deprived of its privilege, and the supreme

magistracy was thrown open to the whole body of nobles. This

change was speedily followed by one much more important. ...

The duration of the archonship was again reduced to a single

year [B. C. 683]; and, at the same time, its branches were

severed and distributed among nine new magistrates. Among

these, the first in rank retained the distinguishing title of

the Archon, and the year was marked by his name. He

represented the majesty of the state, and exercised a peculiar

jurisdiction--that which had belonged to the king as the

common parent of his people, the protector of families, the

guardian of orphans and heiresses, and of the general rights

of inheritance. For the second archon the title of king

[basileus], if it had been laid aside, was revived, as the

functions assigned to him were those most associated with

ancient recollections. He represented the king as the

high-priest of his people; he regulated the celebration of the

mysteries and the most solemn festivals; decided all causes

which affected the interests of religion. ... The third archon

bore the title of Polemarch, and filled the place of the king

as the leader of his people in war, and the guardian who

watched over its security in time of peace. ... The remaining

six archons received the common title of thesmothetes, which

literally signifies legislators, and was probably applied to

them as the judges who determined the great variety of causes

which did not fall under the cognizance of their colleagues;

because, in the absence of a written code, those who declare

and interpret the laws may be properly said to make them."

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 11.

"We are in no condition to determine the civil classification

and political constitution of Attica, even at the period of

the Archonship of Kreon, 683 B. C., when authentic Athenian

chronology first commences, much less can we pretend to any

knowledge of the anterior centuries. ... All the information

which we possess respecting that old polity is derived from

authors who lived after all or most of these great changes [by

Solon, and later]--and who, finding no records, nor anything

better than current legends, explained the foretime as well as

they could by guesses more or less ingenious, generally

attached to the dominant legendary names."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 10.

ALSO IN: G. F. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece:

The State, part 3, chapter 3.

ATHENS: B. C. 624.

Under the Draconian Legislation.

"Drako was the first thesmothet, who was called upon to set

down his thesmoi [ordinances and decisions] in writing, and

thus to invest them essentially with a character of more or

less generality. In the later and better-known times of

Athenian law, we find these archons deprived in great measure

of their powers of judging and deciding, and restricted to the

task of first hearing of parties and collecting the evidence,

next, of introducing the matter for trial into the appropriate

dikastery, over which they presided. Originally, there was no

separation of powers; the archons both judged and

administered.... All of these functionaries belonged to the

Eupatrids, and all of them doubtless acted more or less in the

narrow interest of their order; moreover, there was ample room

for favouritism in the way of connivance as well as antipathy

on the part of the archons. That such was decidedly the case,

and that discontent began to be serious, we may infer from the

duty imposed on the thesmothet Drako, B. C. 624, to put in

writing the thesmoi or ordinances, so that they might be

'shown publicly' and known beforehand. He did not meddle with

the political constitution, and in his ordinances Aristotle

finds little worthy of remark except the extreme severity of

the punishments awarded: petty thefts, or even proved idleness

of life, being visited with death or disfranchisement. But we

are not to construe this remark as demonstrating any special

inhumanity in the character of Drako, who was not invested

with the large power which Solon afterwards enjoyed, and

cannot be imagined to have imposed upon the community severe

laws of his own invention. ... The general spirit of penal

legislation had become so much milder, during the two

centuries which followed, that these old ordinances appeared

to Aristotle intolerably rigorous."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 10 (volume 3).

{147}

ATHENS: B. C. 612-595.

Conspiracy of Cylon.

Banishment of the Alcmæonids.

The first attempt at Athens to overturn the oligarchical

government and establish a personal tyranny was made, B. C.

612, by Cylon (Kylon), a patrician, son-in-law of the tyrant

of Megara, who was encouraged and helped in his undertaking by

the latter. The conspiracy failed miserably. The partisans of

Cylon, blockaded in the acropolis, were forced to surrender;

but they placed themselves under the protection of the goddess

Minerva and were promised their lives. More effectually to

retain the protection of the goddess until their escape was

effected, they attached a cord to her altar and held it in

their hands as they passed out through the midst of their

enemies. Unhappily the cord broke, and the archon Megacles at

once declared that the safeguard of Minerva was withdrawn from

them, whereupon they were massacred without mercy, even though

they fled to the neighboring altars and clung to them. The

treachery and bad faith of this cruel deed does not seem to

have disturbed the Athenian people, but the sacrilege involved

in it caused horror and fear when they had had time to reflect

upon it. Megacles and his whole family--the Alcmæonids as they

were called, from the name of one of their ancestors--were

held accountable for the affront to the gods and were

considered polluted and accursed. Every public calamity was

ascribed to their sin, and at length, after a solemn trial,

they were banished from the city (about 596 or 595 B. C.),

while the dead of the family were disinterred and cast out.

The agitations of this affair exercised an important influence

on the course of events, which opened the way for Solon and

his constitutional reforms.

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 11.

ALSO IN: G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 10.

ATHENS: B. C. 610-586.

Struggle with Megara for Salamis.

Cirrhæan or First Sacred War.

"The petty state of Megara, which, since the earlier ages,

had, from the dependent of Athens, grown up to the dignity of

her rival, taking advantage of the internal dissensions in the

latter city, succeeded in wresting from the Athenian

government the isle of Salamis. It was not, however, without

bitter and repeated struggles that Athens at last submitted to

the surrender of the isle. But, after signal losses and

defeats, as nothing is ever more odious to the multitude than

unsuccessful war, so the popular feeling was such as to induce

the government to enact a decree by which it was forbidden,

upon pain of death, to propose reasserting the Athenian

claims. ... Many of the younger portion of the community,

pining at the dishonour of their country, and eager for

enterprise, were secretly inclined to countenance any

stratagem that might induce the reversal of the decree. At

this time there went a report through the city that a man of

distinguished birth ... had incurred the consecrating

misfortune of insanity. Suddenly this person appeared in the

market place, wearing the peculiar badge [a cap] that

distinguished the sick. ... Ascending the stone from which the

heralds made their proclamations, he began to recite aloud a

poem upon the loss of Salamis, boldly reproving the cowardice

of the people, and inciting them again to war. His supposed

insanity protected him from the law--his rank, reputation, and

the circumstance of his being himself a native of Salamis,

conspired to give to his exhortation a powerful effect, and

the friends he had secured to back his attempt loudly

proclaimed their applauding sympathy with the spirit of the

address. The name of the pretended madman was Solon, son of

Execestides, the descendant of Codrus. ... The stratagem and

the eloquence of Solon produced its natural effect upon his

spirited and excitable audience, and the public enthusiasm

permitted the oligarchical government to propose and effect

the repeal of the law. An expedition was decreed and planned,

and Solon was invested with its command. It was but a brief

struggle to recover the little island of Salamis. ... But the

brave and resolute Megarians were not men to be disheartened

by a single reverse; they persisted in the contest--losses

were sustained on either side, and at length both states

agreed to refer their several claims on the sovereignty of the

island to the decision of Spartan arbiters. And this appeal

from arms to arbitration is a proof how much throughout Greece

had extended that spirit of civilisation which is but an

extension of the sense of justice. ... The arbitration of the

umpires in favour of Athens only suspended hostilities; and

the Megarians did not cease to watch (and shortly afterwards

they found) a fitting occasion to regain a settlement so

tempting to their ambition. The credit acquired by Solon in

this expedition was shortly afterwards greatly increased in

the estimation of Greece. In the Bay of Corinth was situated a

town called Cirrha, inhabited by a fierce and lawless race,

who, after devastating the Sacred territories of Delphi,

sacrilegiously besieged the city itself, in the desire to

possess themselves of the treasures which the piety of Greece

had accumulated in the Temple of Apollo. Solon appeared at the

Amphictyonic council, represented the sacrilege of the

Cirrhæans, and persuaded the Greeks to arm in defence of the

altars of their tutelary god [B. C. 595]. Clisthenes, the

tyrant of Sicyon, was sent as commander-in-chief against the

Cirrhæans; and (according to Plutarch) the records of Delphi

inform us that Alcmæon was the leader of the Athenians. The

war [known as the First Sacred War] was not very successful at

the onset; the oracle of Apollo was consulted, and the answer

makes one of the most amusing anecdotes of priestcraft. The

besiegers were informed by the god that the place would not be

reduced until the waves of the Cirrhæan Sea washed the

territories of Delphi. The reply perplexed the army; but the

superior sagacity of Solon was not slow in discovering that

the holy intention of the oracle was to appropriate the lands

of the Cirrhæans to the profit of the temple. He therefore

advised the besiegers to attack and to conquer Cirrha, and to

dedicate its whole territory to the service of the god. The

advice was adopted--Cirrha was taken [B. C. 586]; it became

thenceforth the arsenal of Delphi, and the insulted deity had

the satisfaction of seeing the sacred lands washed by the

waves of the Cirrhæan Sea. ... The Pythian games commenced, or

were revived, in celebration of this victory of the Pythian god."

Sir E. Bulwer Lytton, Athens: Its Rise and Fall,

book 2, chapter 1.

See, also, DELPHI.

{148}

ATHENS: B. C. 594.

The Constitution of Solon.

The Council of Four Hundred.

"Solon, Archon Ol. 46,1, was chosen mediator. Equity and

moderation are described by the ancients as the

characteristics of his mind; he determined to abolish the

privileges of particular classes, and the arbitrary power of

officers, and to render all the participators in civil and

political freedom equal in the eye of the law, at the same

time ensuring to everyone the integrity of those lights to

which his real merits entitled him; on the other hand, he was

far from contemplating a total subversion of existing

regulations. ... Whatever was excellent in prescription was

incorporated with the new laws and thereby stamped afresh; but

prescription as such, with the exception of some unwritten

religious ordinances of the Eumolpids, was deprived of force.

The law was destined to be the sole centre, whence every

member of the political community was to derive a fixed rule

of conduct."

W. Wachsmuth, Historical Antiquities of the Greeks,

section 46 (volume 1).

"The factions, to allay the reviving animosities of which was

Solon's immediate object, had, at that time, formed parties

corresponding to the geographical division of the country,

which we have already adverted to; the Pediæi, or inhabitants

of the lowlands, insisted on a strict oligarchy; the Parali,

on the coast, who, did we not find the Alcmaeonid Megacles at

their head, might be considered the wealthier portion of the

people, wished for a mixed constitution; but the Diacrii or

Hyperacrii [of the mountainous district] formed the great

majority, who, in their impoverished state, looked for relief

only from a total revolution. Solon might, had he so chosen,

have made himself tyrant by heading this populace: but he

preferred acting as mediator, and with this view caused

himself to be elected archon, B. C. 594, as being an Eupatrid

of the house ... of Codrus."

C. F. Hermann, Manual of the Political

Antiquities of Greece, chapter 5, section 106.

"The chief power was vested in the collective people; but in

order that it might be exercised with advantage it was

necessary that they should be endowed with common rights of

citizenship. Solon effected this by raising the lower class

from its degradation, and by subjecting to legal control those

who had till now formed the governing order, as well as by

rendering the liberty of both dependent upon the law. ... This

change was brought about by two ordinances, which must not be

regarded as mere remedies for the abuses of that period, but

as the permanent basis of free and legal citizenship. The one

was the Seisachtheia; this was enacted by Solon to afford

relief to oppressed debtors, by reducing their debts in

amount, and by raising the value of money in the payment of

interest and principal; at the same time he abrogated the

former rigorous law of debt by which the freeman might be

reduced to servitude, and thus secured to him the unmolested

possession of his legal rights. ... A second ordinance

enjoined, that their full and entire rights should be restored

to all citizens who had incurred Atimia, except to absolute

criminals. This was not only destined to heal the wounds which

had been caused by the previous dissensions, but as till that

time the law of debt had been able to reduce citizens to

Atimia, and the majority of the Atimoi pointed out by Solon

were slaves for debt, that declaration stood in close

connection with the Seisachtheia, and had the effect of a

proclamation from the state of its intention to guarantee the

validity of the new citizenship. ... The right of

naturalization was granted by Solon to deserving aliens, when

6,000 citizens declared themselves in favour of the measure,

but these new citizens were likewise deficient in a few of the

privileges of citizenship. ... The statement that Solon

received a great many foreigners as citizens, and every

artizan that presented himself, appears highly improbable, as

Solon was the first legislator who systematically regulated

the condition of the Metœci. The Metœci ... probably took the

place of the former Demiurgi; their position was one of

sufferance, but the protection of the laws was guaranteed

them. ... The servile order, exclusively consisting of

purchased aliens and their descendants, did not, as a body,

stand in direct relation with the state; individual slaves

became the property of individual citizens, but a certain

number were employed by the state as clerks, etc., and were

abandoned to the arbitrary pleasure of their oppressive

taskmasters. ... Those who were manumitted stood upon the

footing of Metœci; the citizens who enfranchised them becoming

their Prostatæ. ... Upon attaining the age of puberty, the

sons of citizens entered public life under the name of Ephebi.

The state gave them two years for the full development of

their youthful strength. ... Upon the expiration of the

second, and according to the most authentic accounts, in their

eighteenth year, they received the shield and spear in the

popular assembly, complete armour being given to the sons of

those who had fallen in battle, and in the temple of Agraulos

took the oath of young citizens, the chief obligations of

which concerned the defence of their country, and then for the

space of one or two years performed military service in the

Attic border fortresses under the name of Peripoli. The

ceremony of arming them was followed by enrolment in the book

which contained the names of those who had attained majority;

this empowered the young citizen to manage his own fortune,

preside over a household, enter the popular assembly, and

speak. When he asserted the last right, viz., the Isegoria,

Parrhesia, he was denominated Rhetor, and this appellation

denoted the difference between him and the silent member of

the assembly, the Idiotes. ... Upon attaining his 30th year,

the citizen might assert his superior rights; he was qualified

for a member of the sworn tribunal entitled Heliæa. ... The

word Heliast does not merely signify a judge; but the citizen

who has fully attained maturity. ... The judges of the courts

of the Diætetæ and Ephetæ, which existed without the circle of

the ordinary tribunals, were required to be still older men

than the Heliasts, viz., 50 or 60 years of age. Solon

appointed gradations in the rights of citizenship, according

to the conditions of a census in reference to offices of

state. ... Upon the principle of a conditional equality of

rights, which assigns to everyone as much as he deserves, and

which is highly characteristic of Solon's policy in general,

he instituted four classes according to a valuation; these

were the Pentacosiomedimni [whose land yielded 500 measures of

wheat or oil], the Hippeis [horsemen], the Zeugitæ [owners of

a yoke of mules], and the Thetes [or laborers]. The valuation,

however, only affected that portion of capital from which

contributions to the state-burthens were required,

consequently, according to Böckh, a taxable capital. ... The

Thetes, the last of these classes, were not regularly summoned

to perform military service, but only exercised the civic

right as members of the assembly and the law-courts; ... the

highest class exclusively supplied the superior offices, such

as the archonship, and through this the council of the

Areopagus. ... In lieu of the former council of

administration, of which no memorial has been preserved, Solon

instituted a Council of four hundred citizens taken from the

first three classes, 100 from every Phyle, of which no person

under 30 years of age could be a member. The appointments were

renewed annually; the candidates underwent an examination, and

such as were deemed eligible drew lots."

W. Wachsmuth, Historical Antiquities of the Greeks,

section 46-47 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

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

part 3, chapter 3, section 4.

E. Abbott, History of Greece, part 11, chapter 3.

G. Grote, History of Greece, chapter 11.

Plutarch, Solon.

Aristotle, On the Constitution of Athens

(translated by E. Poste), chapters 5-13.

See, also,

AREOPAGUS, PRYTANES, HELIÆA, and DEBT.

{149}

ATHENS: B. C. 560-510.

The tyranny of the Pisistratidæ.

"The constitution which he [Solon] framed was found to be

insufficient even in his own life-time. ... The poor citizens

were still poor, in spite of the Seisachtheia and the reform

of the constitution. At the same time the admission of the

lowest class in the scale of property to the rights of

Athenian citizenship, and the authority given to the General

Assembly, had thrown a power into the hands of the masses

which filled the more conservative citizens with resentment

and alarm. And so the old party quarrels, which had divided

Attica before the reforms of Solon, reappeared after them with

even greater violence. The men of the plain were led by

Miltiades, a grandson of the tyrant of Corinth, and Lycurgus,

the son of Aristolaidas; the men of the shore by Megacles, the

Alcmæonid, who had recently strengthened the position of his

family by his marriage with Agariste, the daughter of

Clisthenes of Sicyon. At the head of the mountaineers stood

Pisistratus, a descendant of the royal stock of Nestor, who

... had greatly distinguished himself in the Salaminian war.

As he possessed property in the neighborhood of Marathon,

Pisistratus may have been intimately known to the inhabitants

of the adjacent hills. ... Solon watched the failure of his

hopes with the deepest distress. He endeavoured to recall the

leaders of the contending parties to a sense of their duty to

the country, and to soothe the bitterness of their followers.

With a true instinct he regarded Pisistratus as by far the

most dangerous of the three. Pisistratus was an approved

general, and the faction which he led was composed of poor men

who had nothing to lose. ... Pisistratus met the vehement

expressions of Solon by driving wounded into the market-place.

The people's friend had suffered in the people's cause; his

life was in danger. The incident roused the Athenians to an

unusual exercise of political power. Without any previous

discussion in the Council, a decree was passed by the people

allowing Pisistratus to surround himself with a body-guard of

fifty men, and to arm them with clubs. Thus protected, he

threw off all disguises, and established himself in the

Acropolis as tyrant of Athens [B. C. 560]. ... Herodotus tells

us that Pisistratus was a just and moderate ruler. He did not

alter the laws or remove the existing forms of government. The

Council was still elected, the Assembly continued to meet,

though it is improbable that either the one or the other was

allowed to extend its functions beyond domestic affairs. The

archons still continued to be the executive magistrates of the

city, and cases of murder were tried, as of old, at the

Areopagus. The tyrant contented himself with occupying the

Acropolis with his troops and securing important posts in the

administration for his family or his adherents." Twice,

however, Pisistratus was driven from power by the combination

of his opponents, and into exile, for four years in the first

instance and for ten years in the last; but Athens was

compelled to accept him for a ruler in the end. "Pisistratus

remained in undisturbed possession of the throne till his

death in 527 B. C. He was succeeded by his eldest son Hippias,

with whom Hipparchus and Thessalus, his younger sons, were

associated in the government." But these younger tyrants soon

made themselves intolerably hateful, and a conspiracy formed

against them by Harmodius and Aristogeiton was successful in

taking the life of Hipparchus. Four years later, in 510 B. C.,

with the help of Delphi and Sparta, Hippias was driven from

the city. Clisthenes, at the head of the exiled Alcmæonids,

was the master-spirit of the revolution, and it was under his

guidance that the Athenian democratic

constitution was reorganized.

E. Abbott, History of Greece, volume 1, chapter 15.

ALSO IN:

G. Grote, History of Greece, chapter 11 and 30.

ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.

The constitution of Cleisthenes.

Advance of democracy.

"The expulsion of the Pisistratides left the democratical

party, which had first raised them to power, without a leader.

The Alcmæonids had always been considered as its adversaries,

though they were no less opposed to the faction of the nobles,

which seems at this time to have been headed by Isagoras. ...

Cleisthenes found himself, as his party had always been,

unable to cope with it; he resolved, therefore, to shift his

ground, and to attach himself to that popular cause which

Pisistratus had used as the stepping stone of his ambition.

His aims, however, were not confined to a temporary advantage

over his rivals; he planned an important change in the

constitution, which should forever break the power of his

whole order, by dissolving some of the main links by which

their sway was secured. For this purpose, having gained the

confidence of the commonalty and obtained the sanction of the

Delphic oracle, he abolished the four ancient tribes, and made

a fresh geographical division of Attica into ten new tribes,

each of which bore a name derived from some Attic hero. The

ten tribes were subdivided into districts of various extent,

called demes, each containing a town or village. ...

Cleisthenes appears to have preserved the ancient phratries;

but as they were now left insulated by the abolition of the

tribes to which they belonged, they lost all political

importance. ... Cleisthenes at the same time increased the

strength of the commonalty by making a great many new

citizens, and he is said to have enfranchised not only

aliens--and these both residents and adventurers from

abroad--but slaves. ... The whole frame of the state was

reorganized to correspond with the new division of the country.

{150}

The Senate of the Four Hundred was increased to Five Hundred,

that fifty might be drawn from each tribe, and the rotation of

the presidency was adapted to this change, the fifty

councillors of each tribe filling that office for thirty-five

or thirty-six days in succession, and nine councillors being

elected one from each of the other tribes to preside at the

Council and the Assembly of the People, which was now called

regularly four times in the month, certain business being

assigned to each meeting. The Heliæa was also distributed into

ten courts: and the same division henceforth prevailed in most

of the public offices, though the number of the archons

remained unchanged. To Cleisthenes also is ascribed the formal

institution of the ostracism. ... These changes, and the

influence they acquired for their author, reduced the party of

Isagoras to utter weakness, and they saw no prospect of

maintaining themselves but by foreign aid." Isagoras,

accordingly, applied for help to Cleomenes, one of the kings

of Sparta, who had already interfered in Athenian affairs by

assisting at the expulsion of the Pisistratidæ. Cleomenes

responded by coming to Athens with a small force [B. C. 508],

which sufficed to overawe the people, and, assuming

dictatorial authority, he established Isagoras in power, with

an attempted rearrangement of the government. "He began by

banishing 700 families designated by Isagoras, and then

proceeded to suppress the Council of the Five Hundred, and to

lodge the government in the hands of Three Hundred of his

friend's partisans. When, however, the councillors resisted

this attempt, the people took heart, and, Cleomenes and

Isagoras having occupied the citadel, rose in a body and

besieged them there. As they were not prepared to sustain a

siege, they capitulated on the third day: Cleomenes and

Isagoras were permitted to depart with the Lacedæmonian

troops, but they were compelled to abandon their adherents to

the mercy of their enemies. All were put to death, and

Cleisthenes and the 700 banished families returned

triumphantly to Athens." Cleomenes soon afterwards raised a

force with which to subdue Athens and restore Isagoras. The

Athenians in their alarm sent an embassy to Sardis to solicit

the protection of the Persians. Fortunately, nothing came of

it, and Cleomenes was so much opposed in his project, by the

Corinthians and other allies of Sparta, that he had to give it

up.

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 11.

ALSO IN:

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 31.

E. Abbott, History of Greece, chapter 15.

Aristotle, On the Constitution of Athens

(translated by E. Poste), chapter 20-22.

ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.

Hostile undertakings of Kleomenes and Sparta.

Help solicited from the Persian king.

Subjection refused.

Failure of Spartan schemes to restore tyranny.

Protest of the Corinthians.

Successful war with Thebes and Chalcis.

"With Sparta it was obvious that the Athenians now had a

deadly quarrel, and on the other side they knew that Hippias

was seeking to precipitate on them the power of the Persian

king. It seemed therefore to be a matter of stern necessity to

anticipate the intrigues of their banished tyrant; and the

Athenians accordingly sent ambassadors to Sardeis to make an

independent alliance with the Persian despot. The envoys, on

being brought into the presence of Artaphernes, the Satrap of

Lydia, were told that Dareios would admit them to an alliance

if they would give him earth and water,--in other words, if

they would acknowledge themselves his slaves. To this demand

of absolute subjection the envoys gave an assent which was

indignantly repudiated by the whole body of Athenian citizens.

... Foiled for the time in his efforts, Kleomenes was not cast

down. Regarding the Kleisthenian constitution as a personal

insult to himself, he was resolved that Isagoras should be

despot of Athens. Summoning the allies of Sparta [including

the Bœotian League headed by Thebes, and the people of Chalcis

in Eubœa], he led them as far as Eleusis, 12 miles only from

Athens, without informing them of the purpose of the campaign.

He had no sooner confessed it than the Corinthians, declaring

that they had been brought away from home on an unrighteous

errand, went back, followed by the other Spartan King,

Demaratos, the son of Ariston; and this conflict of opinion

broke up the rest of the army. This discomfiture of their

enemy seemed to inspire fresh strength into the Athenians, who

won a series of victories over the Boiotians and

Euboians"--completely overthrowing the latter--the

Chalcidians--taking possession of their city, and making it a

peculiar colony and dependency of Athens.--See KLERUCHS. The

anger of Kleomenes "on being discomfited at Eleusis by the

defection of his own allies was heightened by indignation at

the discovery that in driving out his friend Hippias he had

been simply the tool of Kleisthenes and of the Delphian

priestess whom Kleisthenes had bribed. It was now clear to him

and to his countrymen that the Athenians would not acquiesce

in the predominance of Sparta, and that if they retained their

freedom, the power of Athens would soon be equal to their own.

Their only safety lay, therefore, in providing the Athenians

with a tyrant. An invitation was, therefore, sent to Hippias

at Sigeion, to attend a congress of the allies at Sparta, who

were summoned to meet on the arrival of the exiled despot."

The appointed congress was held, and the Spartans besought

their allies to aid them in humbling the Athenian Democracy,

with the object of restoring Hippias to power. But again the

Corinthians protested, bluntly suggesting that if the Spartans

thought tyranny a good thing they might first try it for

themselves. Hippias, speaking in his own behalf, attempted to

convince them that the time was coming "in which they would

find the Athenians a thorn in their side. For the present his

exhortations were thrown away. The allies protested

unanimously against all attempts to interfere with the

internal administration of any Hellenic city; and the banished

tyrant went back disappointed to Sigeion."

G. W. Cox, The Greeks and the Persians, chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 31 (volume 4).

{151}

ATHENS: B. C. 501-490.

Aid to Ionians against Persia.

Provocation of King Darius.

His wrath and attempted vengeance.

The first Persian invasions.

Battle of Marathon.

"It is undeniable that the extension of the Persian dominion

over Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt gave a violent check to the

onward movement of Greek life. On the other hand, it seemed as

if the great enterprise of Darius Hystaspis against the

Scythians ought to have united the Greeks and Persians. It was

of a piece with the general policy of Darius that, after

defeating so many other adversaries, he undertook to prevent

for all succeeding time a repetition of those inroads with

which, some centuries before, the Scythians had visited Asia

and the civilized world. He possessed authority enough to

unite the different nations which obeyed his sceptre in a

great campaign against the Scythians. ... The Greeks were his

best allies in his campaign; they built him the bridge by

which he crossed the Bosporus, and also the bridge of boats

over the Danube by which he made his invasion into the enemy's

territory. The result was not one which could properly be

called unfortunate; yet it was certainly of a very doubtful

character. ... A great region, in which they had already

obtained very considerable influence, was closed to them once

more. The Persian army brought the populations upon the

Strymon, many in number and individually weak, under the

dominion of Persia; and even Amyntas, the king of Makedonia,

one of a race of rulers of Greek origin, was compelled to do

homage to the Great King. Thus the movement which had thrust

back the Greeks from Egypt and Asia Minor made advances even

into the regions of Europe which bordered upon Northern

Hellas. It was an almost inevitable consequence of this that

the Greeks were menaced and straitened even in their proper

home. A pretext and opportunity for an attack upon the Greek

islands was presented to the Persians by the questions at

issue between the populations of the cities and the tyrants.

... The instrument by whom the crisis was brought about was

not a person of any great importance. It is not always great

natures, or natures strong in the consciousness of their own

powers, that bring on such conflicts; this is sometimes the

work of those flexible characters which, being at the point of

contact between the opposing forces, pass from one side to the

other. Such a character was Aristagoras of Miletus. ...

Morally contemptible, but gifted intellectually with a range

of ideas of unlimited extent, Aristagoras made for himself an

imperishable name by being the first to entertain the thought

of a collective opposition to the Persians on the part of all

the Greeks, even contemplating the possibility of waging a

great and successful offensive war upon them. ... He announced

in Miletus his own resignation of power and the restoration to

the people of their old laws. ... A general overthrow of

tyranny ensued [B. C. 501], involving a revolt from Persia,

and Strategi were everywhere appointed. The supreme power in

the cities was based upon a good understanding between the

holders of power and the Persians; the fact that one of these

rulers found the authority of the Persians intolerable was the

signal for a universal revolt. Aristagoras himself voluntarily

renounced the tyranny, the other tyrants were compelled to

take the same course; and thus the cities, assuming at the

same time a democratic organization, came into hostility with

Persia. ... The cities and islands which had so often been

forced to submission could not hope to resist the Persians by

their own unaided efforts. Even Aristagoras could not have

expected so much. ... He visited Lakedæmon, the strongest of

the Greek powers, in person, and endeavored to carry her with

him in his plans. ... Rejected by Sparta, Aristagoras betook

himself to Athens. ... The Athenians granted Aristagoras

twenty ships, to which the Eretrians, from friendship to

Miletus, added five more. The courage of the Ionians was thus

revived, and an attack upon the Persian dominion commenced,

directed, not indeed against Susa, but against Sardis, in

their immediate neighborhood, the capital of the satrapy which

imposed on them their heaviest burdens. ... By the burning of

Sardis, in which a sanctuary of Kybele had been destroyed, the

Syrian nations had been outraged in the person of their gods.

We know that it was part of the system of the Persians to take

the gods of a country under their protection. Nor would the

great king who thought himself appointed to be master of the

world fail to resent an invasion of his dominions as an insult

calling for revenge. The hostile attempts of the Ionians made

no great impression upon him, but he asked who were the

Athenians, of whose share in the campaign he had been

informed. They were foreigners, of whose power the king had

scarcely heard. ... The enterprise of Aristagoras had

meanwhile caused general commotion. He had by far the larger

part of Cyprus, together with the Carians, on his side. All

the country near the Propontis and the Hellespont was in

revolt. The Persians were compelled to make it their first

concern to suppress this insurrection, a task which, if

attempted by sea, did not promise to be an easy one. In their

first encounter with the Phœnicians the Ionians had the

advantage. When, however, the forces of the great empire were

assembled, the insurrection was everywhere put down. ... It

must be reckoned among the consequences of the battle of Lade,

by which the combination against the Persian empire had been

annihilated, that King Darius, not content with having

consolidated his dominion in Ionia, once more resumed the plan

of pushing forward into Europe, of which his enterprise

against the Scythians formed part. With the execution of this

project he commissioned one of the principal persons of the

empire and the court, ... Mardonius by name, whom he united to

his family by marrying him to his daughter. ... This general

crossed the Hellespont with a large army, his fleet always

accompanying him along the shore whilst he pushed on by the

mainland. He once more subdued Makedonia, probably the

districts which had not yet, like the Makedonian king, been

brought into subjection, and gave out that his aim was

directed against Eretria and Athens, the enemies of the king.

... In the stormy waters near Mount Athos, which have always

made the navigation of the Ægean difficult, his fleet suffered

ship-wreck. But without naval supports he could not hope to

gain possession of an island and a maritime town situated on a

promontory. Even by land he encountered resistance, so that he

found it advisable to postpone the further execution of his

undertakings to another time. ... In order to subdue the

recalcitrants, especially Athens and Eretria, another attempt

was organized without delay. Under two generals, one of whom,

Datis, was a Mede, the other, Artaphernes, the son of the

satrap of Sardis of the same name, and brother of the Darius

who was in alliance with Hippias, a maritime expedition was

undertaken for the immediate subjugation of the islands and

the maritime districts.

{152}

It was not designed for open hostility against the Greeks in

general. ... Their design was to utilize the internal

dissensions of Greece in conquering the principal enemies upon

whom the Great King had sworn vengeance, and presenting them

as captives at his feet. The project succeeded in the case of

Eretria. In spite of a brave resistance it fell by treachery

into their hands, and they could avenge the sacrilege

committed at Sardis by plundering and devastating Grecian

sanctuaries. They expected now to be able to overpower Athens

also without much trouble. ... It was a circumstance of great

value to the Athenians that there was a man amongst them who

was familiar with the Persian tactics. This was Miltiades, the

son of Kimon. ... Although a Thracian prince, he had never

ceased to be a citizen of Athens. Here he was impeached for

having held a tyranny, but was acquitted and chosen strategus,

for the democracy could not reject a man who was so admirably

qualified to be at their head in the interchange of

hostilities with Persia. Miltiades was conducting his own

personal quarrel in undertaking the defence of Attica. The

force of the Persians was indeed incomparably the larger, but

the plains of Marathon, on which they were drawn up, prevented

their proper deployment, and they saw with astonishment the

Athenian hoplites displaying a front as extended as their own.

These troops now rushed upon them with an impetus which grew

swifter at every moment. The Persians easily succeeded in

breaking through the centre of the Athenian army; but that was

of no moment, for the strength of the onset lay in the two

wings, where now began a hand-to-hand fight. The Persian

sword, formidable elsewhere, was not adapted to do good

service against the bronze armor and the spear of the

Hellenes. On both flanks the Athenians obtained the advantage,

and now attacked the Persian centre, which was not able to

withstand the onslaught of men whose natural vigor was

heightened by gymnastic training. The Persians, to their

misfortune, had calculated upon desertion in the ranks of

their opponents; foiled in this hope, they retreated to the

shore and to their ships. Herodotus intimates that the

Persians had secret intelligence with a party in Athens, and

took their course round the promontory of Sunium toward the

city, in the hope of surprising it. But when they came to

anchor the Athenians had arrived also, and they saw themselves

once more confronted by the victors of Marathon."

L. von Ranke, Universal History, chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

Herodotus, History, book 6.

V. Duruy, History of Greece, chapter 16 (volume 2).

See, also, PERSIA: B. C. 521-493,

and GREECE: B. C. 492-491, and 490.

ATHENS: B. C. 489-480.

Condemnation and death of Miltiades.

The Æginetan war.

Naval power created by Themistocles.

"The victory of Marathon was chiefly due to Miltiades; it was

he who brought on the engagement, and he was chief in command

on the day when the battle was fought. Such a brilliant

success greatly improved his position in the city, and excited

in his enemies a still deeper hatred. Ever on the watch for an

opportunity to pull down their rival, it was not long before

they found one. Soon after his victory, Miltiades came before

the Athenians with a request that a squadron of 70 ships might

be placed at his disposal. The purpose for which he required

them he would not disclose, though pledging his word that the

expedition would add largely to the wealth and prosperity of

the city. The request being granted, he sailed with the ships

to Paros, an island which at this time was subject to Persia.

From the Parians he demanded 100 talents, and when they

refused to pay he blockaded the city. So vigorous and

successful was the resistance offered that, after a long

delay, Miltiades, himself dangerously wounded, was compelled

to return home. His enemies, with Xanthippus at their head, at

once attacked him for misconduct in the enterprise. ...

Miltiades was unable to reply in person; he was carried into

court, while his friends pleaded his cause. The sentence was

given against him, but the penalty was reduced from death to a

fine of 50 talents. So large a sum was more than even

Miltiades could pay; he was thrown into prison as a public

debtor, where he soon died from the mortification of his

wound. ... His condemnation was one in a long series of

similar punishments. The Athenians never learnt to be just to

those who served them, or to distinguish between treachery and

errors of judgment. ... We have very little information about

the state of Athens immediately after the battle of Marathon.

So far as we can tell, for the chronology is most uncertain,

she was now engaged in a war with Ægina. ... Meanwhile, a man

was rising to power, who may be said to have created the

history of Athens for the rest of the century,--Themistocles,

the son of Neocles. ... On the very day of Marathon,

Themistocles had probably made up his mind that the Persians

would visit Greece again. What was to keep them away, so long

as they were masters of the Ægean? ... With an insight almost

incredible he perceived that the Athenians could become a

maritime nation; that Athens possesses harbours large enough

to receive an enormous fleet, and capable of being strongly

fortified; that in possession of a fleet she could not only

secure her own safety, but stand forth as a rival power to

Sparta. But how could Themistocles induce the Athenians to

abandon the line in which they had been so successful for a

mode of warfare in which even Miltiades had failed? After the

fall of the great general, the conduct of affairs was in the

hands of Xanthippus ... and Aristides. ... They were by no

means prepared for the change which Themistocles was

meditating. This is more especially true of Aristides. He had

been a friend of Clisthenes; he was known as an admirer of

Spartan customs. ... He had been second in command at

Marathon, and was now the most eminent general at Athens. From

him Themistocles could only expect the most resolute

opposition. Xanthippus and Aristides could reckon on the

support of old traditions and great connections. Themistocles

had no support of the kind. He had to make his party ...

conscious of their own position, Aristides and Xanthippus

looked with contempt upon the knot of men who began to gather

round their unmannerly and uncultivated leader. And they

might, perhaps, have maintained their position if it had not

been for the Æginetan war. That unlucky struggle had begun,

soon after the reforms of Clisthenes, with an unprovoked

attack of the Æginetans on the coast of Attica (506 B. C.),

[Ægina being allied with Thebes in the war mentioned

above--B.C. 509-506].

{153}

It was renewed when the Æginetans gave earth and water to the

heralds of Darius in 491, and though suspended at the time of

the Persian invasion, it broke out again with renewed ferocity

soon afterwards. The Æginetans had the stronger fleet, and

defeated the Athenian ships. "Such experiences naturally

caused a change in the minds of the Athenians. ... It was

clear that the old arrangements for the navy were quite

inadequate to the task which was now required of them. Yet the

leaders of the state made no proposals." Themistocles now

"came forward publicly with proposals of naval reform, and, as

he expected, he drew upon himself the strenuous opposition of

Aristides. ... It was clear that nothing decisive could be

done in the Æginetan war unless the proposals of Themistocles

were carried; it was equally clear that they never would be

carried while Aristides and Xanthippus were at hand to oppose

them. Under these circumstances recourse was had to the

safety-valve of the constitution. Ostracism was proposed and

accepted; and in this manner, by 483 B. C., Themistocles had

got rid of both of his rivals in the city. He was now master

of the situation. The only obstacle to the realization of his

plans was the expense involved in building ships. And this he

was able to meet by a happy accident, which brought into the

treasury at this time a large surplus from the silver mines

from Laurium. ... By the summer of 480, the Athenians ... were

able to launch 180 vessels, besides providing 20 for the use

of the Chalcideans of Eubœa. ... At the same time Themistocles

set about the fortification of the Peiræus. ... Could he have

carried the Athenians with him, he would have made the Peiræus

the capital of the country, in order that the ships and the

city might be in close connection. But for this the people

were not prepared."

E. Abbott, Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: Plutarch, Aristides.--Themistocles.

ATHENS: B. C. 481-479.

Congress at Corinth.

Organized Hellenic Union, under the headship of Sparta.

See GREECE: B. C. 481-479.

ATHENS: B. C. 480-479.

The second Persian invasion.

Thermopylæ, Artemisium, Salamis, Platæa.

Abandonment of the City.

"The last days of Darius were clouded by the disaster of

Marathon; 'that battle formed the turning point of his good

fortune,' and it would seem that the news of it led to several

insurrections, particularly that of Egypt; but they were soon

put down. Darius died (Olymp. 73, 3), and Xerxes, who

succeeded him, was prevented from taking revenge on the

Athenians by the revolt of Egypt, which engaged his attention

during the first years of his reign. But he completely

conquered the insurgents after they had maintained themselves

about four or five years; and he then made preparations for

that vengeance on Athens for which his barbarian pride was

longing. The account of the three years' preparations of

Xerxes, how he assembled his army in Asia Minor, how he made a

bridge across the Hellespont, how he cut a canal through the

isthmus of Mount Athos to prevent his fleet being destroyed by

storms--all this is known to everyone who has read Herodotus.

History is here so much interwoven with poetry, that they can

no longer be separated. ... The Greeks awaited the attack

(Olymp. 75, 1), 'but they were not agreed among themselves.

The Argives from hatred of Sparta joined the Persians, and the

miserable Boeotians likewise supported them. The others kept

together only from necessity; and without the noble spirit of

the Athenians Greece would have been lost, and that from the

most paltry circumstances. A dispute arose as to who was to be

honoured with the supreme command; the Athenians gave way to

all, for their only desire was to save Greece. Had the

Persians moved on rapidly, they would have met with no

resistance, but they proceeded slowly, and matters turned out

differently.' A Greek army was encamped at Tempe, at the

entrance of Thessaly, and at first determined on defending

Thessaly. But they must have seen that they could be entirely

surrounded from Upper Thessaly; and when they thus discovered

the impossibility of stopping the Persians, they retreated.

The narrative now contains one inconceivable circumstance

after another. ... It is inconceivable that, as the Greeks did

make a stand at Thermopylae, no one else took his position

there except King Leonidas and his Spartans, not including

even the Lacedaemonians, for they remained at home! Only 1,000

Phocians occupied the heights, though that people might surely

have furnished 10,000 men; 400 of the Boeotians were posted in

the rear, as a sort of hostages, as Herodotus remarks, and 700

Thespians. Where were all the rest of the Greeks? ...

Countless hosts are invading Greece; the Greeks want to defend

themselves, and are making active preparations at sea; but on

land hundreds of thousands are met by a small band of

Peloponnesians. 700 Thespians, 400 Thebans as hostages, and

1,000 Phocians, stationed on the heights! A pass is occupied,

but only that one, and the others are left unguarded. ... All

this is quite unintelligible; it would almost appear as if

there had been an intention to sacrifice Leonidas and his men;

but we cannot suppose this. These circumstances alone suggest

to us, that the numbers of the Persian army cannot have been

as great as they are described; but even if we reduce them to

an immense extent, it still remains inconceivable why they

were not opposed by greater numbers of the Greeks, for as

afterwards they ventured to attack the Persians in the open

field, it was certainly much more natural to oppose them while

marching across the hills. But however this may be, it is an

undoubted fact, that Leonidas and his Spartans fell in the

contest, of which we may form a conception from the

description of Herodotus, when after a resistance of three

days they were surrounded by the Persians. A few of the

Spartans escaped on very excusable grounds, but they were so

generally despised, that their life became unendurable, and

they made away with themselves. This is certainly historical.

... After the victory of Thermopylae all Hellas lay open

before the Persians, and they now advanced towards Athens, a

distance which they could march in a few days. Thebes opened

her gates, and joyfully admitted them from hatred of Athens.

Meantime a portion of the army appeared before Delphi. It is

almost inconceivable that the Persians did not succeed in

taking the temple. ... The miracles by which the temple is

said to have been saved, are repeated in the same manner

during the attack of the Gauls.

{154}

But the temple of Delphi was certainly not

plundered.' ... The city of Athens had in the meantime been

abandoned by all the people; the defenceless had taken refuge

in the small island of Salamis, or of Troezen, 'and all the

Athenians capable of bearing arms embarked in the fleet.' ...

The Persians thus took Athens without any resistance. ...

During the same days on which the battle of Thermopylae was

fought, the Greek fleet was engaged in two indecisive but

glorious battles near the promontory of Artemisium. 'In a

third the Persians gained the upper hand, and when the Greeks

at the same time heard of the defeat at Thermopylae, they

withdrew, and doubling Cape Sunium sailed towards Salamis.'

God sent them a storm whereby the Persians in their pursuit

suffered shipwreck. ... While the Greek fleet was stationed in

the channel between the island of Salamis and Attica, towards

Piraeeus, discord broke out among the Greeks. The

Peloponnesians thought only of themselves; they had fortified

the Isthmus; there they were assembled, and there they wanted

to offer resistance to the Persians. In their folly they

forgot, that if the enemy with his superior fleet, should turn

against Peloponnesus, they might land wherever they liked. ...

But Themistocles now declared, that all the hopes of the

Athenians were directed towards the recovery of their own

city; that, if the Peloponnesians should sacrifice them, and,

thinking of themselves only, should abandon Attica to the

barbarians, the Athenians would not be so childish as to

sacrifice themselves for them, but would take their women and

children on board their ships, and sail far away from the

Persians to the island of Sardinia, or some other place where

Greek colonies were established; that there they would settle

as a free people, and abandon Peloponnesus to its fate; and

that then the peninsula would soon be in the hands of the

enemy. This frightened the Peloponnesians, and they resolved

to stand by Athens. It is evident that, throughout that time,

Themistocles had to struggle with the most intolerable

difficulties, which the allies placed in his way, as well as

with their jealousy, meanness, and insolence. 'The rudeness of

the Spartans and Corinthians is nowhere more strongly

contrasted with the refinement of the Athenians, than on that

occasion.' But after he had tried everything, and overcome by

every possible means a hundred different difficulties, he yet

saw, that he could not rely on the perseverance of the

Peloponnesians, and that they would turn to the Isthmus as

soon as Xerxes should proceed in that direction. He

accordingly induced the Persian king, by a false message, to

surround the Greek fleet, for the purpose of cutting off the

retreat of the Peloponnesians. He declared himself ready to

deliver the whole of the Greek fleet into his hands. This

device was quite to the mind of the Persians; Xerxes believed

him, and followed his advice. When Themistocles was thus sure

of the Peloponnesians, the ever-memorable battle of Salamis

commenced, which is as certainly historical as that of Cannae,

or any modern battle, 'whatever the numbers may be.' The

battle proceeded somewhat in the manner of the battle of

Leipzig: when the issue was decided, a portion of those who

ought to have joined their countrymen before, made common

cause with the Greeks. ... Their accession increased the

victory of the Greeks. ... Certain as the battle of Salamis

is, all the accounts of what took place after it, are very

doubtful. This much is certain, that Xerxes returned, 'leaving

a portion of his army under Mardonius in Greece;' ... Winter

was now approaching, and Mardonius withdrew from ravaged

Attica, taking up his winter-quarters partly in Thessaly and

partly in Boeotia. ... The probability is, that the Athenians

remained the winter in Salamis in sheds, or under the open

sky. Mardonius offered to restore to them Attica uninjured, so

far as it had not already been devastated, if they would

conclude peace with him. They might at that time have obtained

any terms they pleased, if they had abandoned the common cause

of the Greeks; and the Persians would have kept the peace; for

when they concluded treaties they observed them: they were not

faithless barbarians. But on this occasion again, we see the

Athenian people in all its greatness and excellence; it

scorned such a peace, and preferred the good of the

Peloponnesians. ... Mardonius now again advanced towards

Athens; the Spartans, who ought to have proceeded towards

Cithaeron, had not arrived, and thus he again took possession

of Attica and ravaged it completely. At length, however

(Olymp. 75, 2), the Athenians prevailed upon the

Peloponnesians to leave the Isthmus, and they gradually

advanced towards Boeotia. There the battle of Plataeae was

fought. ... In regard to the accounts of this battle, it is

historically certain that it was completely won by the Greeks,

and that the remnants of the Persian army retreated without

being vigorously pursued. It must have reached Asia, but it

then disappears. It is also historically certain, that

Pausanias was the commander of the allied army of the Greeks.

... After their victory, the Greeks advanced towards Thebes.

In accordance with a vow which they had made before the war,

Thebes ought to have been destroyed by the Greeks. But their

opinions were divided. ... On the same day on which the battle

of Plataeae was fought, the allied Greeks gained as complete a

victory at sea. ... After this victory of Mycale, the Ionian

cities revolted against the Persians."

B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on Ancient History,

volume 1, lectures. 37 and 38.

ALSO IN:

Herodotus, History; translated and edited by H. Rawlinson,

book 7 (volume 4).

Plutarch, Themistocles.

G. W. Cox, The Greeks and Persians.

ATHENS: B. C. 479-478.

Protection of Ionia assumed.

Siege and capture of Sestus.

Rebuilding and enlargement of the city and its walls.

Interference of Sparta foiled by Themistocles.

"The advantages obtained by the Hellenes [in their war with

Persia] came upon them so unexpectedly as to find them totally

unprepared, and accordingly embarrassed by their own

victories. What was to be done with Ionia? Was the whole

country to be admitted into the Hellenic confederation? Too

great a responsibility would, in the opinion of the

Peloponnesians, be incurred by such a step. ... It would be

better to sacrifice the country, and establish the Ionians in

settlements in other parts, at the expense of those who had

favoured the Medes, i. e., of the Argives, Bœotians, Locrians,

and Thessalians. ... The Athenians, on the other hand,

espoused the cause of the cities. ... Ionia ought to be a

bulwark against the Barbarians, and to belong to the Hellenes.

{155}

... The Athenians found a support in the feeling prevalent

among the Ionians, who were naturally opposed to any forced

settlement. Accordingly, in the first instance, Samos, Lesbos,

Chios, and a number of other island-towns, were admitted into

the confederation ... and a new Hellas was formed, a Greek

empire comprehending both sides of the sea. Considerations of

caution made it necessary, above all, to secure the passage

from Asia to Europe; for it was universally believed that the

bridge over the Hellespont was either still in existence or

had been restored. When it was found to have been destroyed,

the Peloponnesians urged the termination of the campaign. ...

The Athenians, on the other hand, declared themselves resolved

... not to leave unfinished what they had begun. Sestus, the

strongest fortress on the Hellespont, ought not to be left in

the hands of the enemy; an attack on it ought to be risked

without delay, before the city had prepared for a siege. They

allowed the Peloponnesians to take their departure, and under

the command of Xanthippus united with the ships of the Ionians

and Hellespontians for the purpose of new undertakings." The

Persians in Sestus resisted obstinately, enduring a long

siege, but were forced to surrender at last. "Meanwhile, the

main point consisted in the Athenians having remained alone in

the field, in their having fraternized with the Ionians as one

naval power, and having after such successes attained to a

confidence in victory, to which no enterprise any longer

seemed either too distant or too difficult. Already they

regarded their city as the centre of the coast-lands of

Greece. But what was the condition of this city of Athens

itself? A few fragments of the ancient city wall, a few

scattered houses, which had served the Persian commanders as

their quarters, were yet standing; the rest was ashes and

ruins. After the battle of Platææ the inhabitants had returned

from Salamis, Trœzene, and Ægina; not even the fleet and its

crews were at hand to afford them assistance. They endeavoured

to make shift as best they could, to pass through the trials

of the winter. As soon as the spring arrived, the restoration

of the city was commenced with all possible activity. ... But

even now it was not the comforts of domesticity which occupied

their thoughts, but, above all, the city as a whole and its

security. To Themistocles, the founder of the port-town,

public confidence was in this matter properly accorded." It

was not possible "to carry out a new and regular plan for the

city; but it was resolved to extend its circumference beyond

the circle of the ancient walls, ... so as to be able, in case

of a future siege, to offer a retreat to the

country-population within the capital itself. ... But the

Athenians were not even to be permitted to build their walls

undisturbed; for, as soon as their grand plan of operations

became known, the envy and insidious jealousy of their

neighbours broke out afresh. ... The Peloponnesian states,

above all Ægina and Corinth, hastened to direct the attention

of Sparta to the situation of affairs. ... As at Sparta city

walls were objected to on principle, and as no doubts

prevailed with regard to the fact that z well-fortified town

was impregnable to the military art of the Peloponnesians, it

was actually resolved at any price to prevent the building of

the walls in Attica." But, for shame's sake, the interference

undertaken by Sparta was put upon the ground that in the event

of a future invasion of the country, only the peninsula could

be successfully defended; that central Greece would

necessarily be abandoned to the enemy; and that every

fortified city in it would furnish him a dangerous base. "At

such a crisis craft alone could be of avail. When the Spartans

made their imperious demand at Athens, Themistocles ordered

the immediate cessation of building operations, and with

assumed submissiveness, promised to present himself at Sparta,

in order to pursue further negotiations in person. On his

arrival there, he allowed one day after the other to go by,

pretending to be waiting for his fellow envoys." In the

meantime, all Athens was toiling night and day at the walls,

and time enough was gained by the audacious duplicity of

Themistocles to build them to a safe height for defence. "The

enemies of Athens saw that their design had been foiled, and

were forced to put the best face upon their discomfiture. They

now gave out that they had intended nothing beyond good

advice."

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

ALSO IN G. W. Cox, History of Greece,

book 2, chapter 7-8 (volume 1-2).

ATHENS: B. C. 478-477.

Alienation of the Asiatic Greeks from Sparta.

Formation of the Confederacy of Delos.

The founding of Athenian Empire.

See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.

ATHENS: B. C. 477-462.

Constitutional gains for the democracy.

Ascendency of Aristeides.

Declining popularity and ostracism of Themistokles.

The sustentation of the commons.

The stripping of power from the Areopagus.

At the time when the Confederacy of Delos was formed, "the

Persians still held not only the important posts of Eion on

the Strymon and Doriskus in Thrace, but also several other

posts in that country which are not specified to us. We may

thus understand why the Greek cities on and near the Chalkidic

peninsula ... were not less anxious to seek protection in the

bosom of the new confederacy than the Dorian islands of Rhodes

and Cos, the Ionic islands of Samos and Chios, the Æolic

Lesbos and Tenedos, or continental towns such as Miletus and

Byzantium. ... Some sort of union, organised and obligatory

upon each city, was indispensable to the safety of all.

Indeed, even with that aid, at the time when the Confederacy

of Delos was first formed, it was by no means certain the

Asiatic enemy would be effectually kept out, especially as the

Persians were strong not merely from their own force, but also

from the aid of internal parties in many of the Grecian

states--traitors within, as well as exiles without. Among

these traitors, the first in rank as well as the most

formidable, was the Spartan Pausanias." Pausanias, whose

treasonable intrigues with the Persian king began at Byzantium

(See GREECE: B. C. 478-477) was convicted some nine or ten

years later, and suffered a terrible fate, being shut within a

temple to which he had fled, and starved. "His treasonable

projects implicated and brought to disgrace a man far greater

than himself--the Athenian Themistokles. ... The charge

[against Themistokles] of collusion with the Persians connects

itself with the previous movement of political parties. ...

The rivalry of Themistokles and Aristeides had been greatly

appeased by the invasion of Xerxes, which had imposed upon both

the peremptory necessity of  cooperation against a common enemy.

{156}

And apparently it was not resumed during the times which

immediately succeeded the return of the Athenians to their

country: at least we hear of both in effective service and in

prominent posts. Themistokles stands forward as the contriver

of the city walls and architect of Peiraeus: Aristeides is

commander of the fleet and first organiser of the Confederacy

of Delos. Moreover we seem to detect a change in the character

of the latter. He had ceased to be the champion of Athenian

old-fashioned landed interest, against Themistokles as the

originator of the maritime innovations. Those innovations had

now, since the battle of Salamis, become an established fact.

... From henceforth the fleet is endeared to every man as the

grand force, offensive and defensive, of the state, in which

character all the political leaders agree in accepting it. ...

The triremes, and the men who manned them, taken collectively,

were now the determining element in the state. Moreover, the

men who manned them had just returned from Salamis, fresh from

a scene of trial and danger, and from a harvest of victory,

which had equalized for the moment all Athenians as sufferers,

as combatants, and as patriots. ... The political change

arising from hence in Athens was not less important than the

military. 'The maritime multitude, authors of the victory of

Salamis,' and instruments of the new vocation at Athens as

head of the Delian Confederacy, appear now ascendant in the

political constitution also; not in any way as a separate or

privileged class, but as leavening the whole mass,

strengthening the democratical sentiment, and protesting

against all recognised political inequalities. ... Early after

the return to Attica, the Kleisthenian constitution was

enlarged as respects eligibility to the magistracy. According

to that constitution, the fourth or last class on the Solonian

census, including the considerable majority of freemen, were

not admissible to offices of state, though they possessed

votes in common with the rest; no person was eligible to be a

magistrate unless he belonged to one of the three higher

classes. This restriction was now annulled and eligibility

extended to all the citizens; We may appreciate the strength

of feeling with which such reform was demanded when we find

that it was proposed by Aristeides. ... The popularity thus

ensured to him, probably heightened by some regret for his

previous ostracism, was calculated to acquire permanence from

his straightforward and incorruptible character, now brought

into strong relief by his function as assessor to the new

Delian Confederacy. On the other hand, the ascendency of

Themistokles, though so often exalted by his unrivalled

political genius and daring, as well as by the signal value of

his public recommendations, was as often overthrown by his

duplicity of means and unprincipled thirst for money. New

political opponents sprung up against him, men sympathising

with Aristeides. ... Of these the chief were Kimon [Cimon],

(son of Miltiades), and Alkmæon." In 471 B. C. Themistokles

was sent into exile by a vote of ostracism, and retired to

Argos. Five years later he was accused of complicity in the

treasonable intrigues of Pausanias, and fled to the court of

the Persian king, where he spent the remainder of his days.

"Aristeides died about three or four years after the ostracism

of Themistokles."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 44 (volume 5).

The constitutional effects of the Persian war, and the

political situation of Athens immediately after the war, are

represented somewhat differently from the account above, in

the lately discovered work on the Constitution of Athens which

is attributed to Aristotle. The following is quoted from one

of the translations of the latter: "After the Median war the

council of Areopagus [See AREOPAGUS] recovered strength and

ruled the state, not that any law conferred the hegemony on

them, but because the aristocratic party had the credit of the

victory at Salamis. For when the generals had despaired of the

country and proclaimed a sauve qui peut, the Areopagus raised

funds, gave every man eight drachmas (6s. 6d.) and induced

them to man the ships. In consequence of this public service

the Ecclesia yielded the ascendency to the Areopagus, and

public affairs were admirably administered during the

following epoch. For they acquired the art of war, made their

name honoured throughout the Hellenic world, and possessed

themselves of the sovereignty of the sea with the consent of

Lakedaimon. At this time the leaders of the commons were

Aristeides, son of Lusimachos, and Themistokles, son of

Neokles; the latter studious of the arts of war, the former

reputed eminent in statesmanship and honest beyond his

contemporaries; which characters made their countrymen employ

the one as a general, the other as a councillor. The

rebuilding of the walls of Athens was their joint work, though

they were otherwise at feud. The detachment of the Ionians

from Persia and the formation of an alliance with Sparta were

due to the counsels of Aristeides, who seized the opportunity

afforded by the discredit cast on the Lakonians by the conduct

of Pausanias. He too originally apportioned, two years after

the battle of Salamis, in the archonship of Timosthenes (478

B. C.), the contribution to be paid by the islanders. ...

Subsequently, when lofty thoughts filled every bosom and

wealth was accumulating, Aristeides advised them to administer

the hegemony with their own hands, to leave their country

occupations and fix their domicile in the city. Sustentation,

he promised, would be provided for all, either as soldiers or

sailors in active service, or as troops in garrison or as

public servants; and then they could increase the vigour of

their imperial sway. They followed his advice, and, taking the

rule into their own hands, reduced their allies to the

position of vassals, except the Chians, Lesbians, and Samians,

whom they kept as satellites of their power, and permitted to

retain their own constitutions and to rule their own

dependencies: and they provided for their own sustentation by

the method which Aristeides indicated; for in the end the

public revenues, the taxes and the tributes of the allies gave

maintenance to more than 20,000. There were 6,000 dicasts or

jurors, 1,600 archers, 1,200 cavalry, 500 senators, 500

soldiers of the dockyard garrison, 50 city guards, 700 home

magistrates, 700 foreign magistrates, 2,500 heavy armed

soldiers (this was their number at the beginning of the

Peloponnesian war), 4,000 sailors manning 20 guardships, 2,000

sailors appointed by lot, manning 20 tribute-collecting ships,

and in addition to these the Prutaneion, the orphans, the

gaolers; and all these persons were maintained at the expense

of the national treasury. The sustentation of the commons was

thus secured.

{157}

The 17 years which followed the Median war were about the

period during which the country continued under the ascendency

of the Areopagus, though its aristocratic features were

gradually on the wane. When the masses had grown more and more

preponderant, Ephialtes, son of Sophonides, reputed

incorruptible in his loyalty to democracy, became leader of

the commons, and began to attack the Areopagus. First, he put

to death many of its members, by impeaching them of offences

committed in their administration. Afterwards in the

archonship of Konon (462 B. C.) he despoiled the council

itself of all its more recently acquired attributes, which

were the keystone of the existing constitution, and

distributed them among the Senate of 500, the Ecclesia, and

the courts of law. In this work he had the co-operation of

Themistokles, who was himself an Areopagite, but expecting to

be impeached for treasonable correspondence with Persia. ...

Ephialtes and Themistokles kept accusing the Areopagus before

the Senate of 500, and again before the commons, till finally

they stripped it of all its principal functions. The

assassination of Ephialtes by the instrumentality of

Aristodikos of Tanagra followed not long after. Such were the

circumstances of the overthrow of the Areopagus. After this

the degradation of the constitution proceeded without

intermission from the eagerness of politicians to win popular

favour; and at the same time there happened to be no organizer

of the aristocratic party, whose head, Kimon, the son of

Miltiades, was too young for some years to enter political

life; besides which their ranks were much devastated by war.

Expeditionary forces were recruited by conscription; and as

the generals had no military experience and owed their

appointment to the reputation of their ancestors, each

expedition entailed the sacrifice of 2,000 or 3,000 lives,

chiefly of the noblest sons of Athens, whether belonging to

the wealthy classes or to the commons."--Aristotle, On the

Constitution of Athens (translated by E. Poste.) chapter

23-26.--On the above, Dr. Abbott comments as follows: "So much

of this account as refers to Themistocles may be at once

dismissed as unhistorical. ... If the evidence of Thucydides

is to count for anything, it is quite certain that

Themistocles finally left Greece for Persia about 466 B. C.

... Plutarch says not a word about Themistocles. But the

remainder of the account [of the attack on the Areopagus] is

supported by all our authorities--if indeed it is not merely

repeated by them."

E. Abbott, History of Greece,

part 2, chapter 11, section 5.

ALSO IN

J. P. Mahaffy, Problems in Greek History page 96.

Plutarch, Themistocles.

See, also, below: B. C. 466-454.

ATHENS: B. C. 470-466.

Continued war against the Persians.

Cimon's victories at the Eurymedon.

Revolt and subjugation of Naxos.

"Under the guidance of Athens, the war against the Persians

was continued. Cimon [Kimon] sailed with a fleet to the coast

of Thrace, and laid siege to Eion on the Strymon [B. C. 470].

The Persian garrison made a gallant defence; and finally

Boges, the governor, rather than surrender, cast all his gold

and silver into the river; and, having raised a huge pile of

wood, slew his wives, children and slaves, and laid their

bodies on it; then setting fire to it, he flung himself into

the flames: the garrison surrendered at discretion. Doriscus

was attacked in vain, but all the other Persian garrisons in

Europe were reduced. Cimon then, as executor of an

Amphictyonic decree, turned his arms against the piratic

Dolopians of the Isle of Scyros, whom he expelled, and filled

the island with Athenian colonists. On this occasion he sought

and found (as was supposed) the bones of the hero Theseus, who

had died in this island 800 years before; and he brought them

in his own trireme to Athens,--an act which gained him great

favour with the people. By this time, some of the confederates

were grown weary of war, and began to murmur at the toils and

expense to which it put them. The people of Naxos were the

first who positively refused to contribute any longer; but the

Athenians, who had tasted of the sweets of command, would not

now permit the exercise of free will to their allies. Cimon

appeared (Ol. 78,3) [B. C. 466] with a large fleet before

Naxos; the Naxians defended themselves with vigour, but were

at length forced to submit; and the Athenians had the

hardihood to reduce them to the condition of subjects to

Athens--an example which they soon followed in other cases.

... After the reduction of Naxos, Cimon sailed over to the

coast of Asia, and learning that the Persian generals had

assembled a large fleet and army in Pamphylia, he collected a

fleet of 200 triremes at Cnidos, with which he proceeded to

the coast of that country, and laid siege to the city of

Phaselis, which, though Greek, obeyed the Persian monarch.

Having reduced it to submission, he resolved to proceed and

attack the Persian fleet and army, which he learned were lying

at the river Eurymedon. On his arrival, the Persian fleet, of

350 triremes, fearing at first to fight till 80 Phoenician

vessels, which they were expecting, should come up, kept in

the river; but finding that the Greeks were preparing to

attack, they put out to sea and engaged them. The action did

not continue long: the Barbarians fled to the land; 200 ships

fell into the hands of the victors, and several were

destroyed. Without a moment's delay, Cimon disembarked his

men, and led them against the land forces: the resistance of

the Persians was obstinate for some time, but at last they

turned and fled, leaving their camp a prey to the conquerors;

and Cimon had thus the rare glory of having gained two

important victories in the one day. Hearing then that the 80

Phoenician vessels were at Hydros, in the Isle of Cyprus, he

immediately sailed thither and took or destroyed the whole of

them. The victory on the Eurymedon may be regarded as the

termination of the conflict between Greece and Persia. The

year after it (Ol. 78,4) [B. C. 465], Xerxes was assassinated,

and the usual confusion took place in the court of Susa."

T. Keightley, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 13.

ALSO IN

W. W. Lloyd, The Age of Pericles, chapter 27 (volume 1).

See also PERSIA: B. C. 486-405.

{158}

ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.

Leadership in the Delian confederacy changed to sovereignty.

Revolt and subjugation of Thasos.

Help to Sparta and its ungracious requital.

Fall and exile of Cimon.

Rise of Pericles and the democratic anti-Spartan policy.

Removal of the federal treasury from Delos.

Building the Long Walls.

"It was now evident to the whole body of the allies of Athens

that by joining the league they had provided themselves with a

mistress rather than a leader. ... Two years after the

reduction of Naxos another powerful island-state broke out

into rebellion against the supremacy of Athens. The people of

Thasos had from very early times possessed territory on the

mainland of Thrace opposite to their island. By holding this

coast-slip they engrossed the trade of the Valley of the

Strymon, and held the rich gold mines of Mount Pangaeus. But

the Athenians, after the capture of Eïon, set themselves to

develop that port as the commercial centre of Thrace. ... A

spot called 'The Nine Ways,' ... where that great river first

begins to broaden out into its estuary, but can still be

spanned by a bridge, was the chosen site of a fortress to

secure the hold of Athens on the land. But the native Thracian

tribes banded themselves together, and fell upon the invaders

with such desperation that ... the Athenian armies were

defeated. ... It was probably the discouragement which this

defeat caused at Athens that emboldened Thasos to declare her

secession from the Confederacy of Delos. She wished to save

her Thracian trade, before Athens could make another attempt

to divert it from her. The Thasians did not rely on their own

resources alone; they enlisted the Thracians and Macedonians

of the mainland, and sent to Sparta to endeavour to induce the

ephors to declare war on Athens." The Spartans were well

disposed to take up the cause of the Thasians; but at that

moment they were overwhelmed by the calamity of the frightful

Earthquake of 464, instantly followed by the rising of the

Helots and the third Messenian war (See MESSENIAN WAR, THE

THIRD). "The island-state was therefore left to its own

resources; and these were so considerable that she held out

against the force of the Athenian confederacy for two whole

years. ... She was obliged at last to surrender to Cimon [B.

C. 463], whose army had long been lying before her walls. Like

Naxos, she was punished for her defection by the loss of her

war-fleet and her fortifications, and the imposition of a fine

of many talents. Still more galling must have been the loss of

her trade with Thrace, which now passed entirely into Athenian

hands. ... The Spartans were still engaged in a desperate

struggle with their revolted subjects when the siege of Thasos

came to an end. Cimon, who was now at the height of his

reputation and power, saw with distress the troubles of the

city he so much admired. He set himself to persuade the

Athenians that they ought to forego old grudges, and save from

destruction the state which had shared with them the glory of

the Persian war. ... His pleading was bitterly opposed by the

anti-Spartan party at Athens, headed by two statesmen,

Ephialtes and Pericles, who had already come into notice as

antagonists of Cimon. But the more generous and unwise policy

prevailed, and 4,000 hoplites were sent to the aid of Sparta

[B. C. 462]. This army was pursued by misfortune; it was so

unsuccessful in attacking Ithome that the Spartans attributed

its failure to ill will rather than ill luck. They, therefore,

began to treat their allies with marked discourtesy, and at

last sent them home without a word of thanks, merely stating

that their services could be of no further use [See MESSENIAN

WAR, THE THIRD]. This rudeness and ingratitude fully justified

the anti-Spartan party at Athens. ... Cimon was now no longer

able to deal with the policy of the state as he chose, and the

conduct of affairs began to pass into the hands of men whose

foreign and domestic policy were alike opposed to all his

views. Ephialtes and Pericles proceeded to form alliances

abroad with all the states which were ill disposed toward

Sparta, and at home to commence a revision of the

constitution. They were determined to carry out to its

furthest logical development the democratic tendency which

Cleisthenes had introduced into the Athenian polity. Of

Ephialtes, the son of Sophonides, comparatively little is

known. But Pericles ... was the son of Xanthippus, the accuser

of Miltiades in 489, B. C., and the victor of Mycale and

Sestos; while, on his mother's side, he came of the blood of

the Alcmaeonidae. Pericles was staid, self-contained, and

haughty--a strange chief for the popular party. But his

relationship to Cleisthenes, and the enmity which existed

between his house and that of Cimon, urged him to espouse the

cause of democracy. ... While Cimon had Greece in his mind,

Pericles could only think of Athens, and the temper of the

times was favourable to the narrower policy. ... The first aim

which Pericles and Ephialtes set before themselves was the

cutting down of the power of the Areopagus [See above: B. C.

477-462]. That body had since the Persian war become the

stronghold of the Conservative and philo-Laconian party. ...

Ephialtes took the lead in the attack on the Areopagus. He

chose a moment when Cimon was away at sea, bent on assisting a

rebellion against the Great King which had broken out in

Egypt. After a violent struggle, he succeeded in carrying a

law which deprived the Areopagus of its ancient censorial

power, and reduced it to a mere court to try homicides. ...

When Cimon came home from Egypt he was wildly enraged. ...

Recourse was had to the test of ostracism. It decided against

Cimon, who therefore went into banishment [B. C. 459]. But

this wrong against the greatest general of Athens was, not

long after, avenged by an over-zealous and unscrupulous

friend. Ephialtes was slain by assassins in his own house. ...

The immediate result of this murder was to leave Pericles in

sole and undivided command of the democratic party. The

foreign policy of Pericles soon began to involve Athens in

troubles at home. He concluded alliances with Argos and

Thessaly, both states at variance with Sparta, and thereby

made a collision with the Lacedæmonian confederacy inevitable.

He gave still more direct offence to Corinth, one of the most

powerful members of that confederacy, by concluding a close

alliance with Megara. ... In Boeotia, too, he stirred up

enmity, by giving an active support to the democratic party in

that country. These provocations made a war inevitable. In 458

B. C. the storm burst. ... At the moment of the outbreak of

the first important naval war which she had to wage with a

Greek enemy since the formation of her empire, Athens took two

important steps. The first was destined to guard against the risk

of misfortunes by sea; it consisted in the transference from

Delos to Athens [dated by different authorities between 461

and 454 B. C.] of the central treasury of the confederacy. ...

{159}

It was not long before the Athenians came to regard the

treasury as their own, and to draw upon it for purely Attic

needs, which had no connection with the welfare of the other

confederates. ... The second important event of the year 458

B. C. was the commencement of the famous 'Long Walls' of

Athens [See LONG WALLS]. ... When they were finished Athens,

Peiræus, and Phalerum, formed the angles of a vast fortified

triangle, while the space between them, a considerable expanse

of open country, could be utilized as a place of refuge for

the population of Attica, and even for their flocks and

herds."

C. W. C. Oman, History of Greece, chapters 23-24.

ALSO IN

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

chapters 5-6.

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

Plutarch, Cimon; Pericles.

ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

Disastrous expedition to Egypt.

Attacks on the Peloponnesian Coast.

Recall of Cimon.

His last enterprise against the Persians.

The disputed Peace of Cimon or Callias.

Five years truce with Sparta.

"Inarus, king of some of the Libyan tribes on the western

border of Egypt, had excited an insurrection there against the

Persians [about 460 B. C.], and his authority was acknowledged

throughout the greater part of the country. Artaxerxes sent

his brother Achæmenes with a great army to quell this

rebellion. An Athenian armament of 200 galleys was lying at

the time off Cyprus, and Inarus sent to obtain its assistance.

The Athenian commanders, whether following their own

discretion, or after orders received from home, quitted

Cyprus, and having joined with the insurgents, enabled them to

defeat Achæmenes, who fell in the battle by the hand of

Inarus. They then sailed up the Nile to Memphis, where a body

of Persians, and some Egyptians, who still adhered to their

cause were in possession of one quarter of the city, called

White Castle. The rest was subject to Inarus, and there the

Athenians stationed themselves, and besieged the Persians. ...

Artaxerxes sent a Persian, named Megabazus, to Sparta, with a

sum of money, to be employed in bribing the principal Spartans

to use their influence, so as to engage their countrymen in an

expedition against Attica. Megabazus did not find the leading

Spartans unwilling to receive his money; but they seem to have

been unable to render him the service for which it was

offered. Ithome still held out: and Sparta had probably not

yet sufficiently either recovered her strength or restored

internal tranquility, to venture on the proposed invasion.

Some rumours of this negotiation may have reached Athens, and

have quickened the energy with which Pericles now urged the

completion of the long walls. ... But among his opponents

there was a faction who viewed the progress of this great work

in a different light from Cimon, and saw in it, not the means

of securing the independence of Athens, but a bulwark of the

hated commonalty. They too would have gladly seen an invading

army in Attica, which might assist them in destroying the work

and its authors." This party was accused of sympathy with the

Spartan expedition which came to the help of Doris against the

Phocians in 457 B. C., and which defeated the Athenians at

Tanagra (See GREECE: B. C. 458-456). In 455, "the Spartans

were reminded that they were also liable to be attacked at

home. An Athenian armament of 50 galleys, and, if we may trust

Diadorus, with 4,000 heavy armed troops on board, sailed round

Peloponnesus under Tolmides, burnt the Spartan arsenal at

Gythium, took a town named Chalcis belonging to the

Corinthians, and defeated the Sicyonians, who attempted to

oppose the landing of the troops. But the most important

advantage gained in the expedition was the capture of

Naupactus, which belonged to the Ozolian Locrians, and now

fell into the hands of the Athenians at a very seasonable

juncture. The third Messenian war had just come to a close.

The brave defenders of Ithome had obtained honourable terms.

... The besieged were permitted to quit Peloponnesus with

their families, on condition of being detained in slavery if

they ever returned. Tolmides now settled the homeless

wanderers in Naupactus. ... But these successes were

counterbalanced by a reverse which befell the arms of Athens

this same year in another quarter. After the defeat of

Achæmens, Artaxerxes, disappointed in his hopes of assistance

from Sparta, ... raised a great army, which he placed under

the command of an abler general, Megabyzus, son of Zopyrus.

Megabyzus defeated the insurgents and their allies, and forced

the Greeks to evacuate Memphis, and to take refuge in an

island of the Nile, named Prosopitis, which contained a town

called Byblus, where he besieged them for 18 months. At length

he resorted to the contrivance of turning the stream. ... The

Greek galleys were all left aground, and were fired by the

Athenians themselves, that they might not fall into the

enemy's hands. The Persians then marched into the island over

the dry bed of the river: the Egyptians in dismay abandoned

their allies, who were overpowered by numbers and almost all

destroyed. ... Inarus himself was betrayed into the hands of

the Persians and put to death. ... Egypt ... was again reduced

under the Persian yoke, except a part of the Delta, where

another pretender, named Amyrtæus, who assumed the title of

king ... maintained himself for several years against the

power of the Persian monarchy. But the misfortune of the

Athenians did not end with the destruction of the great fleet

and army which had been first employed in the war. They had

sent a squadron of 50 galleys to the relief of their

countrymen, which, arriving before the news of the recent

disaster had reached them, entered the Mendesian branch of the

Nile. They were here surprised by a combined attack of the

Persian land force and a Phoenician fleet, and but few escaped

to bear the mournful tidings to Athens. Yet even after this

calamity we find the Athenians, not suing for peace, but bent

on extending their power, and annoying their enemies." Early

in 454 they sent an expedition into Thessaly, to restore a

ruler named Orestes, who had been driven out. "But the

superiority of the Thessalians in cavalry checked all their

operations in the field; they failed in an attempt upon

Pharsalus, and were at length forced to retire without having

accomplished any of their ends. It was perhaps to soothe the

public disappointment that Pericles shortly afterwards

embarked at Pegæ with 1,000 men, and, coasting the south side

of the Corinthian gulf made a descent on the territory of

Sicyon, and routed the Sicyon force sent to oppose his landing.

{160}

He then ... laid siege to the town of Œniadæ. ... This

attempt, however, proved unsuccessful; and the general result

of the campaign seems not to have been on the whole

advantageous or encouraging. ... It seems to have been not

long after the events which have been just related that Cimon

was recalled from his exile; and the decree for that purpose

was moved by Pericles himself;--a fact which seems to intimate

that some change had taken place in the relations or the

temper of parties at Athens. ... The three years next

following Cimon's return, as we have fixed its date [B. C. 454

or 453], passed, happily for his contemporaries, without

affording any matter for the historian; and this pause was

followed by a five years' truce [with Sparta], in the course

of which Cimon embarked in his last expedition, and died near

the scene of his ancient glory. The pretender Amyrtæus had

solicited succour from the Athenians. ... Cimon was appointed

to the command of a fleet of 200 galleys, with which he sailed

to Cyprus, and sent a squadron of 60 to the assistance of

Amyrtæus, while he himself with the rest laid siege to Citium.

Here he was carried off by illness, or the consequences of a

wound; and the armament was soon after compelled, by want of

provisions, to raise the siege. But Cymon's spirit still

animated his countrymen, who, when they had sailed away with

his remains, fell in with a great fleet of Phoenician and

Cilician galleys, near the Cyprian Salamis, and, having

completely defeated them, followed up their naval victory with

another which they gained on shore, either over the troops

which had landed from the enemy's ships, or over a land force

by which they were supported. After this they were joined by

the squadron which had been sent to Egypt, and which returned,

it would appear, without having achieved any material object,

and all sailed home (B. C. 449). In after-times Cimon's

military renown was enhanced by the report of a peace

[sometimes called the Peace of Cimon, and sometimes the Peace

of Callias], which his victories had compelled the Persian

king to conclude on terms most humiliating to the monarchy.

Within less than a century after his death it was, if not

commonly believed, confidently asserted, that by this treaty,

negotiated, as it was supposed, by Callias, son of Hipponicus,

the Persians had agreed to abandon at least the military

occupation of Asia Minor, to the distance of three days

journey on foot, or one on horseback, from the coast, or,

according to another account, the whole peninsula west of the

Halys, and to abstain from passing the mouth of the Bosphorus

and the Chelidonian islands, on the coast of Lycia, or the

town of Phaselis, into the Western Sea. The mere silence of

Thucydides on so important a transaction would be enough to

render the whole account extremely suspicious."

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

Mr. Grote accepts the Peace of Cimon as an historical fact;

Professor Curtius rejects it.

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 45 (volume 5).

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

ATHENS: B. C. 458-456.

War for Megara with Corinth and Ægina.

Victories of Myronides.

Siege and conquest of Ægina.

Collision with the Spartans in Bœotia.

Defeat at Tanagra.

Overthrow of the Thebans.

Recovered Ascendency.

See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

ATHENS: B. C. 449-445.

Hostile revolution in Bœotia.

Defeat at Coroneia.

Revolt of Eubœa and Megara.

The thirty years' truce.

Territorial losses.

Spartan recognition of the Delian Confederacy.

See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.

ATHENS: B. C. 445-431.

Supremacy of Pericles and the popular arts by which he

attained it.

The splendor of Athens and grandeur of the Athenian Empire

under his rule.

"The conclusion of peace left the Athenians to their

confederacy and their internal politics. ... After the death

of Cimon the oligarchical party at Athens had been led by

Thucydides, the son of Melesias, a man of high character and a

kinsman of Cimon. ... Hitherto the members had sat here or

there in the assembly as they pleased; now they were combined

into a single body, and sat in a special place. Such a

consolidation was doubtless needed if the party was to hold

its own against Pericles, who was rapidly carrying all before

him. For years past he had provided a subsistence for many of

the poorer citizens by means of his numerous colonies--no

fewer than 5,000 Athenians must have been sent out to the

'cleruchies' in the interval between 453 B. C. and 444 B. C.

The new system of juries [See DICASTERIA] had also been

established on the fall of the Areopagus, and the jurymen were

paid--a second source of income to the poor. Such measures

were beyond anything that the private liberality of

Cimon--splendid as it was--could achieve; and on Cimon's death

no other aristocrat came forward to aid his party with his

purse. Pericles did not stop here. Since the cessation of the

war with Persia there had been fewer drafts on the public

purse, and the contributions of the allies were accumulating

in the public treasury. A scrupulous man would have regarded

the surplus as the money of the allies. ... Pericles took

another view. He plainly told the Athenians that so long as

the city fulfilled the contract made with the allied cities,

and kept Persian vessels from their shores, the surplus was at

the disposal of Athens. Acting on this principle, he devoted a

part of it to the embellishment of the city. With the aid of

Pheidias, the sculptor, and Ictinus, the architect, a new

temple began to rise on the Acropolis in honour of Athena--the

celebrated Parthenon or 'Virgin's Chamber' [See PARTHENON].

... Other public buildings were also begun about this time.

Athens was in fact a vast workshop, in which employment was

found for a great number of citizens. Nor was this all. ...

For eight months of the year 60 ships were kept at sea with

crews on board, in order that there might be an ample supply

of practical seamen. ... Thus by direct or indirect means

Pericles made the state the paymaster of a vast number of

citizens, and the state was practically himself, with these

paid citizens at his back. At the same time the public

festivals of the city were enlarged and adorned with new

splendour. ... That all might attend the theatre in which the

plays were acted, Pericles provided that every citizen should

receive from the state a sum sufficient to pay the charge

demanded from the spectators by the lessee [See DIOBOLY]. We

may look on these measures as the arts of a demagogue. ... Or

we may say that Pericles was able to gratify his passion for

art at the expense of the Athenians and their allies.

{161}

Neither of these views is altogether untenable; and both are

far from including the whole truth. Pericles ... was, if we

please to say it, a demagogue and a connoisseur. But he was

something more. Looking at the whole evidence before us with

impartial eyes, we cannot refuse to acknowledge that he

cherished aspirations worthy of a great statesman. He

sincerely desired that every Athenian should owe to his city

the blessing of an education in all that was beautiful, and

the opportunity of a happy and useful life. ... The oligarchs

determined to pull down Pericles, if it were possible. ...

They proposed, in the winter of 445 B. C., that there should

be an ostracism in the city. The people agreed, and the usual

arrangements were made. But when the day came for decision, in

the spring of 444 B. C., the sentence fell, not on Pericles,

but on Thucydides. The sentence left no doubt about the

feeling of the Athenian people, and it was accepted as final.

Thucydides disappeared from Athens, and for the next fifteen

years Pericles was master of the city. ... While Athens was

active, organizing her confederacy and securing her

communication with the north, the Peloponnesians had allowed

the years to pass in apathy and inattention. At length they

awoke to a sense of the situation. It was clear that Athens

had abandoned all idea of war with Persia, and that the

confederacy of Delos was transformed into an Athenian empire,

of whose forces the great city was absolutely mistress. And

meanwhile in visible greatness Athens had become far the first

city in Greece."

E. Abbott, Pericles, chapters 10-11.

"A rapid glance will suffice to show the eminence which Athens

had attained over the other states of Greece. She was the head

of the Ionian League--the mistress of the Grecian seas; with

Sparta, the sole rival that could cope with her armies and

arrest her ambition, she had obtained a peace; Corinth was

Humbled--Ægina ruined--Megara had shrunk into her dependency

and garrison. The states of Bœotia had received their very

constitution from the hands of an Athenian general--the

democracies planted by Athens served to make liberty itself

subservient to her will, and involved in her safety. She had

remedied the sterility of her own soil by securing the rich

pastures of the neighbouring Eubœa. She had added the gold of

Thasos to the silver of Laurion, and established a footing in

Thessaly which was at once a fortress against the Asiatic arms

and a mart for Asiatic commerce. The fairest lands of the

opposite coast--the most powerful islands of the Grecian

seas--contributed to her treasury, or were almost legally

subjected to her revenge. ... In all Greece, Myronides was

perhaps the ablest general--Pericles ... was undoubtedly the

most highly educated, cautious and commanding statesman. ...

In actual possession of the tribute of her allies, Athens

acquired a new right to its collection and its management, and

while she devoted some of the treasures to the maintenance of

her strength, she began early to uphold the prerogative of

appropriating a part to the enhancement of her splendour. ...

It was now [about B. C. 444] resolved to make Athens also the

seat and centre of the judicial authority. The subject-allies

were compelled, if not on minor, at least on all important

cases, resort to Athenian courts of law for justice. And thus

Athens became, as it were, the metropolis of the allies. ...

Before the Persian war, and even scarcely before the time of

Cimon, Athens cannot be said to have eclipsed her neighbours

in the arts and sciences. She became the centre and capital of

the most polished communities of Greece, and she drew into a

focus all the Grecian intellect; she obtained from her

dependents the wealth to administer the arts, which universal

traffic and intercourse taught her to appreciate; and thus the

Odeon, and the Parthenon, and the Propylæa arose. During the

same administration, the fortifications were completed, and a

third wall, parallel and near to that uniting Piræus with

Athens, consummated the works of Themistocles and Cimon, and

preserved the communication between the two-fold city, even

should the outer walls fall into the hands of an enemy."

E. G. Bulwer-Lytton, Athens: Its Rise and Fall, book 4,

chapter 5, book 5, chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

W. W. Lloyd, The Age of Pericles,

Plutarch, Pericles.

ATHENS: B. C. 445-429.

The Age of Pericles: Art.

"The Greeks ... were industrious, commercial, sensitive to

physical and moral beauty, eager for discussion and

controversy; they were proud of their humanity, and happy in

the possession of their poets, their historians, their orators

and artists. It is singular, in the history of nations, to

meet with a people distinguished at once by mercantile

aptitude, and by an exquisite feeling and sympathy for works

of art; to see the vanity of wealth compatible with a nice

discernment for the true principles of taste; to behold a

nation, inconstant in ideas; inconceivably fickle in

prejudices, worshipping a man one day and proscribing him the

next, yet at the same time progressing with unheard-of

rapidity; within the space of a few years traversing all

systems of philosophy, all forms of government, laying the

foundations of all sciences, making war on all its neighbors,

yet, in the midst of this chaos of ideas, systems, and

passions, developing art steadily and with calm intelligence,

giving to it novelty, originality, and beauty, while

preserving it pure from the aberrations and caprices of what

we now call fashion. At the time of the battle of Salamis, 480

B. C., Athens had been destroyed, its territory ravaged, and

the Athenians had nothing left but their ships; yet so great

was the activity of this commercial but artistic people, that,

only twenty years afterwards, they had built the Parthenon."

E. E. Viollet-le-Duc, Discourses on Architecture, page 65.

ATHENS: B. C. 445-429.

The Age of Pericles: Domestic life.

The Athenian house.

"For any one coming from Asia it seemed as if in entering

Athens he was coming into an ant's nest. Possessing, at the

epoch of its greatest power, the three ports of Munychia,

Phalerum and the Piræus, it covered a district whose

circumference measured two hundred stadia (twenty-four miles).

But it was around the Acropolis that the houses were crowded

together and the population always in activity. There wagons

were passing to and fro, filled with merchandise from the

ports or conveying it thither. The streets and public places

in which people passed their lives presented a busy and noisy

scene. Strangers, who came to buy or to sell, were continually

entering or leaving the shops and places of manufacture, and

slaves were carrying messages or burdens.

{162}

Women as well as men were to be seen in the streets,

going to the markets, the public games and the meetings of

corporate bodies. From the earliest hours of the day large

numbers of peasants might be seen bringing in vegetables,

fruit and poultry, and crying their wares in the streets.

Houses of the higher class occupied the second zone; they

generally possessed a garden and sometimes outbuildings of

considerable extent. Around them were to be seen clients and

parasites, waiting for the hour when the master should make

his appearance; and whiling away the time discussing the news

of the day, repeating the rumours, true or false, that were

current in the city; getting the slaves to talk, and laughing

among themselves at the strangers that happened to be passing,

or addressing them with a view to make fun of their accent,

garb or dress. The house of Chremylus, recently built in that

second zone, was a subject of remark for all the idlers.

Chremylus, who had lately become wealthy by means of commerce,

and of certain transactions of more or less creditable

character in the colonies, was an object of envy and criticism

to most people, and of admiration for some who did justice to

his intelligence and energy. He enjoyed a certain degree of

influence in the public assemblies--thanks to his liberality;

while he took care to secure the good graces of the archons

and to enrich the temples."

[Image]

Plan Of Athenian House.

"We have [in the accompanying figure] the ground-plan of the

residence of this Athenian citizen. The entrance x opens on

the public road. The site is bounded on either side by narrow

streets. This entrance x opens on the court O, which is

surrounded by porticos. At A is the porter's lodge, and at B

the rooms for the slaves, with kitchen at C and latrines at a.

From this first court: in the centre of which is a small

fountain with a basin which receives the rain water, the

passage D leads into the inner court E; which is larger and is

likewise surrounded by porticos. At G is the reception room,

at H the strong room for valuables, and at S the private

altar. At F is a large storeroom containing provisions and

wine; and at I the small dining room (triclinium); the

cooking-room for the family being at J with latrines at b. The

large triclinium is at K. The passage m admits to the

gynæceum, containing the bedrooms P along the portico M, a

common room for the women, with its small enclosed garden, and

closets at e. The quarters for visitors are entered by the

passage t, and consist of bedrooms V, a portico T, a small

garden and closets f. At d is an opening into the lane for the

servants, when required. The gardens extend in the direction

Z. This house is situated on the slopes of the hill which to

the south-west looks towards the Acropolis; thus it is

sheltered from the violent winds which sometimes blow from

this quarter. From the large dining-hall and from the terrace

L, which adjoins it, there is a charming prospect; for, above

the trees of the garden is seen the city overlooked by the

Acropolis, and towards the left the hill of the Areopagus.

From this terrace L there is a descent to the garden by about

twelve steps. The position was chosen with a view to

protection against the sun's heat and the troublesome winds.

From the portico of the gynæceum are seen the hills extending

towards the north, covered with houses surrounded by

olive-trees; and in the background Mount Pentelicus. ... In

the dwelling of Chremylus the various departments were

arranged at the proprietor's discretion, and the architect

only conformed to his instructions. Thus the front part of the

house is assigned to the external relations of the owner. In

this court O assemble the agents or factors who come to give

an account of the commissions they have executed, or to

receive orders. If the master wishes to speak to any of them,

he takes him into his reception room; his bedchamber being at

R, he can easily repair to that reception-room or to the

gynæceum reserved for the women and younger children. If he

entertains friends, they have their separate apartments, which

are shut off, not being in communication with the first court

except through the passage t. All that part of the habitation

which is beyond the wide entrance-hall D is consecrated to

domestic life; and only the intimate friends of the family are

admitted into the second court; for example, if they are

invited to a banquet,--which is held in the great hall K. The

master usually takes his meals with his wife and one or two

members of his family who live in the house, in the smaller

room I, the couches of which will hold six persons; whereas

fifteen guests can be accommodated on the couches of the great

hall K. Chremylus has spared nothing to render his house one

of the most sumptuous in the city. The columns of Pentelican

marble support architraves of wood, surmounted by friezes and

cornices overlaid with stucco and ornamented with delicate

painting. Everywhere the walls are coated with fine smooth

plaster, adorned with paintings; and the ceilings are of

timber artistically wrought and coloured."

E. Viollet-le-Duc, The Habitations of Man in all Ages,

chapter 17.

{163}

ATHENS: B. C. 445-429.

The Age of Pericles: Law and its Administration.

Contrast with the Romans.

"It is remarkable ... that the 'equality' of laws on which the

Greek democracies prided themselves--that equality which, in

the beautiful drinking song of Callistratus, Harmodius and

Aristogiton are said to have given to Athens--had little in

common with the 'equity' of the Romans. The first was an equal

administration of civil laws among the citizens, however

limited the class of citizens might be; the last implied the

applicability of a law, which was not civil law, to a class

which did not necessarily consist of citizens. The first

excluded a despot; the last included foreigners, and for some

purposes slaves. ... There are two special dangers to which

law, and society which is held together by law, appear to be

liable in their infancy. One of them is that law may be too

rapidly developed. This occurred with the codes of the more

progressive Greek communities, which disembarrassed themselves

with astonishing facility from cumbrous forms of procedure and

needless terms of art, and soon ceased to attach any

superstitious value to rigid rules and prescriptions. It was

not for the ultimate advantage of mankind that they did so,

though the immediate benefit conferred on their citizens may

have been considerable. One of the rarest qualities of

national character is the capacity for applying and working

out the law, as such, at the cost of constant miscarriages of

abstract justice, without at the same time losing the hope or

the wish that law may be conformed to a higher ideal. The

Greek intellect, with all its nobility and elasticity, was

quite unable to confine itself within the strait waistcoat of

a legal formula; and, if we may judge them by the popular

courts of Athens, of whose working we possess accurate

knowledge, the Greek tribunals exhibited the strongest

tendency to confound law and fact. The remains of the Orators

and the forensic commonplaces preserved by Aristotle in his

Treatise on Rhetoric, show that questions of pure law were

constantly argued on every consideration which could possibly

influence the mind of the judges. No durable system of

jurisprudence could be produced in this way. A community which

never hesitated to relax rules of written law whenever they

stood in the way of an ideally perfect decision on the facts

of particular cases, would only, if it bequeathed any body of

judicial principles to posterity, bequeath one consisting of

the ideas of right and wrong which happened to be prevalent at

the time. Such jurisprudence would contain no framework to

which the more advanced conceptions of subsequent ages could

be fitted. It would amount at best to a philosophy, marked

with the imperfections of the civilisation under which it grew

up. ... The other liability to which the infancy of society is

exposed has prevented or arrested the progress of far the

greater part of mankind. The rigidity of primitive law,

arising chiefly from its earlier association and

identification with religion, has chained down the mass of the

human race to those views of life and conduct which they

entertained at the time when their usages were first

consolidated into a systematic form. There were one or two

races exempted by a marvellous fate from this calamity, and

grafts from these stocks have fertilised a few modern

societies; but it is still true that, over the larger part of

the world, the perfection of law has always been considered as

consisting in adherence to the ground plan supposed to have

been marked out by the original legislator. If intellect has

in such cases been exercised on jurisprudence, it has

uniformly prided itself on the subtle perversity of the

conclusions it could build on ancient texts without

discoverable departure from their literal tenour. I know no

reason why the law of the Romans should be superior to the

laws of the Hindoos, unless the theory of Natural Law had

given it a type of excellence different from the usual one."

H. S. Maine, Ancient Law, ch, 3-4.

"But both the Greek and the English trial by jury were at one

time the great political safeguard against state oppression

and injustice; and, owing to this origin, free nations become

so attached to it that they are blind to its defects. And just

as Ireland would now benefit beyond conception by the

abolition of the jury system, so the secured Athenian (or any

other) democracy would have thriven better had its laws been

administered by courts of skilled judges. For these large

bodies of average citizens, who, by the way, were not like our

jurymen, unwilling occupants of the jury-box, but who made it

a paid business and an amusement, did not regard the letter of

the law. They allowed actions barred by the reasonable limits

of time; they allowed arguments totally beside the question,

though this too was illegal, for there was no competent judge

to draw the line; they allowed hearsay evidence, though that

too was against the law; indeed the evidence produced in most

of the speeches is of the loosest and poorest kind. Worse than

all, there were no proper records kept of their decisions, and

witnesses were called in to swear what had been the past

decisions of a jury sitting in the same city, and under the

same procedure. This is the more remarkable, as there were

state archives, in which the decrees of the popular assembly

were kept. ... There is a most extraordinary speech of Lysias

against a man called Nichomachus, who was appointed to

transcribe the laws of Solon in four months, but who kept them

in his possession for six years, and is accused of having so

falsified them as to have substituted himself for Solon. Hence

there can have been no recognized duplicate extant, or such a

thing could not be attempted. So again, in the Trapeziticus of

Isocrates, it is mentioned as a well known fact, that a

certain Pythodorus was convicted of tampering with state

documents, signed and sealed by the magistrates, and deposited

in the Acropolis. All these things meet us in every turn in

the court speeches of the Attic orators. We are amazed at

seeing relationships proved in will cases by a man coming in

and swearing that such a man's father had told him that his

brother was married to such a woman, of such a house. We find

the most libellous charges brought against opponents on

matters totally beside the question at issue, and even formal

evidence of general bad character admitted. We find some

speakers in consequence treating the jury with a sort of

mingled deference and contempt which is amusing. 'On the

former trial of this case,' they say, 'my opponent managed to

tell you many well devised lies; of course you were deceived,

how could it be otherwise, and you made a false decision;' or

else, 'You were so puzzled that you got at variance with one

another, you voted at sixes and sevens, and by a small

majority you came to an absurd decision.'

{164}

'But I think you know well,' says Isocrates,

'that the city has often repented so bitterly ere this for

decisions made in passion and without evidence, as to desire

after no long interval to punish those who misled it, and to

wish those who had been calumniated were more than restored to

their former prosperity. Keeping these facts before you, you

ought not to be hasty in believing the prosecutors, nor to

hear the defendants with interruption and ill temper. For it

is a shame to have the character of being the gentlest and

most humane of the Greeks in other respects, and yet to act

contrary to this reputation in the trials which take place

here. It is a shame that in other cities, when a human life is

at stake, a considerable majority of votes is required for

conviction, but that among you those in danger do not even get

an equal chance with their false accusers. You swear indeed

once a year that you will attend to both plaintiff and

defendant, but in the interval only keep your oath so far as

to accept whatever the accusers say, but you sometimes will

not let those who are trying to refute them utter even a

single word. You think those cities uninhabitable, in which

citizens are executed without trial, and forget that those who

do not give both sides a fair hearing are doing the very same

thing.'"

J. P. Mahaffy, Social Life in Greece, chapter 13.

ATHENS: B. C. 445-429.

The Age of Pericles: Political life.

The democracy.

"The real life of Athens lasted at the most for 200 years: and

yet there are moments in which all that we have won by the

toils of so many generations seems as if it would be felt to

be but a small thing beside a single hour of Periklês. The

Democracy of Athens was in truth the noblest fruit of that

self-developing power of the Greek mind which worked every

possession of the common heritage into some new and more

brilliant shape, but which learned nothing, nothing of all

that formed its real life and its real glory, from the

Barbarians of the outer world. Men tell us that Greece learned

this or that mechanical invention from Phœnicia or Egypt or

Assyria. Be it so; but stand in the Pnyx; listen to the

contending orators; listen to the ambassadors of distant

cities; listen to each side as it is fairly hearkened to, and

see the matter in hand decided by the peaceful vote of

thousands--here at least of a truth is something which Athens

did not learn from any Assyrian despot or from any Egyptian

priest. And we, children of the common stock, sharers in the

common heritage, as we see man, Aryan man, in the full growth

of his noblest type, we may feel a thrill as we think that

Kleisthenês and Periklês were, after all, men of our own

blood--as we think that the institutions which grew up under

their hands and the institutions under which we ourselves are

living are alike branches sprung from one stock, portions of

one inheritance in which Athens and England have an equal

right. In the Athenian Democracy we see a popular constitution

taking the form which was natural for such a constitution to

take when it was able to run its natural course in a

common-wealth which consisted only of a single city. Wherever

the Assembly really remains, in truth as well as in name, an

Assembly of the whole people in their own persons, it must in

its own nature be sovereign. It must, in the nature of things,

delegate more or less of power to magistrates and generals;

but such power will be simply delegated. Their authority will

be a mere trust from the sovereign body, and to that sovereign

body they will be responsible for its exercise. That is to

say, one of the original elements of the State, the King or

chief, now represented by the elective magistracy, will lose

its independent powers, and will sink into a body who have

only to carry out the will of the sovereign Assembly. So with

another of the original elements, the Council. This body too

loses its independent being; it has no ruling or checking

power; it becomes a mere Committee of the Assembly, chosen or

appointed by lot to put measures into shape for more easy

discussion in the sovereign body. As society becomes more

advanced and complicated, the judicial power can no longer be

exercised by the Assembly itself, while it would be against

every democratic instinct to leave it in the arbitrary power

of individual magistrates. Other Committees of the Assembly,

Juries on a gigantic scale, with a presiding magistrate as

chairman rather than as Judge, are therefore set apart to

decide causes and to sit in judgment on offenders. Such is

pure Democracy, the government of the whole people and not of

a part of it only, as carried out in its full perfection in a

single city. It is a form of government which works up the

faculties of man to a higher pitch than any other; it is the

form of government which gives the freest scope to the inborn

genius of the whole community and of every member of it. Its

weak point is that it works up the faculties of man to a pitch

so high that it can hardly be lasting, that its ordinary life

needs an enthusiasm, a devotion too highly strung to be likely

to live through many generations. Athens in the days of her

glory, the Athens of Periklês, was truly 'the roof and crown

of things;' her democracy raised a greater number of human

beings to a higher level than any government before or since;

it gave freer play than any government before or since to the

personal gifts of the foremost of mankind. But against the few

years of Athenian glory we must set the long ages of Athenian

decline. Against the city where Periklês was General we must

set the city where Hadrian was Archon. On the Assemblies of

other Grecian cities it is hardly needful to dwell. Our

knowledge of their practical working is slight. We have one

picture of a debate in the popular Assembly of Sparta, an

Assembly none the less popular in its internal constitution

because it was the assembly of what, as regarded the excluded

classes of the State, was a narrow oligarchy. We see that

there, as might be looked for, the chiefs of the State, the

Kings, and yet more the Ephors, spoke with a degree of

official, as distinguished from personal, authority which fell

to the lot of no man in the Assembly of Athens. Periklês

reigned supreme, not because he was one of Ten Generals, but

because he was Periklês. ... In the Ekklêsia which listened to

Periklês and Dêmosthenes we feel almost as much at home as in

an institution of our own land and our own times. At least we

ought to feel at home there; for we have the full materials

for calling up the political life of Athens in all its

fullness, and within our own times one of the greatest minds

of our own or of any age has given its full strength to clear

away the mists of error and calumny which so long shrouded the

parent state of justice and freedom.

{165}

Among the contemporaries and countrymen of Mr. Grote it is

shame indeed if men fail to see in the great Democracy the

first state which taught mankind that the voice of persuasion

could be stronger than a despot's will, the first which taught

that disputes could be settled by a free debate and a free

vote which in other lands could have been decided only by the

banishment or massacre of the weaker side. ... It must be

constantly borne in mind that the true difference between an

aristocratic and a democratic government, as those words were

understood in the politics of old Greece, lies in this. In the

Democracy all citizens, all who enjoy civil rights, enjoy also

political rights. In the aristocracy political rights belong

to only a part of those who enjoy civil rights. But, in either

case, the highest authority of the State is the general

Assembly of the whole ruling body, whether that ruling body be

the whole people or only a part of it. ... The slaves and

strangers who were shut out at Athens were, according to Greek

ideas, no Athenians; but every Athenian had his place in the

sovereign assembly of Athens, while every Corinthian had not

his place in the sovereign assembly of Corinth. But the

aristocratic and the democratic commonwealth both agreed in

placing the final authority of the State in the general

Assembly of all who enjoy the highest franchise. ... The

people, of its own will, placed at its head men of the same

class as those who in the earlier state of things had ruled it

against its will. Periklês, Nikias, Alkibiadês, were men

widely differing in character, widely differing in their

relations to the popular government. But all alike were men of

ancient birth, who, as men of ancient birth, found their way,

almost as a matter of course, to those high places of the

State to which Kleôn found his way only by a strange freak of

fortune. At Rome we find quite another story. There, no less

than at Athens, the moral influence of nobility survived its

legal privileges; but, more than this, the legal privileges of

the elder nobility were never wholly swept away, and the

inherent feeling of respect for illustrious birth called into

being a younger nobility by its side. At Athens one stage of

reform placed a distinction of wealth instead of a distinction

of birth: another stage swept away the distinction of wealth

also. But the reform, at each of its stages, was general; it

affected all offices alike, save those sacred offices which

still remained the special heritage of certain sacred

families. ... In an aristocratic commonwealth there is no room

for Periklês; there is no room for the people that hearkened

to Periklês; but in men of the second order, skilful

conservative administrators, men able to work the system which

they find established, no form of government is so fertile.

... But everywhere we learn the same lesson, the inconsistency

of commonwealths which boast themselves of their own freedom

and exalt themselves at the cost of the freedom of others."

E. A. Freeman, Comparative Politics, lecture 5-6.

"Dêmos was himself King, Minister, and Parliament. He had his

smaller officials to carry out the necessary details of public

business, but he was most undoubtedly his own First Lord of

the Treasury, his own Foreign Secretary, his own Secretary for

the Colonies. He himself kept up a personal correspondence

both with foreign potentates and with his own officers on

foreign service; the 'despatches' of Nikias and the 'notes' of

Philip were alike addressed to no officer short of the

sovereign himself; he gave personal audience to the

ambassadors of other states, and clothed his own with just so

great or so small a share as he deemed good of his own

boundless authority. He had no need to entrust the care of his

thousand dependencies to the mysterious working of a Foreign

Office; he himself sat in judgment upon Mitylenaian rebels; he

himself settled the allotment of lands at Chalkis or

Amphipolis; he decreed by his own wisdom what duties should be

levied at the Sound of Byzantion; he even ventured on a task

of which two-and-twenty ages have not lessened the difficulty,

and undertook, without the help of a Lord High Commissioner,

to adjust the relations and compose the seditions even of

Korkyra and Zakynthos. He was his own Lord High Chancellor,

his own Lord Primate, his own Commander-in-Chief. He listened

to the arguments of Kleôn on behalf of a measure, and to the

arguments of Nikias against it, and he ended by bidding Nikias

to go and carry out the proposal which he had denounced as

extravagant or unjust. He listened with approval to his own

'explanations;' he passed votes of confidence in his own

policy; he advised himself to give his own royal assent to the

bills which he had himself passed, without the form of a

second or third reading, or the vain ceremony of moving that

the Prytaneis do leave their chairs. ... We suspect that the

average Athenian citizen was, in political intelligence, above

the average English Member of Parliament. It was this

concentration of all power in an aggregate of which every

citizen formed a part, which is the distinguishing

characteristic of true Greek democracy. Florence had nothing

like it; there has been nothing like it in the modern world:

the few pure democracies which have lingered on to our own day

have never had such mighty questions laid before them, and

have never had such statesmen and orators to lead them. The

great Democracy has had no fellow; but the political lessons

which it teaches are none the less lessons for all time and

for every land and people."

E. A. Freeman, Historical Essays (volume 2): The Athenian

Democracy.

"The individual freedom which was enjoyed at Athens and which

is extolled by Pericles was plainly an exception to the common

usage of Greece, and is so regarded in the Funeral Speech. The

word 'freedom,' it should be remembered, bore an ambiguous

meaning. It denoted on the one hand political

independence,--the exercise of sovereign power by the State

and of political rights by the citizens. In this sense every

Greek citizen could claim it as his birthright. Even the

Spartans could tell the Persian Hydarnes that he had not, like

them, tasted of freedom, and did not know whether it was sweet

or not. But the word also denoted personal and social

liberty,--freedom from the excessive restraints of law, the

absence of a tyrannous public opinion and of intolerance

between man and man. Pericles claims for Athens 'freedom' in

this double sense. But freedom so far as it implies the

absence of legal interference in the private concerns of life

was but little known except at Athens."

S. H. Butcher, Some Aspects of Greek Genius,

pages 70-71.

{166}

"To Athens ... we look ... for an answer to the question, What

does history teach in regard to the virtue of a purely

democratic government? And here we may safely say that, under

favourable circumstances, there is no form of government

which, while it lasts, has such a virtue to give scope to a

vigorous growth and luxuriant fruitage of various manhood as a

pure democracy. ... But it does not follow that, though in

this regard it has not been surpassed by any other form of

government, it is therefore absolutely the best of all forms

of government. ... Neither, on the other hand, does it follow

from the shortness of the bright reign of Athenian

democracy--not more than 200 years from Clisthenes to the

Macedonians--that all democracies are short-lived, and must

pay, like dissipated young gentlemen, with premature decay for

the feverish abuse of their vital force. Possible no doubt it

is, that if the power of what we may call a sort of Athenian

Second Chamber, the Areiopagus, instead of being weakened as

it was by Aristides and Pericles, had been built up according

to the idea of Æschylus and the intelligent aristocrats of his

day, such a body, armed, like our House of Lords, with an

effective negative on all outbursts of popular rashness, might

have prevented the ambition of the Athenians from launching on

that famous Syracusan expedition which exhausted their force

and maimed their action for the future. But the lesson taught

by the short-lived glory of Athens, and its subjugation under

the rough foot of the astute Macedonian, is not that

democracies, under the influence of faction, and, it may be,

not free from venality, will sell their liberties to a strong

neighbour--for aristocratic Poland did this in a much more

blushless way than democratic Greece--but that any loose

aggregate of independent States, given more to quarrel amongst

themselves than to unite against a common enemy, whether

democratic, or aristocratic, or monarchical in their form of

government, cannot in the long run maintain their ground

against the firm policy and the well-massed force of a strong

monarchy. Athens was blotted out from the map of free peoples

at Chæronea, not because the Athenian people had too much

freedom, but because the Greek States had too little unity.

They were used by Philip exactly in the same way that Napoleon

used the German States at the commencement of the present

century."

J. S. Blackie, What does History Teach? pages 28-31.

"In Herodotus you have the beginning of the age of discussion.

... The discourses on democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy,

which he puts into the mouth of the Persian conspirators when

the monarchy was vacant, have justly been called absurd, as

speeches supposed to have been spoken by those persons. No

Asiatic ever thought of such things. You might as well imagine

Saul or David speaking them as those to whom Herodotus

attributes them. They are Greek speeches, full of free Greek

discussions, and suggested by the experience, already

considerable, of the Greeks in the results of discussion. The

age of debate is beginning, and even Herodotus, the least of a

wrangler of any man, and the most of a sweet and simple

narrator, felt the effect. When we come to Thucydides, the

results of discussion are as full as they have ever been; his

light is pure, 'dry light,' free from the 'humours' of habit,

and purged from consecrated usage. As Grote's history often

reads like a report to Parliament, so half Thucydides reads

like a speech, or materials for a speech, in the Athenian

Assembly."

W. Bagehot, Physics and Politics, pages 170-171.

ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.

New settlements of Klerouchoi.

The founding of Amphipolis.--

Revolt and subjugation of Samos.

"The great aim of Perikles was to strengthen the power of

Athens over the whole area occupied by her confederacy. The

establishment of settlers or Klerouchoi [see KLERUCHS]. who

retained their rights as Athenian citizens, had answered so

well in the Lelantian plain of Euboia that it was obviously

good policy to extend the system. The territory of Hestiaia in

the north of Euboia and the islands of Lemnos, Imbros, and

Skyros, were thus occupied; and Perikles himself led a body of

settlers to the Thrakian Chersonesos where he repaired the old

wall at the neck of the peninsula, and even to Sinope which

now became a member of the Athenian alliance. A generation had

passed from the time when Athens lost 10,000 citizens in the

attempt to found a colony at the mouth of the Strymon. The

task was now undertaken successfully by Hagnon, and the city

came into existence which was to be the cause of disaster to

the historian Thucydides and to witness the death of Brasidas

and of Kleon [see AMPHIPOLIS]. ... Two years before the

founding of Amphipolis, Samos revolted from Athens. ... In

this revolt of Samos the overt action comes from the oligarchs

who had seized upon the Ionian town of Priene, and defeated

the Milesians who opposed them. The latter appealed to the

Athenians, and received not only their aid but that of the

Samian demos. The latter now became the ruling body in the

island, fifty men and fifty boys being taken from the

oligarchic families and placed as hostages in Lemnos, which,

as we have seen, was now wholly occupied by Athenian

Klerouchoi. But the Samian exiles (for many had fled rather

than live under a democracy) entered into covenant with

Pissouthnes, the Sardian satrap, crossed over to Samos and

seized the chief men of the demos, then falling on Lemnos

succeeded in stealing away the hostages; and, having handed

over to Pissouthnes the Athenian garrison at Samos, made ready

for an expedition against Miletos. The tidings that Byzantion

had joined in this last revolt left to the Athenians no room

to doubt the gravity of the crisis. A fleet of sixty ships was

dispatched to Samos under Perikles and nine other generals, of

whom the poet Sophokles is said to have been one. Of these

ships sixteen were sent, some to gather the allies, others to

watch for the Phenician fleet which they believed to be off

the Karian coast advancing to the aid of the Samian oligarchs.

With the remainder Perikles did not hesitate to engage the

Samian fleet of seventy ships which he encountered on its

return from Miletos off the island of Tragia. The Athenians

gained the day; and Samos was blockaded by land and sea. But

no sooner had Perikles sailed with sixty ships to meet the

Phenician fleet, than the Samians, making a vigorous sally,

broke the lines of the besiegers and for fourteen days

remained masters of the sea.

{167}

The return of Perikles changed the face of things. Soon after

the resumption of the siege the arrival of sixty fresh ships

from Athens under five Strategoi in two detachments, with

thirty from Chios and Lesbos, damped the energy of the Samian

oligarchs; and an unsuccessful effort at sea was followed by

their submission in the ninth month after the beginning of the

revolt, the terms being that they should raze their walls,

give hostages, surrender their ships, and pay the expenses of

the war. Following their example, the Byzantines also made

their peace with Athens. The Phenician fleet never came. ...

The Athenians escaped at the same time a far greater danger

nearer home. The Samians, like the men of Thasos, had applied

for aid to the Spartans, who, no longer pressed by the Helot

war, summoned a congress of their allies to discuss the

question. For the truce which had still five-and-twenty years

to run Sparta cared nothing: but she encountered an opposition

from the Corinthians which perhaps she now scarcely expected.

... The Spartans were compelled to give way; and there can be

no doubt that when some years later the Corinthians claimed

the gratitude of the Athenians for this decision, they took

credit for an act of good service singularly opportune. Had

they voted as Sparta wished, Athens might by the extension of

revolt amongst her allied cities have been reduced now to the

condition to which, in consequence perhaps of this respite,

she was not brought until the lifetime of a generation had

been spent in desperate warfare."

G. W. Cox, History of Greece, book 3, chapter 1 (volume 2).

ATHENS: B. C. 431.

Beginning of the Peloponnesian War.

Its Causes.

"In B. C. 431 the war broke out between Athens and the

Peloponnesian League, which, after twenty-seven years, ended

in the ruin of the Athenian empire. It began through a quarrel

between Corinth and Kerkyra, in which Athens assisted Kerkyra.

A congress was held at Sparta; Corinth and other States

complained of the conduct of Athens, and war was decided on.

The real cause of the war was that Sparta and its allies were

jealous of the great power that Athens had gained [see GREECE:

B. C. 435-132 and 432-431]. A far greater number of Greek

States were engaged in this war than had ever been engaged in

a single undertaking before. States that had taken no part in

the Persian war were now fighting on one side or the other.

Sparta was an oligarchy, and the friend of the nobles

everywhere; Athens was a democracy, and the friend of the

common people; so that the war was to some extent a struggle

between these classes all over Greece, and often within the

same city walls the nobles and the people attacked one

another, the nobles being for Sparta and the people for

Athens. On the side of Sparta, when the war began, there was

all Peloponnesus except Argos and Achæa, and also the

oligarchical Bœotian League under Thebes besides Phokis,

Lokris, and other States west of them. They were very strong

by land, but the Corinthians alone had a good fleet. Later on

we shall see the powerful State of Syracuse with its navy,

acting with Sparta. On the side of Athens there were almost

all the Ægæan islands, and a great number of the Ægæan coast

towns as well as Kerkyra and certain States in the west of

Greece. The Athenians had also made alliance with Sitalkes,

the barbarian king of the interior of Thrace. Athens was far

stronger by sea than Sparta, but had not such a strong land

army. On the other hand it had a large treasure, and a system

of taxes, while the Spartan League had little or no money."

C. A. Fyffe, History of Greece (History Primers), page 84.

The Ionian cities, called "allies" of Athens, were subjects in

reality, and held in subjection by tyrannical measures which

made the yoke odious, as is plainly explained by Xenophon, who

says: "Some person might say, that it is a great support to

the Athenians that their allies should be in a condition to

contribute money to them. To the plebeians, however, it seems

to be of much greater advantage that every individual of the

Athenians should get some of the property of the allies, and

that the allies themselves should have only so much as to

enable them to live and to till the ground, so that they may

not be in a condition to form conspiracies. The people of

Athens seem also to have acted injudiciously in this respect,

that they oblige their allies to make voyages to Athens for

the decision of their lawsuits. But the Athenians consider

only, on the other hand, what benefits to the state of Athens

are attendant on this practice; in the first place they

receive their dues throughout the year from the prytaneia; in

the next place, they manage the government of the allied

states while sitting at home, and without sending out ships;

they also support suitors of the lower orders, and ruin those

of an opposite character in their courts of law; but if each

state had its own courts, they would, as being hostile to the

Athenians, be the ruin of those who were most favourable to

the people of Athens. In addition to these advantages, the

Athenian people have the following profits from the courts of

justice for the allies being at Athens; first of all the duty

of the hundredth on what is landed at the Peiræeus affords a

greater revenue to the city; next, whoever has a lodging-house

makes more money by it, as well as whoever has cattle or

slaves for hire; and the heralds, too, are benefited by the

visits of the allies to the city. Besides, if the allies did

not come to Athens for law, they would honour only such of the

Athenians as were sent over the sea to them, as generals, and

captains of vessels, and ambassadors; but now every individual

of the allies is obliged to flatter the people of Athens,

knowing that on going to Athens he must gain or lose his cause

according to the decision, not of other judges, but of the

people, as is the law of Athens; and he is compelled, too, to

use supplication before the court, and, as anyone of the

people enters, to take him by the hand. By these means the

allies are in consequence rendered much more the slaves of the

Athenian people."

Xenophon, On the Athenian Government (Minor Works,

translated by Reverend J. S. Watson), page 235.

The revolt of these coerced and hostile "allies," upon the

outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, was inevitable.--The

prominent events of the Peloponnesian war, in which most of

the Greek States were involved, are properly narrated in their

connection with Greek history at large (see GREECE: B. C.

431-429, and after). In this place it will only be necessary

to take account of the consequences of the war as they

affected the remarkable city and people whose superiority had

occasioned it by challenging and somewhat offensively

provoking the jealousy of their neighbors.

{168}

ATHENS: B. C. 431.

Peloponnesian invasions of Attica.

Siege of Athens.

"While the Peloponnesians were gathering at the Isthmus, and

were still on their way, but before they entered Attica,

Pericles, the son of Xanthippus, who was one of the ten

Athenian generals, ... repeated [to the Athenians] his

previous advice; they must prepare for war and bring their

property from the country into the city; they must defend

their walls but not go out to battle; they should also equip

for service the fleet in which lay their strength. ... The

citizens were persuaded, and brought into the city their

children and wives, their household goods, and even the

wood-work of their houses, which they took down. Their flocks

and beasts of burden they conveyed to Euboea and the adjacent

islands. The removal of the inhabitants was painful; for the

Athenians had always been accustomed to reside in the country.

Such a life had been characteristic of them more than of any

other Hellenic people, from very early times. ... When they

came to Athens, only a few of them had houses or could find

homes among friends or kindred. The majority took up their

abode in the vacant spaces of the city, and in the temples and

shrines of heroes. ... Many also established themselves in the

turrets of the walls, or in any other place which they could

find; for the city could not contain them when they first came

in. But afterwards they divided among them the Long Walls and

the greater part of the Piraeus. At the same time the

Athenians applied themselves vigorously to the war, summoning

their allies, and preparing an expedition of 100 ships against

the Peloponnese. While they were thus engaged, the

Peloponnesian army was advancing: it arrived first of all at

Oenoe," where Archidamus, the Spartan king, wasted much time

in a fruitless siege and assault. "At last they marched on,

and about the eightieth day after the entry of the Thebans

into Plataea, in the middle of the summer, when the corn was

in full ear, invaded Attica: ... They encamped and ravaged,

first of all, Eleusis and the plain of Thria. ... At Acharnae

they encamped, and remained there a considerable time,

ravaging the country." It was the expectation of Archidamus

that the Athenians would be provoked to come out and meet him

in the open field; and that, indeed, they were eager to do;

but the prudence of their great leader held them back. "The

people were furious with Pericles, and, forgetting all his

previous warnings, they abused him for not leading them to

battle." But he was vindicated by the result. "The

Peloponnesians remained in Attica as long as their provisions

lasted, and then, taking a new route, retired through Boeotia.

... On their return to Peloponnesus the troops dispersed to

their several cities." Meantime the Athenian and allied fleets

were ravaging the Peloponnesian coast. "In the same summer [B.

C. 431] the Athenians expelled the Aeginetans and their

families from Aegina, alleging that they had been the main

cause of the war. ... The Lacedaemonians gave the Aeginetan

exiles the town of Thyrea to occupy and the adjoining country

to cultivate. ... About the end of the summer the entire

Athenian force, including the metics, invaded the territory of

Megara. ... After ravaging the greater part of the country

they retired. They repeated the invasion, sometimes with

cavalry, sometimes with the whole Athenian army, every year

during the war until Nisaea was taken [B. C. 424]."

Thucydides, History; translated by B. Jowett,

book 2; section 13-31 (volume 1).

ATHENS: B. C. 430.

The funeral oration of Pericles.

During the winter of the year B. C. 431-430, "in accordance

with an old national custom, the funeral of those who first

fell in this war was celebrated by the Athenians at the public

charge. The ceremony is as follows: Three days before the

celebration they erect a tent in which the bones of the dead

are laid out, and everyone brings to his own dead any offering

which he pleases. At the time of the funeral the bones are

placed in chests of cypress wood, which are conveyed on

hearses; there is one chest for each tribe. They also carry a

single empty litter decked with a pall for all whose bodies

are missing, and cannot be recovered after the battle. The

procession is accompanied by anyone who chooses, whether

citizen or stranger, and the female relatives of the deceased

are present at the place of interment and make lamentation.

The public sepulchre is situated in the most beautiful spot

outside the walls; there they always bury those who fall in

war; only after the battle of Marathon the dead, in

recognition of their pre-eminent valour, were interred on the

field. When the remains have been laid in the earth, some man

of known ability and high reputation, chosen by the city,

delivers a suitable oration over them; after which the people

depart. Such is the manner of interment; and the ceremony was

repeated from time to time throughout the war. Over those who

were the first buried Pericles was chosen to speak. At the

fitting moment he advanced from the sepulchre to a lofty

stage, which had been erected in order that he might be heard

as far as possible by the multitude, and spoke as

follows:

'Most of those who have spoken here before me have

commended the lawgiver who added this oration to our other

funeral customs; it seemed to them a worthy thing that such

an honour should be given at their burial to the dead who

have fallen on the field of battle. But I should have

preferred that, when men's deeds have been brave, they

should be honoured in deed only, and with such an honour as

this public funeral, which you are now witnessing. Then the

reputation of many would not have been imperilled on the

eloquence or want of eloquence of one, and their virtues

believed or not as he spoke well or ill. For it is

difficult to say neither too little nor too much; and even

moderation is apt not to give the impression of

truthfulness. The friend of the dead who knows the facts is

likely to think that the words of the speaker fall short of

his knowledge and of his wishes; another who is not so well

informed, when he hears of anything which surpasses his own

powers, will be envious and will suspect exaggeration.

Mankind are tolerant of the praises of others so long as

each hearer thinks that he can do as well or nearly as well

himself, but, when the speaker rises above him, jealousy is

aroused and he begins to be incredulous. However, since our

ancestors have set the seal of their approval upon the practice,

I must obey, and to the utmost of my power shall endeavour

to satisfy the wishes and beliefs of all who hear me. I

will speak first of our ancestors, for it is right and

becoming that now, when we are lamenting the dead, a

tribute should be paid to their memory. There has never

been a time when they did not inhabit this land, which by

their valour they have handed down from generation to

generation, and we have received from them a free state.

{169}

But if they were worthy of praise, still more were our

fathers who added to their inheritance, and after many a

struggle transmitted to us their sons this great empire.

And we ourselves assembled here to-day, who are still most

of us in the vigour of life, have chiefly done the work of

improvement, and have richly endowed our city with all

things, so that she is sufficient for herself both in peace

and war. Of the military exploits by which our various

possessions were acquired, or of the energy with which we

or our fathers drove back the tide of war, Hellenic or

Barbarian, I will not speak; for the tale would be long and

is familiar to you. But before I praise the dead, I should

like to point out by what principles of action we rose to

power, and under what institutions and through what manner

of life our empire became great. For I conceive, that such

thoughts are not unsuited to the occasion, and that this

numerous assembly of citizens and strangers may profitably

listen to them. Our form of government does not enter into

rivalry with the institutions of others. We do not copy our

neighbours, but are an example to them. It is true that we

are called a democracy, for the administration is in the

hands of the many and not of the few. But while the law

secures equal justice to all alike in their private

disputes, the claim of excellence is also recognised; and

when a citizen is in any way distinguished, he is preferred

to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as

the reward of merit. Neither is poverty a bar, but a man

may benefit his country whatever be the obscurity of his

condition. There is no exclusiveness in our public life,

and in our private intercourse we are not suspicious of one

another, nor angry with our neighbour if he does what he

likes; we do not put on sour looks at him which, though

harmless, are not pleasant. While we are thus unconstrained

in our private intercourse, a spirit of reverence pervades

our public acts; we are prevented from doing wrong by

respect for authority and for the laws, having an especial

regard to those which are ordained for the protection of

the injured as well as to those unwritten laws which bring

upon the transgressor of them the reprobation of the

general sentiment. And we have not forgotten to provide for

our weary spirits many relaxations from toil; we have

regular games and sacrifices throughout the year; at home

the style of our life is refined; and the delight which we

daily feel in all these things helps to banish melancholy.

Because of the greatness of our city the fruits of the

whole earth flow in upon us; so that we enjoy the goods of

other countries as freely as of our own. Then, again, our

military training is in many respects superior to that of

our adversaries. Our city is thrown open to the world, and

we never expel a foreigner or prevent him from seeing or

learning anything of which the secret if revealed to an

enemy might profit him. We rely not upon management or

trickery, but upon our own hearts and hands. And in the

matter of education, whereas they from early youth are

always undergoing laborious exercises which are to make

them brave, we live at ease, and yet are equally ready to

face the Lacedaemonians come into Attica not by themselves,

but with their whole confederacy following; we go alone

into a neighbour's country; and although our opponents are

fighting for their homes and we on a foreign soil we have

seldom any difficulty in overcoming them. Our enemies have

never yet felt our united strength; the care of a navy

divides our attention, and on land we are obliged to send

our own citizens everywhere. But they, if they meet and

defeat a part of our army, are as proud as if they had

routed us all, and when defeated they pretend to have been

vanquished by us all. If then we prefer to meet danger with

a light heart but without laborious training, and with a

courage which is gained by habit and not enforced by law,

are we not greatly the gainers? Since we do not anticipate

the pain, although, when the hour comes, we can be as brave

as those who never allow themselves to rest; and thus too

our city is equally admirable in peace and in war. For we

are lovers of the beautiful, yet simple in our tastes, and

we cultivate the mind without loss of manliness. Wealth we

employ, not for talk and ostentation, but when there is a

real use for it. To avow poverty with us is no disgrace;

the true disgrace is in doing nothing to avoid it. An

Athenian citizen does not neglect the state because he

takes care of his own household; and even those of us who

are engaged in business have a very fair idea of politics.

We alone regard a man who takes no interest in public

affairs, not as a harmless, but as a useless character; and

if few of us are originators, we are all sound judges of a

policy. The great impediment to action is, in our opinion,

not discussion, but the want of that knowledge which is

gained by discussion preparatory to action. For we have a

peculiar power of thinking before we act and of acting too,

whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but

hesitate upon reflection. And they are surely to be

esteemed the bravest spirits who, having the clearest sense

both of the pains and pleasures of life, do not on that

account shrink from danger. In doing good, again, we are

unlike others; we make our friends by conferring, not by

receiving favours. Now he who confers a favour is the

firmer friend, because he would fain by kindness keep alive

the memory of an obligation; but the recipient is colder in

his feelings, because he knows that in requiting another's

generosity he will not be winning gratitude but only paying

a debt. We alone do good to our neighbours not upon a

calculation of interest, but in the confidence of freedom

and in a frank and fearless spirit. To sum up; I say that

Athens is the school of Hellas, and that the individual

Athenian in his own person seems to have the power of

adapting himself to the most varied forms of action with

the utmost versatility and grace. This is no passing and

idle word, but truth and fact; and the assertion is

verified by the position to which these qualities have

raised the state. For in the hour of trial Athens alone

among her contemporaries is superior to the report of her.

No enemy who comes against her is indignant at the reverses

which he sustains at the hands of such a city; no subject

complains that his masters are unworthy of him. And we

shall assuredly not be without witnesses; there are mighty

monuments of our power which will make us the wonder of

this and of succeeding ages; we shall not need the praises

of Homer or of any other panegyrist whose poetry may please

for the moment, although his representation of the facts

will not bear the light of day.

{170}

For we have compelled every land and every sea to open a

path for our valour, and have everywhere planted eternal

memorials of our friendship and of our enmity. Such is the

city for whose sake these men nobly fought and died; they

could not bear the thought that she might be taken from

them; and everyone of us who survive should gladly toil on

her behalf. I have dwelt upon the greatness of Athens

because I want to show you that we are contending for a

higher prize than those who enjoy none of these privileges,

and to establish by manifest proof the merit of these men

whom I am now commemorating. Their loftiest praise has been

already spoken. For in magnifying the city I have magnified

them, and men like them whose virtues made her glorious.

And of how few Hellenes can it be said as of them, that

their deeds when weighed in the balance have been found

equal to their fame! Methinks that a death such as theirs

has been gives the true measure of a man's worth; it may be

the first revelation of his virtues, but is at any rate

their final seal. For even those who come short in other

ways may justly plead the valour with which they have

fought for their country; they have blotted out the evil

with the good, and have benefited the state more by their

public services than they have injured her by their private

actions. None of these men were enervated by wealth or

hesitated to resign the pleasures of life; none of them put

off the evil day in the hope, natural to poverty, that a

man, though poor, may one day become rich. But, deeming

that the punishment of their enemies was sweeter than any

of these things, and that they could fall in no nobler

cause, they determined at the hazard of their lives to be

honourably avenged, and to leave the rest. They resigned to

hope their unknown chance of happiness; but in the face of

death they resolved to rely upon themselves alone. And when

the moment came they were minded to resist and suffer,

rather than to fly and save their lives; they ran away from

the word of dishonour, but on the battle-field their feet

stood fast, and in an instant, at the height of their

fortune, they passed away from the scene, not of their

fear, but of their glory. Such was the end of these men;

they were worthy of Athens, and the living need not desire

to have a more heroic spirit although they may pray for a

less fatal issue. The value of such a spirit is not to be

expressed in words. Anyone can discourse to you for ever

about the advantages of a brave defence which you know

already. But instead of listening to him I would have you

day by day fix your eyes upon the greatness of Athens,

until you become filled with the love of her; and when you

are impressed by the spectacle of her glory reflect that

this empire has been acquired by men who knew their duty

and had the courage to do it; who in the hour of conflict

had the fear of dishonour always present to them, and who,

if ever they failed in an enterprize, would not allow their

virtues to be lost to their country, but freely gave their

lives to her as the fairest offering which they could

present at her feast. The sacrifice which they collectively

made was individually repaid to them; for they received

again each one for himself a praise which grows not old,

and the noblest of all sepulchres--I speak not of that in

which their remains are laid, but of that in which their

glory survives, and is proclaimed always and on every

fitting occasion both in word and deed. For the whole earth

is the sepulchre of famous men; not only are they

commemorated by columns and inscriptions in their own

country, but in foreign lands there dwells also an

unwritten memorial of them, graven not on stone but in the

hearts of men. Make them your examples, and esteeming

courage to be freedom and freedom to be happiness, do not

weigh too nicely the perils of war. The unfortunate who has

no hope of a change for the better has less reason to throw

away his life than the prosperous who, if he survive, is

always liable to a change for the worse, and to whom any

accidental fall makes the most serious difference. To a man

of spirit, cowardice and disaster coming together are far

more bitter than death striking him unperceived at a time

when he is full of courage and animated by the general

hope. Wherefore I do not now commiserate the parents of the

dead who stand here; I would rather comfort them. You know

that your life has been passed amid manifold vicissitudes;

and that they may be deemed fortunate who have gained most

honour, whether an honourable death like theirs, or an

honourable sorrow like yours, and whose days have been so

ordered that the term of their happiness is likewise the

term of their life. I know how hard it is to make you feel

this, when the good fortune of others will too often remind

you of the gladness which once lightened your hearts. And

sorrow is felt at the want of those blessings, not which a

man never knew, but which were a part of his life before

they were taken from him. Some of you are of an age at

which they may hope to have other children, and they ought

to bear their sorrow better; not only will the children who

may hereafter be born make them forget their own lost ones,

but the city will be doubly a gainer. She will not be left

desolate, and she will be safer. For a man's counsel cannot

have equal weight or worth, when he alone has no children

to risk in the general danger. To those of you who have

passed their prime I say: "Congratulate yourselves that you

have been happy during the greater part of those days;

remember that your life of sorrow will not last long, and

be comforted by the glory of those who are gone. For the

love of honour alone is ever young, and not riches, as some

say, but honour is the delight of men when they are old and

useless." To you who are the sons and brothers of the

departed, I see that the struggle to emulate them will be

an arduous one. For all men praise the dead, and, however

pre-eminent your virtue may be, hardly will you be thought,

I do not say to equal, but even to approach them. The

living have their rivals and detractors, but when a man is

out of the way, the honour and good-will which he receives

is unalloyed. And, if I am to speak of womanly virtues to

those of you who will henceforth be widows, let me sum them

up in one short admonition: To a woman not to show more

weakness than is natural to her sex is a great glory, and

not to be talked about for good or for evil among men. I

have paid the required tribute, in obedience to the law,

making use of such fitting words as I had. The tribute of

deeds has been paid in part; for the dead have been

honourably interred, and it remains only that their

children should be maintained at the public charge until

they are grown up: this is the solid prize with which, as

with a garland, Athens crowns her sons living and dead,

after a struggle like theirs. For where the rewards of

virtue are greatest, there the noblest citizens are

enlisted in the service of the state. And now, when you

have duly lamented, everyone his own dead, you may depart.'

Such was the order of the funeral celebrated in this winter,

with the end of which ended the first year of the

Peloponnesian War."

Thucydides, History, translated by B. Jowett,

volume 1, book 2, section 34-47.

{171}

ATHENS: B. C. 130-429.

The Plague in the city.

Death of Pericles.

Capture of Potidæa.

"As soon as the summer returned [B. C. 430] the Peloponnesians

... invaded Attica, where they established themselves and

ravaged the country. They had not been there many days when

the plague broke out at Athens for the first time. ... The

disease is said to have begun south of Egypt in Æthiopia;

thence it descended into Egypt and Libya, and after spreading

over the greater part of the Persian Empire, suddenly fell

upon Athens. It first attacked the inhabitants of the Piæeus,

and it was supposed that the Peloponnesians had poisoned the

cisterns, no conduits having as yet been made there. It

afterwards reached the upper city, and then the mortality

became far greater. As to its probable origin or the causes

which might or could have produced such a disturbance of

nature, every man, whether a physician or not, will give his

own opinion. But I shall describe its actual course, and the

symptoms by which anyone who knows them beforehand may

recognize the disorder should it ever reappear. For I was

myself attacked, and witnessed the sufferings of others. The

season was admitted to have been remarkably free from ordinary

sickness; and if anybody was already ill of any other disease,

it was absorbed in this. Many who were in perfect health, all

in a moment, and without any apparent reason, were seized with

violent heats in the head and with redness and inflammation of

the eyes. Internally the throat and tongue were quickly

suffused with blood and the breath became unnatural and fetid.

There followed sneezing and hoarseness; in a short time the

disorder, accompanied by a violent cough, reached the chest;

then fastening lower down, it would move the stomach and bring

on all the vomits of bile to which physicians have ever given

names; and they were very distressing. ... The body externally

was not so very hot to the touch, nor yet pale; it was a livid

colour inclining to red, and breaking out in pustules and

ulcers. But the internal fever was intense. ... The disorder

which had originally settled in the head passed gradually

through the whole body, and, if a person got over the worst,

would often seize the extremities and leave its mark,

attacking the privy parts and the fingers and toes; and some

escaped with the loss of these, some with the loss of their

eyes. ... The crowding of the people out of the country into

the city aggravated the misery; and the newly-arrived suffered

most. ... The mortality among them was dreadful and they

perished in wild disorder. The dead lay as they had died, one

upon another, while others hardly alive wallowed in the

streets and crawled about every fountain craving for water.

The temples in which they lodged were full of the corpses of

those who died in them; for the violence of the calamity was

such that men, not knowing where to turn, grew reckless of all

law, human and divine. ... The pleasure of the moment and any

sort of thing which conduced to it took the place both of

honour and of expediency. No fear of God or law of man

deterred a criminal." Terrified by the plague, when they

learned of it, the Peloponnesians retreated from Attica, after

ravaging it for forty days; but, in the meantime, their own

coasts had been ravaged, as before, by the Athenian fleet. And

now, being once more relieved from the presence of the enemy,

though still grievously afflicted by the plague, the Athenians

turned upon Pericles with complaints and reproaches, and

imposed a fine upon him. They also sent envoys to Sparta, with

peace proposals which received no encouragement. But Pericles

spoke calmly and wisely to the people, and they acknowledged

their sense of dependence upon him by re-electing him general

and committing again "all their affairs to his charge." But he

was stricken next year with the plague, and, lingering for

some weeks in broken health, he died in the summer of 429 B.

C. By his death the republic was given over to striving

demagogues and factions, at just the time when a capable brain

and hand were needed in its government most. The war went on,

acquiring more ferocity of temper with every campaign. It was

especially embittered in the course of the second summer by

the execution, at Athens, of several Lacedaemonian envoys who

were captured while on their way to solicit help from the

Persian king. One of these unfortunate envoys was Aristeus,

who had organized the defence of Potidaea. That city was still

holding out against the Athenians, who blockaded it obstinately,

although their troops suffered frightfully from the plague.

But in the winter of 430-429 B. C. they succumbed to

starvation and surrendered their town, being permitted to

depart in search of a new home. Potidaea was then peopled

anew, with colonists.

Thucydides, History,

translated by Jowett, book 2, section 8-70.

ALSO IN:

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

chapter 13-15.

W. W. Lloyd, The Age of Pericles, chapter 64 (volume 2).

L. Whibley, Political Parties in Athens during the

Peloponnesian War.

W. Wachsmuth, History Antiquities of the Greeks,

sections 62-64 (volume 2).

ATHENS: B. C. 429-421.

After Pericles.

The rise of the Demagogues.

"When Pericles rose to power it would have been possible to

frame a Pan-Hellenic union, in which Sparta and Athens would

have been the leading states; and such a dualism would have

been the best guarantee for the rights of the smaller cities.

When he died there was no policy left but war with Sparta, and

conquest in the West. And not only so, but there was no

politician who could adjust the relations of domestic war and

foreign conquest. The Athenians passed from one to the other,

as they were addressed by Cleon or Alcibiades. We cannot

wonder that the men who lived in those days of trouble spoke

bitterly of Pericles, holding him accountable for the miseries

which fell upon Athens. Other statesmen had bequeathed good

laws, as Solon and Clisthenes, or the memory of great

achievements, as Themistocles or Cimon, but the only changes

which Pericles had introduced were thought, not without

reason, to be changes for the worse; and he left his country

involved in a ruinous war.".

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

pages 362-363.

{172}

"The moral change which had ... befallen the Attic community

had, it is true, even during the lifetime of Pericles,

manifested itself by means of sufficiently clear premonitory

signs; but Pericles had, notwithstanding, up to the days of

his last illness, remained the centre of the state; the people

had again and again returned to him, and by subordinating

themselves to the personal authority of Pericles had succeeded

in recovering the demeanor which befitted them. But now the

voice was hushed, which had been able to sway the unruly

citizens, even against their will. No other authority was in

existence--no aristocracy, no official class, no board of

experienced statesmen--nothing, in fact, to which the citizens

might have looked for guidance and control. The multitude had

recovered absolute independence, and in proportion as, in the

interval, readiness of speech and sophistic versatility had

spread in Athens, the number had increased of those who now

put themselves forward as popular speakers and leaders. But

as, among all these, none was capable of leading the multitude

after the fashion of Pericles, another method of leading the

people, another kind of demagogy, sprung into existence.

Pericles stood above the multitude. ... His successors were

obliged to adopt other means; in order to acquire influence,

they took advantage not so much of the strong as of the weak

points in the character of the citizens, and achieved

popularity by flattering their inclinations, and endeavoring

to satisfy the cravings of their baser nature. ... Now for the

first time, men belonging to the lower class of citizens

thrust themselves forward to play a part in politics,--men of

the trading and artisan class, the culture and wealth of which

had so vigorously increased at Athens. ... The office of

general frequently became a post of martyrdom; and the bravest

men felt that the prospect of being called to account as to

their campaigns by cowardly demagogues, before a capricious

multitude, disturbed the straightforward joyousness of their

activity, and threw obstacles in the way of their successes.

... On the orators' tribune the contrast was more striking.

Here the first prominent successor of Pericles was a certain

Eucrates, a rude and uneducated man, who was ridiculed on the

comic stage as the 'boar' or 'bear of Melite' (the name of the

district to which he belonged), a dealer in tow and

mill-owner, who only for a short space of time took the lead

in the popular assembly. His place was taken by Lysicles, who

had acquired wealth by the cattle-trade. ... It was not until

after Lysicles, that the demagogues attained to power who had

first made themselves a name by their opposition against

Pericles, and, among them, Cleon was the first who was able to

maintain his authority for a longer period of time; so that it

is in his proceedings during the ensuing years of the war that

the whole character of the new demagogy first thoroughly

manifests itself."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, volume 3, chapter 2.

"The characters of the military commander and the political

leader were gradually separated. The first germs of this

division we find in the days of Kimôn and Periklês. Kimôn was

no mean politician; but his real genius clearly called him to

warfare with the Barbarian. Periklês was an able and

successful general; but in him the military character was

quite subordinate to that of the political leader. It was a

wise compromise which entrusted Kimôn with the defence of the

state abroad and Periklês with its management at home. After

Periklês the separation widened. We nowhere hear of

Dêmosthenes and Phormiôn as political leaders; and even in

Nikias the political is subordinate to the military character.

Kleôn, on the other hand, was a politician but not a soldier.

But the old notion of combining military and political

position was not quite lost. It was still deemed that he who

proposed a warlike expedition should himself, if it were

needful, be able to conduct it. Kleôn in an evil hour was

tempted to take on himself military functions; he was forced

into command against Sphaktêria; by the able and loyal help of

Dêmosthenês he acquitted himself with honour. But his head was

turned by success; he aspired to independent command; he

measured himself against the mighty Brasidas; and the fatal

battle of Amphipolis was the result. It now became clear that

the Demagogue and the General must commonly be two distinct

persons. The versatile genius of Alkibiadês again united the

two characters; but he left no successor. ... A Demagogue then

was simply an influential speaker of popular politics.

Dêmosthenês is commonly distinguished as an orator, while

Kleôn is branded as a Demagogue; but the position of the one

was the same as the position of the other. The only question

is as to the wisdom and honesty of the advice given either by

Kleôn or by Dêmosthenês."

E. A. Freeman, Historical Essays, 2d ser.,

pages 138-140.

ATHENS: B. C. 429-427.

Fate of Platæa.

Phormio's Victories.

Revolt of Lesbos.

Siege of Mitylene.

Cleon's bloody decree and its reversal.

See GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

ATHENS: B. C. 425.

Seizure of Pylus by Demosthenes, the general.

Spartans entrapped and captured at Sphacteria.

Peace pleaded for and refused.

See GREECE: B. C. 425.

ATHENS: B. C. 424-406.

Socrates as soldier and citizen.

The trial of the Generals.

"Socrates was born very shortly before the year 469 B. C. His

father, Sophroniscus, was a sculptor, his mother, Phænarete, a

midwife. Nothing definite is known of his moral and

intellectual development. There is no specific record of him

at all until he served at the siege of Potidæa (432 B. C.-429

B. C.) when he was nearly forty years old. All that we can say

is that his youth and manhood were passed in the most splendid

period of Athenian or Greek history. ... As a boy he received the

usual Athenian liberal education, in music and gymnastic, an

education, that is to say, mental and physical. He was fond of

quoting from the existing Greek literature, and he seems to

have been familiar with it, especially with Homer. He is

represented by Xenophon as repeating Prodieus' fable of the

choice of Heracles at length. He says that he was in the habit

of studying with his friends 'the treasures which the wise men

of old have left us in their books:' collections, that is, of

the short and pithy sayings of the seven sages, such as 'know

thyself'; a saying, it may be noticed, which lay at the root

of his whole teaching. And he had some knowledge of

mathematics, and of science, as it existed in those days. He

understood something of astronomy and of advanced geometry;

and he was acquainted with certain, at any rate, of the

theories of his predecessors in philosophy, the Physical or

Cosmical philosophers, such as Heraclitus and Parmenides, and,

especially, with those of Anaxagoras.

{173}

But there is no trustworthy evidence which enables us to go

beyond the bare fact that he had such knowledge. ... All then

that we can say of the first forty years of Socrates' life

consists of general statements like these. During these years

there is no specific record of him. Between 432 B. C. and 429

B. C. he served as a common soldier at the siege of Potidæa,

an Athenian dependency which had revolted, and surpassed

everyone in his powers of enduring hunger, thirst, and cold,

and all the hardships of a severe Thracian winter. At this

siege we hear of him for the first time in connection with

Alcibiades, whose life he saved in a skirmish, and to whom he

eagerly relinquished the prize of valour. In 431 B. C. the

Peloponnesian War broke out, and in 424 B. C. the Athenians

were disastrously defeated and routed by the Thebans at the

battle of Delium. Socrates and Laches were among the few who

did not yield to panic. They retreated together steadily, and

the resolute bearing of Socrates was conspicuous to friend and

foe alike. Had all the Athenians behaved as he did, says

Laches, in the dialogue of that name, the defeat would have

been a victory. Socrates fought bravely a third time at the

battle of Amphipolis [422 B. C.] against the Peloponnesian

forces, in which the commanders on both sides, Cleon and

Brasidas, were killed: but there is no record of his specific

services on that occasion. About the same time that Socrates

was displaying conspicuous courage in the cause of Athens at

Delium and Amphipolis, Aristophanes was holding him up to

hatred, contempt, and ridicule in the comedy of the Clouds

[13. C. 423]. ... The Clouds is his protest against the

immorality of free thought and the Sophists. He chose Socrates

for his central figure, chiefly, no doubt, on account of

Socrates' well-known and strange personal appearance. The

grotesque ugliness, and flat nose, and prominent eyes, and

Silenus-like face, and shabby dress, might be seen every day

in the streets, and were familiar to every Athenian.

Aristophanes cared little--probably he did not take the

trouble to find out--that Socrates' whole life was spent in

fighting against the Sophists. It was enough for him that

Socrates did not accept the traditional beliefs, and was a

good centre-piece for a comedy. ... The Clouds, it is needless

to say, is a gross and absurd libel from beginning to end: but

Aristophanes hit the popular conception. The charges which he

made in 423 B. C. stuck to Socrates to the end of his life.

They are exactly the charges made by popular prejudice,

against which Socrates defends himself in the first ten

chapters of the Apology, and which he says have been so long

'in the air.' He formulates them as follows: 'Socrates is an

evil doer who busies himself with investigating things beneath

the earth and in the sky, and who makes the worse appear the

better reason, and who teaches others these same things.' ...

For sixteen years after the battle of Amphipolis we hear

nothing of Socrates. The next events in his life, of which

there is a specific record, are those narrated by himself in

the twentieth chapter of the Apology. They illustrate, as he

meant them to illustrate, his invincible moral courage. ... In

406 B. C. the Athenian fleet defeated the Lacedæmonians at the

battle of Arginusæ, so called from some small islands off the

south-east point of Lesbos. After the battle the Athenian

commanders omitted to recover the bodies of their dead, and to

save the living from off their disabled enemies. The Athenians

at home, on hearing of this, were furious. The due performance

of funeral rites was a very sacred duty with the Greeks; and

many citizens mourned for friends and relatives who had been

left to drown. The commanders were immediately recalled, and

an assembly was held in which they were accused of neglect of

duty. They defended themselves by saying that they had ordered

certain inferior officers (amongst others, their accuser

Theramenes) to perform the duty, but that a storm had come on

which had rendered the performance impossible. The debate was

adjourned, and it was resolved that the Senate should decide

in what way the commanders should be tried. The Senate

resolved that the Athenian people, having heard the accusation

and the defence, should proceed to vote forthwith for the

acquittal or condemnation of the eight commanders

collectively. The resolution was grossly unjust, and it was

illegal. It substituted a popular vote for a fair and formal

trial. ... Socrates was at that time a member of the Senate,

the only office that he ever filled. The Senate was composed

of five hundred citizens, elected by lot, fifty from each of

the ten tribes, and holding office for one year. The members

of each tribe held the Prytany, that is, were responsible for

the conduct of business, for thirty-five days at a time, and

ten out of the fifty were proedri or presidents every seven

days in succession. Every bill or motion was examined by the

proedri before it was submitted to the Assembly, to see if it

were in accordance with law; if it was not, it was quashed:

one of the proedri presided over the Senate and the Assembly

each day, and for one day only: he was called the Epistates:

it was his duty to put the question to the vote. In short he

was the speaker. ... On the day on which it was proposed to

take a collective vote on the acquittal or condemnation of the

eight commanders, Socrates was Epistates. The proposal was, as

we have seen, illegal: but the people were furious against the

accused, and it was a very popular one. Some of the proedri

opposed it before it was submitted to the Assembly, on the

ground of its illegality; but they were silenced by threats

and subsided. Socrates alone refused to give way. He would not

put a question which he knew to be illegal, to the vote.

Threats of suspension and arrest, the clamour of an angry

people, the fear of imprisonment or death, could not move him.

... But his authority lasted only for a day; the proceedings

were adjourned, a more pliant Epistates succeeded him, and the

generals were condemned and executed."

F. J. Church, Introduction to Trial and Death of Socrates,

pages 9-23.

See, also, GREECE: B. C. 406.

{174}

ATHENS: B. C. 421.

End of the first period of the Peloponnesian War.

The Peace of Nicias.

"The first stage of the Peloponnesian war came to an end just

ten years after the invasion of Attica by Archidamus in 431 B.

C. Its results had been almost purely negative; a vast

quantity of blood and treasure had been wasted on each side,

but to no great purpose. The Athenian naval power was

unimpaired, and the confederacy of Delos, though shaken by the

successful revolt of Amphipolis and the Thraceward towns, was

still left subsisting. On the other hand, the attempts of

Athens to accomplish anything on land had entirely failed, and

the defensive policy of Pericles had been so far justified.

Well would it have been for Athens if her citizens had taken

the lesson to heart, and contented themselves with having

escaped so easily from the greatest war they had ever

known."

C. W. C. Oman, History of Greece, page 341.

"The treaty called since ancient times the Peace of Nicias ...

put an end to the war between the two Greek confederations of

states, after it had lasted for rather more than ten years,

viz., from the attack of the Bœotians upon Platææ, Ol.

lxxxvii. 1 (beginning of April B. C. 431) to Ol. lxxxix. 3

(towards the middle of April B. C. 421). The war was for this

reason known under the name of the Ten Years' War, while the

Peloponnesians called it the Attic War. Its end constituted a

triumph for Athens; for all the plans of the enemies who had

attacked her had come to naught; Sparta had been unable to

fulfil a single one of the promises with which she had entered

upon the war, and was ultimately forced to acknowledge the

dominion of Athens in its whole extent,--notwithstanding all

the mistakes and misgivings, notwithstanding all the

calamities attributable, or not, to the Athenians themselves:

the resources of offence and defence which the city owed to

Pericles had therefore proved their excellence, and all the

fury of her opponents had wasted itself against her in vain.

Sparta herself was satisfied with the advantages which the

peace offered to her own city and citizens; but great was the

discontent among her confederates, particularly among the

secondary states, who had originally occasioned the war and

obliged Sparta to take part in it. Even after the conclusion

of the peace, it was impossible to induce Thebes and Corinth

to accede to it. The result of the war to Sparta was therefore

the dissolution of the confederation at whose head she had

begun the war; she felt herself thereby placed in so

dangerously isolated a position, that she was obliged to fall

back upon Athens in self-defence against her own confederates.

Accordingly the Peace of Nicias was in the course of the same

year converted into a fifty years' alliance, under the terms

of which Sparta and Athens contracted the obligation of mutual

assistance against any hostile attack."

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

See, also, GREECE: B. C. 424-421.

ATHENS: B. C. 421-418.

New combinations.

Conflicting alliances with Sparta and the Argive Confederacy.

Rising influence of Alcibiades.

War in Argos and Arcadia.

Battle of Mantinea.

See GREECE: B. C. 421-418.

ATHENS: B. C. 416.

Siege and conquest of Melos.

Massacre of the inhabitants.

See GREECE: B. C. 416.

ATHENS: B. C. 415.

The expedition against Syracuse.

Mutilation of the Hermæ (Hermai).

A quarrel having broken out in Sicily, between the cities of

Segesta and Selinous, "the latter obtained aid from Syracuse.

Upon this, Segesta, having vainly sought help from Carthage,

appealed to Athens, where the exiled Sicilians were numerous.

Alkibiades had been one of the most urgent for the attack upon

Melos, and he did not lose the present opportunity to incite

the Athenians to an enterprise of much greater importance, and

where he hoped to be in command. ... All men's minds were

filled with ambitious hopes. Everywhere, says Plutarch, were

to be seen young men in the gymnasia, old men in workshops and

public places of meeting, drawing the map of Sicily, talking

about the sea that surrounds it, the goodness of its harbors,

its position opposite Africa. Established there, it would be

easy to cross over and subjugate Carthage, and extend their

sway as far as the Pillars of Hercules. The rich did not

approve of this rashness, but feared if they opposed it that

the opposite faction would accuse them of wishing to avoid the

service and costs of arming galleys. Nikias had more courage;

even after the Athenians had appointed him general, with

Alkibiades and Lamachos, he spoke publicly against the

enterprise, showed the imprudence of going in search of new

subjects when those they already had were at the moment in a

state of revolt, as in Chalkidike, or only waited for a

disaster to break the chain which bound them to Athens. He

ended by reproaching Alkibiades for plunging the republic, to

gratify his personal ambition, into a foreign war of the

greatest danger. ... One of the demagogues, however, replied

that he would put an end to all this hesitation, and he

proposed and secured the passage of a decree giving the

generals full power to use all the resources of the city in

preparing for the expedition (March 24, 415 B. C.) Nikias was

completely in the right. The expedition to Sicily was

impolitic and foolish. In the Ægæan Sea lay the empire of

Athens, and there only it could lie, within reach, close at

hand. Every acquisition westward of the Peloponnesos was a

source of weakness. Syracuse, even if conquered, would not

long remain subject. Whatever might be the result of the

expedition, it was sure to be disastrous in the end. ... An

event which took place shortly before the departure of the

fleet (8-9 June) threw terror into the city: one morning the

hermai throughout the city were seen to have been mutilated.

... 'These Hermæ, or half-statues of the god Hermês, were

blocks of marble about the height of the human figure. The

upper part was cut into a head, face, neck and bust; the lower

part was left as a quadrangular pillar, broad at the base,

without arms, body, or legs, but with the significant mark of

the male sex in front. They were distributed in great numbers

throughout Athens, and always in the most conspicuous

situations; standing beside the outer doors of private houses

as well as of temples, near the most frequented porticos, at

the intersection of cross ways, in the public agora. ... The

religious feelings of the Greeks considered the god to be

planted or domiciled where his statue stood, so that the

companionship, sympathy, and guardianship of Hermês became

associated with most of the manifestations of conjunct life at

Athens,--political, social, commercial, or gymnastic.' ... To

all pious minds the city seemed menaced with great misfortunes

unless the anger of Heaven should be appeased by a sufficient

expiation.

{175}

While Alkibiades had many partisans, he had also violent

enemies. Not long before this time Hyperbolos, a contemptible

man, had almost succeeded in obtaining his banishment; and he

had escaped this danger only by uniting his party with that of

Nikias, and causing the demagogue himself to suffer ostracism.

The affair of the hermai appeared to his adversaries a

favourable occasion to repeat the attempt made by Hyperbolos,

and we have good reason to believe in a political machination,

seeing this same populace applaud, a few months later, the

impious audacity of Aristophanes in his comedy of The Birds.

An inquiry was set on foot, and certain metoikoi and slaves,

without making any deposition as to the hermai, recalled to

mind that before this time some of these statues had been

broken by young men after a night of carousal and

intoxication, thus indirectly attacking Alkibiades. Others in

set terms accused him of having at a banquet parodied the

Eleusinian Mysteries; and men took advantage of the

superstitious terrors of the people to awake their political

anxieties. It was repeated that the breakers of sacred

statues, the profaners of mysteries, would respect the

government even less than they had respected the gods, and it

was whispered that not one of these crimes had been committed

without the participation of Alkibiades; and in proof of this

men spoke of the truly aristocratic license of his life. Was

he indeed the author of this sacrilegious freak? To believe

him capable of it would not be to calumniate him. Or, on the

other hand, was it a scheme planned to do him injury? Although

proofs are lacking, it is certain that among the rich, upon

whom rested the heavy burden of the naval expenses, a plot had

been formed to destroy the power of Alkibiades, and perhaps to

prevent the sailing of the fleet. The demagogues, who had

intoxicated the people with hope, were for the expedition; but

the popularity of Alkibiades was obnoxious to them: a

compromise was made between the two factions, as is often done

in times when public morality is enfeebled, and Alkibiades

found himself threatened on all sides. ... Urging as a pretext

the dangers of delay in sending off the expedition, they

obtained a decree that Alkibiades should embark at once; and

that the question of his guilt or innocence should be

postponed until after his return. It was now the middle of

summer. The day appointed for departure, the whole city,

citizens and foreigners, went out to Peiraieus at daybreak.

... At that moment the view was clearer as to the doubts and

dangers, and also the distance of the expedition; but all eyes

were drawn to the immense preparations that had been made, and

confidence and pride consoled those who were about to part."

V. Duruy, History of the Greek People,

chapter 25, section 2 (volume 3).

ALSO IN:

Thucydides, History, book 6, section 27-28.

G. W. Cox, The Athenian Empire, chapter 5.

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 58 (volume 7).

ATHENS: B. C. 415-413.

Fatal end of the expedition against Syracuse.

"Alkibiades was called back to Athens, to take his trial on a

charge of impiety. ... He did not go back to Athens for his

trial, but escaped to Peloponnesos, where we shall hear from

him again. Meanwhile the command of the Athenian force in

Sicily was left practically in the hands of Nikias. Now Nikias

could always act well when he did act; but it was very hard to

make him act; above all on an errand which he hated. One might

say that Syracuse was saved through the delays of Nikias. He

now went off to petty expeditions in the west of Sicily, under

cover of settling matters at Segesta. ... The Syracusans by

this time quite despised the invaders. Their horsemen rode up

to the camp of the Athenians at Katanê, and asked them if they

had come into Sicily merely to sit down there as colonists.

... The winter (B. C. 415-414) was chiefly spent on both sides

in sending embassies to and fro to gain allies. Nikias also

sent home to Athens, asking for horsemen and money, and the

people, without a word of rebuke, voted him all that he asked.

... But the most important embassy of all was that which the

Syracusans sent to Corinth and Sparta. Corinth zealously took

up the cause of her colony and pleaded for Syracuse at Sparta.

And at Sparta Corinth and Syracuse found a helper in the

banished Athenian Alkibiadês, who was now doing all that he

could against Athens. ... He told the Spartans to occupy a

fortress in Attica, which they soon afterwards did, and a

great deal came of it. But he also told them to give vigorous

help to Syracuse, and above all things to send a Spartan

commander. The mere name of Sparta went for a great deal in

those days; but no man could have been better chosen than the

Spartan who was sent. He was Gylippos, the deliverer of

Syracuse. He was more like an Athenian than a Spartan, quick

and ready of resource, which few Spartans were. ... And now at

last, when the spring came (414) Nikias was driven to do

something. ... The Athenians ... occupied all that part of the

hill which lay outside the walls of Syracuse. They were joined

by their horsemen, Greek and Sikel, and after nearly a year,

the siege of Syracuse really began. The object of the

Athenians now was to build a wall across the hill and to carry

it down to the sea on both sides. Syracuse would thus be

hemmed in. The object of the Syracusans was to build a

cross-wall of their own, which should hinder the Athenian wall

from reaching the two points it aimed at; This they tried more

than once; but in vain. There were several fights on the hill,

and at last there was a fight of more importance on the lower

ground by the Great Harbour. ... The Syracusans were defeated,

as far as fighting went; but they gained far more than they

lost. For Lamachos was killed, and with him all vigour passed

away from the Athenian camp. At the same moment the Athenian

fleet sailed into the Great Harbour, and a Syracusan attack on

the Athenian works on the hill was defeated. Nikias remained

in command of the invaders; but he was grievously sick, and

for once in his life his head seems to have been turned by

success. He finished the wall on the south side; but he

neglected to finish it on the north side also, so that

Syracuse was not really hemmed in. But the hearts of the

Syracusans sank. ... It was at this darkest moment of all that

deliverance came. ... A Corinthian ship, under its captain

Gongylos, sailed into the Little Harbour. He brought the news

that other ships were on their way from Peloponnesos to the

help of Syracuse, and, yet more, that a Spartan general was

actually in Sicily, getting together a land force for the same

end. As soon as the good news was heard, there was no more talk

of surrender. ... And one day the Athenian camp was startled

by the appearance of a Lacedæmonian herald, offering them a

truce of five days, that they might get them out of Sicily

with bag and baggage.

{176}

Gylippos was now on the hill. He of course did not expect that

the Athenian army would really go away in five days. But it

was a great thing to show both to the besiegers and to the

Syracusans that the deliverer had come, and that deliverance

was beginning. Nikias had kept such bad watch that Gylippos

and his troops had come up the hill and the Syracusans had

come out and met them, without his knowledge. The Spartan, as

a matter of course, took the command of the whole force; he

offered battle to the Athenians, which they refused; he then

entered the city. The very next day he began to carry out his

scheme. This was to build a group of forts near the western

end of the hill, and to join them to the city by a wall

running east and west, which would hinder the Athenians from

ever finishing their wall to the north. Each side went on

building, and some small actions took place. ... Another

winter (B. C. 414-413) now came on, and with it much sending

of envoys. Gylippos went about Sicily collecting fresh troops.

... Meanwhile Nikias wrote a letter to the Athenian people.

... This letter came at a time when the Lacedæmonian alliance

had determined to renew the war with Athens, and when they

were making everything ready for an invasion of Attica. To

send out a new force to Sicily was simple madness. We hear

nothing of the debates in the Athenian assembly, whether

anyone argued against going on with the Sicilian war, and

whether any demagogue laid any blame on Nikias. But the

assembly voted that a new force equal to the first should be

sent out under Dêmosthenês, the best soldier in Athens, and

Eurymedon. ... Meanwhile the Syracusans were strengthened by

help both in Sicily and from Peloponnesos. Their main object

now was to strike a blow at the fleet of Nikias before the new

force came. ... It had been just when the Syracusans were most

downcast that they were cheered by the coming of the

Corinthians and of Gylippos. And just now that their spirits

were highest, they were dashed again by the coming of

Dêmosthenês and Eurymedon. A fleet as great as the first,

seventy-five ships, carrying 5,000 heavy-armed and a crowd of

light troops of every kind, sailed into the Great Harbour with

all warlike pomp. The Peloponnesians were already in Attica;

they had planted a Peloponnesian garrison there, which brought

Athens to great straits; but the fleet was sent out to

Syracuse all the same. Dêmosthenês knew what to do as well as

Lamachos had known. He saw that there was nothing to be done

but to try one great blow, and, if that failed, to take the

fleet home again. ... The attack was at first successful, and

the Athenians took two of the Syracusan forts. But the

Thespian allies of Syracuse stood their ground, and drove the

assailants back. Utter confusion followed. ... The last chance

was now lost, and Dêmosthenês was eager to go home. But Nikias

would stay on. ... When sickness grew in the camp, when fresh

help from Sicily and the great body of the allies from

Peloponnesos came into Syracuse, he at last agreed to go. Just

at that moment the moon was eclipsed. ... Nikias consulted his

soothsayers, and he gave out that they must stay twenty-nine

days, another full revolution of the moon. This resolve was

the destruction of the besieging army. ... It was felt on both

sides that all would turn on one more fight by sea, the

Athenians striving to get out of the harbour, and the

Syracusans striving to keep them in it. The Syracusans now

blocked up the mouth of the harbour by mooring vessels across

it. The Athenians left their position on the hill, a sign that

the siege was over, and brought their whole force down to the

shore. It was no time now for any skillful manoeuvres; the

chief thing was to make the sea-fight as much as might be like

a land-fight, a strange need for Athenians. ... The last fight

now began, 110 Athenian ships against 80 of the Syracusans and

their allies. Never before did so many ships meet in so small

a space. ... The fight was long and confused; at last the

Athenians gave way and fled to the shore. The battle and the

invasion were over. Syracuse was not only saved; she had begun

to take vengeance on her enemies. ... The Athenians waited one

day, and then set out, hoping to make their way to some safe

place among the friendly Sikels in the inland country. The

sick had to be left behind. ... On the sixth day, after

frightful toil, they determined to change their course. ...

They set out in two divisions, that of Nikias going first.

Much better order was kept in the front division and by the

time Nikias reached the river, Dêmosthenês was six miles

behind. ... In the morning a Syracusan force came up with the

frightful news that the whole division of Dêmosthenês were

prisoners. ... The Athenians tried in vain to escape in the

night. The next morning they set out, harassed as before, and

driven wild by intolerable thirst. They at last reached the

river Assinaros, which runs by the present town of Noto. There

was the end. ... The Athenians were so maddened by thirst

that, though men were falling under darts and the water was

getting muddy and bloody, they thought of nothing but

drinking. ... No further terms were made; most of the horsemen

contrived to cut their way out; the rest were made prisoners.

Most of them were embezzled by Syracusans as their private

slaves; but about 7,000 men out of the two divisions were led

prisoners into Syracuse. They were shut up in the

stone-quarries, with no further heed than to give each man

daily half a slave's allowance of food and drink. Many died;

many were sold; some escaped, or were set free; the rest were

after a while taken out of the quarries and set to work. The

generals had made no terms for themselves. Hermokratês wished

to keep them as hostages against future Athenian attempts

against Sicily. Gylippos wished to take them in triumph to

Sparta. The Corinthians were for putting them to death; and so

it was done. ... So ended the Athenian invasion of Sicily, the

greatest attempt ever made by Greeks against Greeks, and that

which came to the most utter failure."

E. A. Freeman, The Story of Sicily, pages 117-137.

ALSO IN:

Thucydides, History;

translated by B. Jowett, books 6-7 (volume 1).

See, also, SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

{177}

ATHENS: B. C. 413-412.

Consequences of the Sicilian Expedition.

Spartan alliance with the Persians.

Plotting of Alcibiades.

The Decelian War.

"At Athens, where, even before this, everyone had been in the

most anxious suspense, the news of the loss of the expedition

produced a consternation, which was certainly greater than

that at Rome after the battle of Cannae, or that in our own

days, after the battle of Jena. ... 'At least 40,000 citizens,

allies and slaves, had perished; and among them there may

easily have been 10,000 Athenian citizens, most of whom

belonged to the wealthier and higher classes. The flower of

the Athenian people was destroyed, as at the time of the

plague. It is impossible to say what amount of public property

may have been lost; the whole fleet was gone.' The

consequences of the disaster soon shewed themselves. It was to

be foreseen that Chios, which had long been wavering, and

whose disposition could not be trusted, would avail itself of

this moment to revolt; and the cities in Asia, from which

Athens derived her large revenues, were expected to do the

same. It was, in fact, to be foreseen, that the four islands

of Lesbos, Chios, Samos, and Rhodes, would instantly revolt.

The Spartans were established at Decelea, in Attica itself,

and thence ravaged the country far and wide: so that it was

impossible to venture to go to the coast without a strong

escort. Although there were many districts in which no Spartan

was seen from one year's end to the other, yet there was no

safety anywhere, except in fortified places, 'and the

Athenians were constantly obliged to guard the walls of their

city; and this state of things had already been going on for

the last twelve months.' In this fearful situation, the

Athenian people showed the same firmness as the Romans after

the battle of Cannae. Had they but had one great man among

them, to whom the state could have been entrusted, even more

might perhaps have been done; but it is astonishing that,

although there was no such man, and although the leading men

were only second or third-rate persons, yet so many useful

arrangements were made to meet the necessities of the case.

... The most unfortunate circumstance for the Athenians was,

that Alcibiades, now an enemy of his country, was living among

the Spartans; for he introduced into the undertakings of the

Spartans the very element which before they had been

altogether deficient in, namely energy and elasticity: he

urged them on to undertakings, and induced them now to send a

fleet to Ionia. ... Erythrae, Teos, and Miletus, one after

another, revolted to the Peloponnesians, who now concluded

treaties with Tissaphernes in the name of the king of

Persia--Darius was then king--and in his own name as satrap;

and in this manner they sacrificed to him the Asiatic Greeks.

... The Athenians were an object of antipathy and implacable

hatred to the Persians; they had never doubted that the

Athenians were their real opponents in Greece, and were afraid

of them; but they did not fear the Spartans. They knew that

the Athenians would take from them not only the islands, but

the towns on the main land, and were in great fear of their

maritime power. Hence they joined the Spartans; and the latter

were not ashamed of negotiating a treaty of subsidies with the

Persians, in which Tissaphernes, in the king's name, promised

the assistance of the Phoenician fleet; and large subsidies,

as pay for the army. ... In return for this, they renounced,

in the name of the Greeks, all claims to independence for the

Greek cities in Asia."

E. C. Niebuhr, Lectures on Ancient History,

volume 2, lectures. 53 and 54.

See, also, GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

ALSO IN:

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

ATHENS: B. C. 413-412.

Revolt of Chios, Miletus, Lesbos and Rhodes from Athens.

Revolution of Samos.

See GREECE: B. C. 413.

ATHENS: B. C. 413-411.-

The Probuli.

Intrigues of Alcibiades.

Conspiracy against the Constitution.

The Four Hundred and the Five Thousand.

Immediately after the dreadful calamity at Syracuse became

known, "extraordinary measures were adopted by the people; a

number of citizens of advanced age were formed into a

deliberative and executive body under the name of Probuli, and

empowered to fit out a fleet. Whether this laid the foundation

for oligarchical machinations or not, those aged men were

unable to bring back men's minds to their former course; the

prosecution of the Hermocopidæ had been most mischievous in

its results; various secret associations had sprung up and

conspired to reap advantage to themselves from the distress

and embarrassment of the state; the indignation caused by the

infuriated excesses of the people during that trial, possibly

here, as frequently happened in other Grecian states,

determined the more respectable members of the community to

guard against the recurrence of similar scenes in future, by

the establishment of an aristocracy. Lastly, the watchful

malice of Alcibiades, who was the implacable enemy of that

populace, to whose blind fury he had been sacrificed, baffled

all attempts to restore confidence and tranquillity, and there

is no doubt that, whilst he kept up a correspondence with his

partisans at home, he did everything in his power to increase

the perplexity and distress of his native city from without,

in order that he might be recalled to provide for its safety

and defence. A favourable opportunity for the execution of his

plans presented itself in the fifth year of his exile,

Ol. 92. 1; 411. B. C.; as he had incurred the suspicion of the

Spartans, and stood high in the favour of Tissaphernes, the

Athenians thought that his intercession might enable them to

obtain assistance from the Persian king. The people in Athens

were headed by one of his most inveterate enemies, Androcles;

and he well knew that all attempts to effect his return would

be fruitless, until this man and the other demagogues were

removed. Hence Alcibiades entered into negotiations with the

commanders of the Athenian fleet at Samos, respecting the

establishment of an oligarchical constitution, not from any

attachment to that form of government in itself, but solely

with the view of promoting his own ends. Phrynichus and

Pisander were equally insincere in their co-operation with

Alcibiades. ... Their plan was that the latter should

reconcile the people to the change in the constitution which

he wished to effect, by promising to obtain them the

assistance of the great king; but they alone resolved to reap

the benefit of his exertions. Pisander took upon himself to

manage the Athenian populace. It was in truth no slight

undertaking to attempt to overthrow a democracy of a hundred

and twenty years' standing, and of intense development; but

most of the able bodied citizens were absent with the fleet,

whilst such as were still in the city were confounded by the

imminence of the danger from without; on the other hand, the

prospect of succour from the Persian king doubtless had some

weight with them, and they possibly felt some symptoms of

returning affection for their former favourite Alcibiades.

Nevertheless, Pisander and his accomplices employed craft and

perfidy to accomplish their designs; the people were not

persuaded or convinced, but entrapped into compliance with

their measures. Pisander gained over to his purpose the above

named clubs, and induced the people to send him with ten

plenipotentiaries to the navy at Samos. In the mean time the

rest of the conspirators prosecuted the work of remodelling

the constitution."

W. Wachsmuth, History Antiquities of the Greeks,

volume 2, pages 252-255.

{178}

The people, or an assembly cleverly made up and manipulated to

represent the people, were induced to vote all the powers of

government into the hands of a council of Four Hundred, of

which council the citizens appointed only five members. Those

five chose ninety-five more, to make one hundred, and each of

that hundred then chose three colleagues. The conspirators

thus easily made up the Four Hundred to their liking, from

their own ranks. This council was to convene an assembly of

Five Thousand citizens, whenever it saw fit to do so. But when

news of this constitutional change reached the army at Samos,

where the Athenian headquarters for the Ionian war were fixed,

the citizen soldiers refused to submit to it--repudiated it

altogether--and organized themselves as an independent state.

The ruling spirit among them was Thrasybulus, and his

influence brought about a reconciliation with Alcibiades, then

an exile sheltered at the Persian court. Alcibiades was

recalled by the army and placed at its head. Presently a

reaction at Athens ensued, after the oligarchical party had

given signs of treasonable communication with Sparta, and in

June the people assembled in the Pnyx and reasserted their

sovereignty. "The Council was deposed, and the supreme

sovereignty of the state restored to the people--not, however,

to the entire multitude; for the principle was retained of

reserving full civic rights to a committee of men of a certain

amount of property; and, as the lists of the Five Thousand had

never been drawn up, it was decreed, in order that the desired

end might be speedily reached, to follow the precedent of

similar institutions in other states and to constitute all

Athenians able to furnish themselves with a complete military

equipment from their own resources, full citizens, with the

rights of voting and participating in the government. Thus the

name of the Five Thousand had now become a very inaccurate

designation; but it was retained, because men had in the last

few months become habituated to it. At the same time, the

abolition of pay for civic offices and functions was decreed,

not merely as a temporary measure, but as a fundamental

principle of the new commonwealth, which the citizens were

bound by a solemn oath to maintain. This reform was, upon the

whole, a wise combination of aristocracy and democracy; and,

according to the opinion of Thucydides, the best constitution

which the Athenians had hitherto possessed. On the motion of

Critias, the recall, of Alcibiades was decreed about the same

time; and a deputation was despatched to Samos, to accomplish

the union between army and city."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 4, chapter 5.

Most of the leaders of the Four Hundred fled to the Spartan

camp at Decelia. Two were taken, tried and executed.

Thucydides, History, book 8, section 48-97.

See, also, GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

ALSO IN:

V. Duruy, History of Greece, chapter 26 (volume 3).

ATHENS: B. C. 411-407.

Victories at Cynossema and Abydos.

Exploits of Alcibiades.

His triumphal return.

His appointment to command.

His second deposition and exile.

See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.

ATHENS: B. C. 406.

The Peloponnesian War: Battle and victory of Arginusae.

Condemnation and execution of the Generals.

See GREECE: B. C. 406;

and above: B. C. 424-406.

ATHENS: B. C. 405.

The Peloponnesian War:

Decisive defeat at Aigospotamoi.

See GREECE: B. C. 405.

ATHENS: B. C. 404.

The Surrender to Lysander.

After the battle of Ægospotami (August, B. C. 405), which

destroyed their navy, and cut off nearly all supplies to the

city by sea, as the Spartans at Decelea had long cut off

supplies upon the land side, the Athenians had no hope. They

waited in terror and despair for their enemies to close in

upon them. The latter were in no haste, for they were sure of

their prey. Lysander, the victor at Ægospotami, came leisurely

from the Hellespont, receiving on his way the surrender of the

cities subject or allied to Athens, and placing Spartan

harmosts and garrisons in them, with the local oligarchs

established uniformly in power. About November he reached the

Saronic gulf and blockaded the Athenian harbor of Piræus,

while an overwhelming Peloponnesian land force, under the

Lacedæmonian king Pausanias, arrived simultaneously in Attica

and encamped at the gates of the city. The Athenians had no

longer any power except the power to endure, and that they

exercised for more than three months, mainly resisting the

demand that their Long Walls--the walls which protected the

connection of the city with its harbors--should be thrown

down. But when famine had thinned the ranks of the citizens

and broken the spirit of the survivors, they gave up. "There

was still a high-spirited minority who entered their protest

and preferred death by famine to such insupportable disgrace.

The large majority, however, accepted them [the terms] and the

acceptance was made known to Lysander. It was on the 16th day

of the Attic month Munychion,--about the middle or end of

March,--that this victorious commander sailed into the

Peiræus, twenty-seven years, almost exactly, after the

surprise of Platæa by the Thebans, which opened the

Peloponnesian War. Along with him came the Athenian exiles,

several of whom appear to have been serving with his army and

assisting him with their counsel."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 65 (volume 8).

The Long Walls and the fortifications of Piræus were

demolished, and then followed the organization of an

oligarchical government at Athens, resulting in the reign of

terror under "The Thirty."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 4, chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

Xenophon, Hellenics, book 2, chapter 2.

Plutarch, Lysander.

{179}

ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.

The tyranny of the Thirty.

The Year of Anarchy.

In the summer of B. C. 404, following the siege and surrender

of Athens, and the humiliating close of the long Peloponnesian

War, the returned leaders of the oligarchical party, who had

been in exile, succeeded with the help of their Spartan

friends, in overthrowing the democratic constitution of the

city and establishing themselves in power. The revolution was

accomplished at a public assembly of citizens, in the presence

of Lysander, the victorious Lacedæmonian admiral, whose fleet

in the Piraeus lay ready to support his demands. "In this

assembly, Dracontidas, a scoundrel upon whom repeated

sentences had been passed, brought forward a motion, proposing

the transfer of the government into the hands of Thirty

persons; and Theramenes supported this proposal which he

declared to express the wishes of Sparta. Even now, these

speeches produced a storm of indignation; after all the acts

of violence which Athens had undergone, she yet contained men

outspoken enough to venture to defend the constitution, and to

appeal to the fact that the capitulation sanctioned by both

parties contained no provision as to the internal affairs of

Athens. But, hereupon, Lysander himself came forward and spoke

to the citizens without reserve, like one who was their

absolute master. ... By such means the motion of Dracontidas

was passed; but only a small number of unpatriotic and

cowardly citizens raised their hands in token of assent. All

better patriots contrived to avoid participation in this vote.

Next, ten members of the government were chosen by Critias and

his colleagues [the Critias of Plato's Dialogues, pupil of

Socrates, and now the violent and blood-thirsty leader of the

anti-democratic revolution], ten by Theramenes, the

confidential friend of Lysander, and finally ten out of the

assembled multitude, probably by a free vote; and this board

of Thirty was hereupon established as the supreme government

authority by a resolution of the assembly present. Most of the

members of the new government had formerly been among the Four

Hundred, and had therefore long pursued a common course of

action." The Thirty Tyrants so placed in power were masters of

Athens for eight months, and executed their will without

conscience or mercy, having a garrison of Spartan soldiers in

the Acropolis to support them. They were also sustained by a

picked body of citizens, "the Three Thousand," who bore arms

while other citizens were stripped of every weapon. Large

numbers of the more patriotic and high-spirited Athenians had

escaped from their unfortunate city and had taken refuge,

chiefly at Thebes, the old enemy of Athens, but now

sympathetic in her distress. At Thebes these exiles organized

themselves under Thrasybulus and Anytus, and determined to

expel the tyrants and to recover their homes. They first

seized a strong post at Phyle, in Attica, where they gained in

numbers rapidly, and from which point they were able in a few

weeks to advance and occupy the Piræus. When the troops of The

Thirty came out to attack them, they drew back to the adjacent

height of Munychia and there fought a battle which delivered

their city from the Tyrants. Critias, the master-spirit of the

usurpation, was slain; the more violent of his colleagues took

refuge at Eleusis, and Athens, for a time, remained under the

government of a new oligarchical Board of Ten; while

Thrasybulus and the democratic liberators maintained their

headquarters at Munychia. All parties waited the action of

Sparta. Lysander, the Spartan general, marched an army into

Attica to restore the tyranny which was of his own creating;

but one of the two Spartan kings, Pausanias, intervened,

assumed the command in his own person, and applied his efforts

to the arranging of peace between the Athenian parties. The

result was a restoration of the democratic constitution of the

Attic state, with some important reforms. Several of The

Thirty were put to death,--treacherously, it was said,--but an

amnesty was extended to all their partisans. The year in which

they and The Ten controlled affairs was termed in the official

annals of the city the Year of Anarchy, and its magistrates

were not recognized.

E. Curtius, History of Greece,

book 4, chapter 5, and book 5, chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

Xenophon, Hellenics, book 2, chapter 3-4.

C. Sankey, The Spartan and Theban Supremacies.

chapter 2-3.

ATHENS: B. C. 395-387.

Confederacy against Sparta.

Alliance with Persia.

The Corinthian War.

Conon's rebuilding of the Long Walls.

Athenian independence restored.

The Peace of Antalcidas.

See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

ATHENS: B. C. 378-371.

Brief alliance with Thebes against Sparta.

See GREECE: B. C. 379-371.

ATHENS: B. C. 378-357.

The New Confederacy and the Social War.

Upon the Liberation of Thebes and the signs that began to

appear of the decline of Spartan power--during the year of the

archonship of Nausinicus, B. C. 378-7, which was made

memorable at Athens by various movements of political

regeneration,--the organization of a new Confederacy was

undertaken, analogous to the Confederacy of Delos, formed a

century before. Athens was to be, "not the ruling capital, but

only the directing city in possession of the primacy, the seat

of the federal council. ... Callistratus was in a sense the

Aristides of the new confederation and doubtless did much to

bring about an agreement; it was likewise his work that, in

place of the 'tributes' of odious memory, the payments

necessary to the existence of the confederation were

introduced under the gentler name of 'contributions.' ...

Amicable relations were resumed with the Cyclades, Rhodes and

Perinthus; in other words, the ancient union of navies was at

once renewed upon a large scale and in a wide extent. Even

such states joined it as had hitherto never stood in

confederate relations with Athens, above all Thebes."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 6, chapter 1.

This second confederacy renewed much of the prosperity and

influence of Athens for a brief period of about twenty years.

But in 357 B. C., four important members of the Confederacy,

namely, Chios, Cos, Rhodes, and Byzantium leagued themselves

in revolt, with the aid of Mausolus, prince of Caria, and an

inglorious war ensued, known as the Social War, which lasted

three years. Athens was forced at last to assent to the

secession of the four revolted cities and to recognize their

independence, which greatly impaired her prestige and power,

just at the time when she was called upon to resist the

encroachments of Philip of Macedonia.

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 42.

ATHENS: B. C. 370-362.

Alliance with Sparta against Thebes.

Battle of Mantinea.

See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

{180}

ATHENS: B. C. 359-338.

The collision with Philip of Macedon.

The Policy of Demosthenes and Policy of Phocion.

"A new period opens with the growth of the Macedonian power

under Philip (359-336 B. C.) We are here chiefly concerned to

notice the effect on the City-State [of Athens], not only of

the strength and policy of this new power, but also of the

efforts of the Greeks themselves to counteract it. At the time

of Philip's accession the so-called Theban supremacy had just

practically ended with the death of Epaminondias. There was

now a kind of balance of power between the three leading

States, Sparta, Athens, and Thebes, no one of which was

greatly stronger than the others; and such a balance could

easily be worked upon by any great power from without. Thus

when Macedon came into the range of Greek politics, under a

man of great diplomatic as well as military capacity, who,

like a Czar of to-day, wished to secure a firm footing on the

sea-board of the Ægean [see GREECE: B. C. 359-358], she found

her work comparatively easy. The strong imperial policy of

Philip found no real antagonist except at Athens. Weak as she

was, and straitened by the break-up of her new confederacy,

Athens could still produce men of great talent and energy; but

she was hampered by divided counsels. Two Athenians of this

period seem to represent the currents of Greek political

thought, now running in two different directions. Demosthenes

represents the cause of the City-State in this age, of a

union, that is, of perfectly free Hellenic cities against the

common enemy. Phocion represents the feeling, which seems to

have been long growing up among thinking men at Athens, that

the City-State was no longer what it had been, and could no

longer stand by itself; that what was needed was a general

Hellenic peace, and possibly even an arbiter from without, an

arbiter not wholly un-Hellenic like the Persian, yet one who

might succeed in stilling the fatal jealousies of the leading

States. ... The efforts of Demosthenes to check Philip fall

into two periods divided by the peace of Philocrates in 346 B.

C. In the first of these he is acting chiefly with Athens

alone; Philip is to him not so much the common enemy of Greece

as the dangerous rival of Athens in the north. His whole mind

was given to the internal reform of Athens so as to strengthen

her against Philip. In her relation to other Greek States he

perhaps hardly saw beyond a balance of power. ... After 346

his Athenian feeling seems to become more distinctly Hellenic.

But what could even such a man as Demosthenes do with the

Hellas of that day? He could not force on the Greeks a real

and permanent union; he could but urge new alliances. His

strength was spent in embassies with this object, embassies

too often futile. No alliance could save Greece from the

Macedonian power, as subsequent events plainly showed. What

was needed was a real federal union between the leading

States, with a strong central controlling force; and

Demosthenes' policy was hopeless just because Athens could

never be the centre of such a union, nor could any other city.

Demosthenes is thus the last, and in some respects the most

heroic champion of the old Greek instinct for autonomy. He is

the true child of the City-State, but the child of its old age

and decrepitude. He still believes in Athens, and it is on

Athens that all his hopes are based. He looks on Philip as one

who must inevitably be the foe alike of Athens and of Greece.

He seems to think that he can be beaten off as Xerxes was, and

to forget that even Xerxes almost triumphed over the divisions

of the Greek States, and that Philip is a nearer, a more

prominent, and a far less barbarian foe. ... Phocion was the

somewhat odd exponent of the practical side of a school of

thought which had been gaining strength in Greece for some

time past. This school was now brought into prominence by the

rise of Macedon, and came to have a marked influence on the

history of the City-State. It began with the philosophers, and

with the idea that the philosopher may belong to the world as

well as to a particular city. ... Athens was far more open to

criticism now than in the days of Pericles; and a cynical

dislike betrays itself in the Republic for the politicians of

the day and their tricks, and a longing for a strong

government of reason. ... Aristotle took the facts of city

life as they were and showed how they might be made the most

of. ... To him Macedon was assuredly not wholly barbarian; and

war to the death with her kings could not have been to him as

natural or desirable as it seemed to Demosthenes. And though

he has nothing to tell us of Macedon, we can hardly avoid the

conclusion that his desire was for peace and internal reform,

even if it were under the guarantee of the northern power. ...

Of this philosophical view of Greek politics Phocion was in a

manner the political exponent. But his policy was too much a

negative one; it might almost be called one of indifferentism,

like the feeling of Lessing and Goethe in Germany's most

momentous period. So far as we know, Phocion never proposed an

alliance of a durable kind, either Athenian or Hellenic, with

Macedon; he was content to be a purely restraining influence.

Athens had been constantly at war since 432; her own resources

were of the weakest; there was little military skill to be

found in her, no reserve force, much talk, but little solid

courage. Athens was vulnerable at various points, and could

not possibly defend more than one at a time, therefore Phocion

despaired of war, and the event proved him right. The

faithfulness of the Athenians towards him is a proof that they

also instinctively felt that he was right. But he was wanting

on the practical and creative side, and never really dominated

either Athens, Greece, or Philip. ... A policy of resistance

found the City-State too weak to defend itself; a policy of

inaction would land it in a Macedonian empire which would

still further weaken its remaining vitality. The first policy,

that of Demosthenes, did actually result in disaster and the

presence of Macedonian garrisons in Greek cities. The second

policy then took its place, and initiated a new era for

Greece. After the fatal battle of Chæronea (338 B. C.) Philip

assumed the position of leader of the Greek cities."

W. W. Fowler, The City-State of the Greeks and Romans,

chapter 10.

See, also, GREECE: 357-336.

ATHENS: B. C. 340.

Alliance with Byzantium against Philip of Macedon.

See GREECE: B. C. 340.

{181}

ATHENS: B. C. 336-322.

End of the Struggle with the Macedonians.

Fall of Democracy.

Death of Demosthenes.

Athenian decline.

"An unexpected incident changes the whole aspect of things.

Philip falls the victim of assassination; and a youth, who as

yet is but little known, is his successor. Immediately

Demosthenes institutes a second alliance of the Greeks; but

Alexander suddenly appears before Thebes; the terrible

vengeance which he here takes, instantly destroys the league;

Demosthenes, Lycurgus, and several of their supporters,

are required to be delivered up: but Demades is at that

time able to settle the difficulty and to appease the king.

His strength was therefore enfeebled as Alexander departed for

Asia; he begins to raise his head once more when Sparta

attempts to throw off the yoke: but under Antipater he is

overpowered. Yet it was about this very time that by the most

celebrated of his discourses he gained the victory over the

most eloquent of his adversaries; and Æschines was forced to

depart from Athens. But this seems only to have the more

embittered his enemies, the leaders of the Macedonian party;

and they soon found an opportunity of preparing his downfall.

When Harpalus, a fugitive from the army of Alexander, came

with his treasures to Athens, and the question arose, whether

he could be permitted to remain there, Demosthenes was accused

of having been corrupted by his money, at least to be silent.

This was sufficient to procure the imposition of a fine; and

as this was not paid, he was thrown into prison. From thence

he succeeded in escaping; but to the man who lived only for

his country, exile was no less an evil than imprisonment. He

resided for the most part in Ægina and at Trœzen, from whence

he looked with moist eyes toward the neighbouring Attica.

Suddenly and unexpectedly a new ray of light broke through the

clouds. Tidings were brought, that Alexander was dead. The

moment of deliverance seemed at hand; the excitement pervaded

every Grecian state; the ambassadors of the Athenians passed

through the cities; Demosthenes joined himself to the number

and exerted all his eloquence and power to unite them against

Macedonia. In requital for such services, the people decreed

his return; and years of sufferings were at last followed by a

day of exalted compensation. A galley was sent to Ægina to

bring back the advocate of liberty. ... It was a momentary

glimpse of the sun, which still darker clouds were soon to

conceal. Antipater and Craterus were victorious; and with them

the Macedonian party in Athens: Demosthenes and his friends

were numbered among the accused, and at the instigation of

Demades were condemned to die. ... Demosthenes had escaped to

the island Calauria in the vicinity of Trœzen; and took refuge

in the temple of Neptune. It was to no purpose that Archias,

the satellite of Antipater, urged him to surrender himself

under promise of pardon. He pretended he wished to write

something; bit the quill, and swallowed the poison contained

in it."

A. H. L. Heeren, Reflections on the Politics of Ancient

Greece, translated by G. Bancroft, pages 278-280.

See, also, on the "Lamian War," the suppression of

Democracy at Athens, and the expulsion of poor citizens,

GREECE: B. C. 323-322.

"With the decline of political independence, ... the mental

powers of the nation received a fatal blow. No longer knit

together by a powerful esprit de corps, the Greeks lost the

habit of working for the common weal; and, for the most part,

gave themselves up to the petty interests of home life and

their own personal troubles. Even the better disposed were too

much occupied in opposing the low tone and corruption of the

times, to be able to devote themselves, in their moments of

relaxation, to a free and speculative consideration of things.

What could be expected in such an age, but that philosophy

would take a decidedly practical turn, if indeed it were

studied at all? And yet such were the political antecedents of

the Stoic and Epicurean systems of philosophy. ... Stoic

apathy, Epicurean self-satisfaction, and Sceptic

imperturbability, were the doctrines which responded to the

political helplessness of the age. They were the doctrines,

too, which met with the most general acceptance. The same

political helplessness produced the sinking of national

distinctions in the feeling of a common humanity, and the

separation of morals from politics which characterise the

philosophy of the Alexandrian and Roman period. The barriers

between nations, together with national independence, had been

swept away. East and West, Greeks and barbarians, were united

in large empires, being thus thrown together, and brought into

close contact on every possible point. Philosophy might teach

that all men were of one blood, that all were equally citizens

of one empire, that morality rested on the relation of man to

his fellow men, independently of nationalities and of social

ranks; but in so doing she was only explicitly stating truths

which had been already realised in part, and which were in

part corollaries from the existing state of society."

E. Zeller, The Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics,

pages 16-18.

"What we have said concerning the evidence of comedy about the

age of the first Diadochi amounts to this: Menander and his

successors--they lasted barely two generations--printed in a

few stereotypes a small and very worthless society at Athens.

There was no doubt a similar set of people at Corinth, at

Thebes, possibly even in the city of Lycurgus. These people,

idle, for the most part rich, and in good society, spent their

earlier years in debauchery, and their later in sentimental

reflections and regrets. They had no serious object in life,

and regarded the complications of a love affair as more

interesting than the rise and fall of kingdoms or the gain and

loss of a nation's liberty. They were like the people of our

day who spend all their time reading novels from the

libraries, and who can tolerate these eternal variations in

twaddle not only without disgust but with interest. They were

surrounded with slaves, on the whole more intelligent and

interesting, for in the first place slaves were bound to

exercise their brains, and in the second they had a great

object--liberty--to give them a keen pursuit in life. The

relations of the sexes in this set or portion of society were

bad, owing to the want of education in the women, and the want

of earnestness in the men. As a natural consequence a class

was found, apart from household slaves, who took advantage of

these defects, and, bringing culture to fascinate unprincipled

men, established those relations which brought estragements,

if not ruin, into the home life of the day."

J. P. Mahaffy, Greek Life and Thought, pages 123-124.

{182}

"The amount of Persian wealth poured into Greece by the

accidents of the conquest, not by its own industries, must

have produced a revolution in prices not since equalled except

by the influx of the gold of the Aztecs and Incas into Spain.

I have already pointed out how this change must have pressed

upon poor people in Greece who did not share in the plunder.

The price of even necessary and simple things must have often

risen beyond their means. For the adventurers brought home

large fortunes, and the traders and purveyors of the armies

made them; and with these Eastern fortunes must have come in

the taste for all the superior comforts and luxuries which

they found among the Persian grandees. Not only the

appointments of the table, in the way of plate and pottery,

but the very tastes and flavours of Greek cookery must have

profited by comparison with the knowledge of the East. So also

the furniture, especially in carpets and hangings, must have

copied Persian fashion, just as we still affect oriental

stuffs and designs. It was not to be expected that the example

of so many regal courts and so much royal ceremony should not

affect those in contact with them. These influences were not

only shown in the vulgar 'braggart captain,' who came to show

off his sudden wealth in impudent extravagance among his old

townspeople, but in the ordinary life of rich young men. So I

imagine the personal appointments of Alcibiades, which were

the talk of Greece in his day, would have appeared poor and

mean beside those of Aratus, or of the generation which

preceded him. Pictures and statues began to adorn private

houses, and not temples and public buildings only--a change

beginning to show itself in Demosthenes's day, but coming in

like a torrent with the opening of Greece to the Eastern

world. It was noticed that Phocion's house at Athens was

modest in size and furniture, but even this was relieved from

shabbiness by the quaint wall decoration of shining plates of

bronze--a fashion dating from prehistoric times, but still

admired for its very antiquity."

J. P. Mahaffy, Greek Life and Thought, pages 105-106.

"The modern historians of Greece are much divided on the

question where a history of Hellas ought to end. Curtius stops

with the battle of Chaeroncia and the prostration of Athens

before the advancing power of Macedon. Grote narrates the

campaigns of Alexander, but stops short at the conclusion of

the Lamian War, when Greece had in vain tried to shake off the

supremacy of his generals. Thirlwall brings his narrative down

to the time of Mummius, the melancholy sack of Corinth and the

constitution of Achaia as a Roman province. Of these divergent

views we regard that of the German historian as the most

correct. ... The historic sense of Grote did not exclude

prejudices, and in this case he was probably led astray by

political bias. At the close of his ninety-sixth chapter,

after mentioning the embassies sent by the degenerate

Athenians to King Ptolemy, King Lysimachus, and Antipater, he

throws down his pen in disgust, 'and with sadness and

humiliation brings his narrative to a close.' Athens was no

longer free and no longer dignified, and so Mr. Grote will

have done with Greece at the very moment when the new Comedy

was at its height, when the Museum was founded at Alexandria,

when the plays of Euripides were acted at Babylon and Cabul,

and every Greek soldier of fortune carried a diadem in his

baggage. Surely the historian of Greece ought either to have

stopped when the iron hand of Philip of Macedon put an end to

the liberties and the political wranglings of Hellas, or else

persevered to the time when Rome and Parthia crushed Greek

power between them, like a ship between two icebergs. No doubt

his reply would be, that he declined to regard the triumph

abroad of Macedonian arms as a continuation of the history of

Hellas. ... The truth is, that the history of Greece consists

of two parts, in every respect contrasted one with the other.

The first recounts the stories of the Persian and

Peloponnesian wars, and ends with the destruction of Thebes

and the subjugation of Athens and Sparta. The Hellas of which

it speaks is a cluster of autonomous cities in the

Peloponnesus, the Islands, and Northern Greece, together with

their colonies scattered over the coasts of Italy, Sicily,

Thrace, the Black Sea, Asia Minor, and Africa. These cities

care only to be independent, or at most to lord it over one

another. Their political institutions, their religious

ceremonies, their customs, are civic and local. Language,

commerce, a common Pantheon, and a common art and poetry are

the ties that bind them together. In its second phase, Greek

history begins with the expedition of Alexander. It reveals to

us the Greek as everywhere lord of the barbarian, as foundling

kingdoms and federal systems, as the instructor of all mankind

in art and science, and the spreader of civil and civilized

life over the known world. In the first period of her history

Greece is forming herself, in her second she is educating the

world. We will venture to borrow from the Germans a convenient

expression, and call the history of independent Greece the

history of Hellas, that of imperial Greece the history of

Hellenism. ... The Athens of Pericles was dictator among the

cities which had joined her alliance. Corinth, Sparta, Thebes,

were each the political head of a group of towns, but none of

the three admitted these latter to an equal share in their

councils, or adopted their political views. Even in the

Olynthian League, the city of Olynthus occupied a position

quite superior to that of the other cities. But the Greek

cities had not tried the experiment of an alliance on equal

terms. This was now attempted by some of the leading cities of

the Peloponnese, and the result was the Achaean League, whose

history sheds a lustre on the last days of independent Greece,

and whose generals will bear comparison with the statesmen of

any Greek Republic [sec GREECE: B. C. 280-146]. ... On the

field of Sellasia the glorious hopes of Cleomenes were

wrecked, and the recently reformed Sparta was handed over to a

succession of bloodthirsty tyrants, never again to emerge from

obscurity. But to the Achaeans themselves the interference of

Macedon was little less fatal. Henceforth a Macedonian

garrison occupied Corinth, which had been one of the chief

cities of the League; and King Antigonus Doson was the

recognized arbiter in all disputes of the Peloponnesian

Greeks. ... In Northern Greece a strange contrast presented

itself. The historic races of the Athenians and Boeotians

languished in peace, obscurity, and luxury. With them every

day saw something added to the enjoyments and elegancies of

life, and every day politics drifted more and more into the

background. On the other hand, the rude semi-Greeks of the

West, Aetolians, Acarnanians, and Epirotes, to whose manhood

the repulse of the Gauls was mainly due, came to the front and

showed the bold spirit of Greeks divorced from the finer

faculties of the race. The Acarnanians formed a league

somewhat on the plan of the Achaean.

{183}

But they were overshadowed by their neighbors the Aetolians,

whose union was of a different character. It was the first

time that there had been formed in Hellas a state framed in

order to prey upon its neighbours. ... In the course of the

Peloponnesian War Greek religion began to lose its hold on the

Greeks. This was partly the work of the sophists and

philosophers, who sought more lofty and moral views of Deity

than were furnished by the tales of popular mythology. Still

more it resulted from growing materialism among the people,

who saw more and more of their immediate and physical needs,

and less and less of the underlying spiritual elements in

life. But though philosophy and materialism had made the

religion of Hellas paler and feebler, they had not altered its

nature or expanded it. It still remained essentially national,

almost tribal. When, therefore, Greeks and Macedonians

suddenly found themselves masters of the nations of the East,

and in close contact with a hundred forms of religion, an

extraordinary and rapid change took place in their religions

ideas. In religion, as in other matters, Egypt set to the

world the example of prompt fusion of the ideas of Greeks and

natives. ... Into Greece proper, in return for her population

which flowed out, there flowed in a crowd of foreign deities.

Isis was especially welcomed at Athens, where she found many

votaries. In every cult the more mysterious elements were made

more of, and the brighter and more materialistic side passed

by. Old statues which had fallen somewhat into contempt in the

days of Pheidias and Praxiteles were restored to their places

and received extreme veneration, not as beautiful, but as old

and strange. On the coins of the previous period the

representations of deities had been always the best that the

die-cutter could frame, taking as his models the finest

contemporary sculpture; but henceforth we often find them

strange, uncouth figures, remnants of a period of struggling

early art, like the Apollo at Amyclae, or the Hera of Samos.

... In the intellectual life of Athens there was still left

vitality enough to formulate the two most complete expressions

of the ethical ideas of the times, the doctrines of the Stoics

and the Epicureans, towards one or the other of which all

educated minds from that day to this have been drawn. No doubt

our knowledge of these doctrines, being largely drawn from the

Latin writers and their Greek contemporaries, is somewhat

coloured and unjust. With the Romans a system of philosophy

was considered mainly in its bearing upon conduct, whence the

ethical elements in Stoicism and Epicureanism have been by

their Roman adherents so thrust into the foreground, that we

have almost lost sight of the intellectual elements, which can

have had little less importance in the eyes of the Greeks.

Notwithstanding, the rise of the two philosophies must be held

to mark a new era in the history of thought, an era when the

importance of conduct was for the first time recognized by the

Greeks. It is often observed that the ancient Greeks were more

modern than our own ancestors of the Middle Ages. But it is

less generally recognized how far more modern than the Greeks

of Pericles were the Greeks of Aratus. In very many respects

the age of Hellenism and our own age present remarkable

similarity. In both there appears a sudden increase in the

power over material nature, arising alike from the greater

accessibility of all parts of the world and from the rapid

development of the sciences which act upon the physical forces

of the world. In both this spread of science and power acts

upon religion with a dissolving and, if we may so speak,

centrifugal force, driving some men to take refuge in the most

conservative forms of faith, some to fly to new creeds and

superstitions, some to drift into unmeasured scepticism. In

both the facility of moving from place to place, and finding a

distant home, tends to dissolve the closeness of civic and

family life, and to make the individual rather than the family

or the city the unit of social life. And in the family

relations, in the character of individuals, in the state of

morality, in the condition of art, we find at both periods

similar results from the similar causes we have mentioned."

P. Gardner, New Chapters in Greek History, chapter 15.

ATHENS: B. C. 317-316.

Siege by Polysperchon.

Democracy restored.

Execution of Phocion.

Demetrius of Phaleron at the head of the government.

See GREECE: B. C. 321-312.

ATHENS: B.C. 307-197.

Under Demetrius Poliorcetes and the Antigonids.

See GREECE: B. C.307-197.

ATHENS: B. C. 288-263.

Twenty years of Independence.

Siege and subjugation by Antigonus Gonatas.

When Demetrius Poliorcetes lost the Macedonian throne, B. C.

288, his fickle Athenian subjects and late worshippers rose

against his authority, drove his garrisons from the Museum and

the Piræus and abolished the priesthood they had consecrated

to him. Demetrius gathered an army from some quarter and laid

siege to the city, but without success. The Athenians went so

far as to invite Pyrrhus, the warrior king of Epirus, to

assist them against him. Pyrrhus came and Demetrius retired.

The dangerous ally contented himself with a visit to the

Acropolis as a worshipper, and left Athens in possession,

undisturbed, of her freshly gained freedom. It was enjoyed

after a fashion for twenty years, at the end of which period,

B. C. 268, Antigonus Gonatas, the son of Demetrius, having

regained the Macedonian crown, reasserted his claim on Athens,

and the city was once more besieged. The Lacedæmonians and

Ptolemy of Egypt both gave some ineffectual aid to the

Athenians, and the siege, interrupted on several occasions,

was prolonged until B. C. 263, when Antigonus took possession

of the Acropolis, the fortified Museum and the Piræus as a

master (see MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 277-244). This was sometimes

called the Chremonidean War, from the name of a patriotic

Athenian who took the most prominent part in the long defence

of his city.

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 61.

ATHENS: B. C. 229.

Liberation by the Achaian League.

See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

ATHENS: B. C. 200.

Vandalism of the second Macedonian Philip.

In the year B. C. 200 the Macedonian king, Philip, made an

attempt to surprise Athens and failed. "He then encamped in

the outskirts, and proceeded to wreak his vengeance on the

Athenians, as he had indulged it at Thermus and Pergamus. He

destroyed or defaced all the monuments of religion and of art,

all the sacred and pleasant places which adorned the suburbs.

The Academy, the Lycenm, and Cynosarges, with their temples,

schools, groves and gardens, were all wasted with fire. Not

even the sepulchres were spared."

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 64.

{184}

ATHENS: B. C. 197-A. D. 138.

Under Roman rule.

"Athens ... affords the disheartening picture of a

commonwealth pampered by the supreme power, and financially as

well us morally ruined. By rights it ought to have found

itself in a flourishing condition. ... No city of antiquity

elsewhere possessed a domain of its own, such as was Attica,

of about 700 square miles. ... But even beyond Attica they

retained what they possessed, as well after the Mithridatic

War, by favour of Sulla, as after the Pharsalian battle, in

which they had taken the side of Pompeius, by the favour of

Cæsar;--he asked them only how often they would still ruin

themselves and trust to be saved by the renown of their

ancestors. To the city there still belonged not merely the

territory, formerly possessed by Haliartus, in Boeotia, but

also on their own coast Salamis, the old starting-point of

their dominion of the sea, and in the Thracian Sea the

lucrative islands Scyros, Lemnos, and Imbros, as well as Delos

in the Aegean. ... Of the further grants, which they had the

skill to draw by flattery from Antoninus, Augustus, against

whom they had taken part, took from them certainly Aegina and

Eretria in Euboea, but they were allowed to retain the smaller

islands of the Thracian Sea. ... Hadrian, moreover, gave to

them the best part of the great island of Cephallenia in the

Ionian Sea. It was only by the Emperor Severus, who bore them

no good will, that a portion of these extraneous possessions

was withdrawn from them. Hadrian further granted to the

Athenians the delivery of a certain quantity of grain at the

expense of the empire, and by the extension of this privilege,

hitherto reserved for the capital, acknowledged Athens, as it

were, as another metropolis. Not less was the blissful

institute of alimentary endowments, which Italy had enjoyed

since Trajan's time, extended by Hadrian to Athens, and the

capital requisite for this purpose certainly presented to the

Athenians from his purse. ... Yet the community was in

constant distress."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 7.

ALSO IN:

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

See, also, GREECE: B. C. 146-A. D. 180.

ATHENS: B. C. 87-86.

Siege and capture by Sulla.

Massacre of citizens.

Pillage and depopulation.

Lasting injuries.

The early successes of Mithridates of Pontus, in his savage

war with the Romans, included a general rising in his favor

among the Greeks [see MITHRIDATIC WARS], supported by the

fleets of the Pontic king and by a strong invading army.

Athens and the Piræus were the strongholds of the Greek

revolt, and at Athens an adventurer named Aristion, bringing

from Mithridates a body-guard of 2,000 soldiers, made himself

tyrant of the city. A year passed before Rome, distracted by

the beginnings of civil war, could effectively interfere. Then

Sulla came (B. C. 87) and laid siege to the Piræus, where the

principal Pontic force was lodged, while he shut up Athens by

blockade. In the following March, Athens was starved to such

weakness that the Romans entered almost unopposed and killed

and plundered with no mercy; but the buildings of the city

suffered little harm at their hands. The siege of the Piræus

was carried on for some weeks longer, until Sulla had driven

the Pontic forces from every part except Munychia, and that

they evacuated in no long time.

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 7, chapter 17.

"Athens was ... taken by assault. ... The majority of the

citizens was slain; the carnage was so fearfully great as to

become memorable even in that age of bloodshed; the private

movable property was seized by the soldiery, and Sylla assumed

some merit to himself for not committing the rifled houses to

the flames. ... The fate of the Piræus, which he utterly

destroyed, was more severe than that of Athens. From Sylla's

campaign in Greece the commencement of the ruin and

depopulation of the country is to be dated. The destruction of

property caused by his ravages in Attica was so great that Athens

from that time lost its commercial as well as its political

importance. The race of Athenian citizens was almost

extirpated, and a new population, composed of a heterogeneous

mass of settlers, received the right of

citizenship."

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

ATHENS: A. D. 54 (?).

The Visit of St. Paul.

Planting of Christianity.

"When the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of

God was proclaimed of Paul at Berea also, they came thither

likewise, stirring up and troubling the multitude. And then

immediately the brethren sent forth Paul to go as far as to

the sea: and Silas and Timotheus abode there still. But they

that conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens; and

receiving a commandment unto Silas and Timotheus that they

should come to him with all speed, they departed. Now while

Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within

him, as he beheld the city full of idols. So he reasoned in

the synagogue with the Jews, and the devout persons, and in

the market place every day with them that met with him. And

certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers

encountered him. And some said, what would this babbler say?

other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods:

because he preached Jesus and the resurrection. And they took

hold of him, and brought him unto the Areopagus, saying, May

we know what this new teaching is, which is spoken by thee?

For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would

know therefore what these things mean. (Now all the Athenians

and the strangers sojourning there spent their time in nothing

else, but either to tell or to hear some new thing.) And Paul

stood in the midst of the Areopagus, and said, Ye men of

Athens, in all things I perceive that ye are somewhat

superstitious. For as I passed along and observed the objects

of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription,

'To an Unknown God.' What therefore ye worship in ignorance,

this set I forth unto you. ... Now when they heard of the

resurrection of the dead, some mocked; but others said, We

will hear thee concerning this yet again. Thus Paul went out

from among them. Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and

believed: among whom also was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a

woman named Damaris, and others with them."

Acts of the Apostles, Revised Version, chapter 17.

{185}

"Consider the difficulties which must have beset the planting

of the Church in Athens. If the burning zeal of the great

Apostle ever permitted him to feel diffidence in addressing an

assembly, he may well have felt it when he addressed on Mars'

Hill for the first time an Athenian crowd. No doubt the Athens

of his time was in her decay, inferior in opulence and

grandeur to many younger cities. Yet even to a Jew, provided

he had received some educational impressions beyond the

fanatical shibboleths of Pharisaism, there was much in that

wonderful centre of intelligence to shake his most inveterate

prejudices and inspire him with unwilling respect. Shorn

indeed of her political greatness, deprived even of her

philosophical supremacy, she still shone with a brilliant

afterglow of æsthetic and intellectual prestige. Her monuments

flashed on the visitor memories recent enough to dazzle his

imagination. Her schools claimed and obtained even from

Emperors the homage due to her unique past. Recognising her as

the true nurse of Hellenism and the chief missionary of human

refinement, the best spirits of the age held her worthy of

admiring love not unmixed with awe. As the seat of the most

brilliant and popular university, young men of talent and

position flocked to her from every quarter, studied for a time

within her colonnades, and carried thence the recollection of

a culture which was not always deep, not always erudite, but

was always and genuinely Attic. To subject to the criticism of

this people a doctrine professing to come direct from God, a

religion and not a philosophy, depending not on argument but

on revelation, was a task of which the difficulties might seem

insuperable. When we consider what the Athenian character was,

this language will not seem exaggerated. Keen, subtle,

capricious, satirical, sated with ideas, eager for novelty,

yet with the eagerness of amused frivolity, not of the

truth-seeker: critical by instinct, exquisitely sensitive to

the ridiculous or the absurd, disputatious, ready to listen,

yet impatient of all that was not wit, satisfied with

everything in life except its shortness, and therefore hiding

all references to this unwelcome fact under a veil of

complacent euphemism--where could a more uncongenial soil be

found for the seed of the Gospel? ... To an Athenian the Jew

was not so much an object of hatred (as to the Roman), nor

even of contempt (as to the rest of mankind), as of absolute

indifference. He was simply ignored. To the eclectic

philosophy which now dominated the schools of Athens, Judaism

alone among all human opinions was as if non-existent. That

Athenians should be convinced by the philosophy of a Jew would

be a proposition expressible in words but wholly destitute of

meaning. On the other hand, the Jew was not altogether

uninfluenced by Greek thought. Wide apart as the two minds

were, the Hebraic proved not insensible to the charm of the

Hellenic; witness the Epistle to the Hebrews, witness Philo,

witness the intrusion of Greek methods of interpretation even

into the text-books of Rabbinism. And it was Athens, as the

quintessence of Hellas, Athens as represented by Socrates, and

still more by Plato, which had gained this subtle power. And

just as Judæa alone among all the Jewish communities retained

its exclusiveness wholly unimpaired by Hellenism, so Athens,

more than any Pagan capital, was likely to ignore or repel a

faith coming in the garb of Judaism. And yet within less than

a century we find this faith so well established there as to

yield to the Church the good fruits of martyrdom in the person

of its bishop, and of able defences in the person of three of

its teachers. The early and the later fortunes of the Athenian

Church are buried in oblivion; it comes but for a brief period

before the scene of history. But the undying interest of that

one dramatic moment when Paul proclaimed a bodily resurrection

to the authors of the conception of a spiritual immortality,

will always cause us to linger with a strange sympathy over

every relic of the Christianity of Athens."

C. T. Cruttwell, A Literary History of Early

Christianity, volume 1, book 3, chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

W. J. Conybeare and J. S. Howson, Life and Letters of

St. Paul, volume 1, chapter 10.

F. C. Baur, Paul, part 1, chapter 7 (volume l).

On the inscription,

See E. de Pressensé, The Early Years of Christianity:

The Apostolic Era, book 2, chapter 1.

ATHENS: A. D. 125-134.

The works of Hadrian.

The Emperor Hadrian interested himself greatly in the

venerable decaying capital of the Greeks, which he visited, or

resided in, for considerable periods, several times, between

A. D. 125 and 134. These visits were made important to the

city by the great works of rebuilding which he undertook and

supervised. Large parts of the city are thought to have been

reconstructed by him, "in the open and luxurious style of

Antioch and Ephesus." One quarter came to be called

"Hadrianapolis," as though he had created it. Several new

temples were erected at his command; but the greatest of the

works of Hadrian at Athens was the completing of the vast

national temple, the Olympieum, the beginning of which dated

back to the age of Pisistratus, and which Augustus had put his

hand to without finishing.

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 66.

ATHENS: A. D. 267.

Capture of, by the Goths.

See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

ATHENS: A. D. 395.

Surrender to Alaric and the Goths.

When the Goths under Alaric invaded and ravaged Greece, A. D.

395, Athens was surrendered to them, on terms which saved the

city from being plundered. "The fact that the depredations of

Alaric hardly exceeded the ordinary license of a rebellious

general, is ... perfectly established. The public buildings

and monuments of ancient splendour suffered no wanton

destruction from his visit; but there can be no doubt that

Alaric and his troops levied heavy contributions on the city

and its inhabitants."

G. Finlay, Greece under the Romans, chapter 2, section 8.

ALSO IN:

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 30

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717.

See, also, GOTHS: A. D. 395, ALARIC'S INVASION OF GREECE.

ATHENS: A. D. 529.

Suppression of the Schools by Justinian.

"The Attic schools of rhetoric and philosophy maintained their

superior reputation from the Peloponnesian War to the reign of

Justinian. Athens, though situate in a barren soil, possessed

a pure air, a free navigation, and the monuments of ancient

art. That sacred retirement was seldom disturbed by the

business of trade or government; and the last of the Athenians

were distinguished by their lively wit, the purity of their

taste and language, their social manners, and some traces, at

least in discourse, of the magnanimity of their fathers. In

the suburbs of the city, the Academy of the Platonists, the

Lycæum of the Peripatetics, the Portico of the Stoics and the

Garden of the Epicureans were planted with trees and decorated

with statues; and the philosophers, instead of being immured

in a cloister, delivered their instructions in spacious and

pleasant walks, which, at different hours, were consecrated to

the exercises of the mind and body. The genius of the founders

still lived in those venerable seats. ...

{186}

The schools of Athens were protected by the wisest and most

virtuous of the Roman princes. ... Some vestige of royal

bounty may be found under the successors of Constantine. ...

The golden chain, as it was fondly styled, of the Platonic

succession, continued ... to the edict of Justinian [A. D.

529] which imposed a perpetual silence on the schools of

Athens, and excited the grief and indignation of the few

remaining votaries of Greek science and superstition."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 40.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

ATHENS: A. D. 1205.

The founding of the Latin Dukedom.

"The portion of Greece lying to the south of the kingdom of

Saloniki was divided by the Crusaders [after their conquest of

Constantinople, A. D. 1204--see BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D.

1203-1204] among several great feudatories of the Empire of

Romania. ... The lords of Boudonitza, Salona, Negropont, and

Athens are alone mentioned as existing to the north of the

isthmus of Corinth, and the history of the petty sovereigns of

Athens can alone be traced in any detail. ... Otho de la

Roche, a Burgundian nobleman, who had distinguished himself

during the siege of Constantinople, marched southward with the

army of Boniface the king-marquis, and gained possession of

Athens in 1205. Thebes and Athens had probably fallen to his

share in the partition of the Empire, but it is possible that

the king of Saloniki may have found means to increase his

portion, in order to induce him to do homage to the crown of

Saloniki for this addition. At all events, it appears that

Otho de la Roche did homage to Boniface, either as his

immediate superior, or as viceroy for the Emperor of Romania.

... Though the Byzantine aristocracy and dignified clergy were

severe sufferers by the transference of the government into

the hands of the Franks, the middle classes long enjoyed peace

and security. ... The social civilization of the inhabitants,

and their ample command of the necessaries and many of the

luxuries of life, were in those days as much superior to the

condition of the citizens of Paris and London as they are now

inferior. ... The city was large and wealthy, the country

thickly covered with villages, of which the ruins may still be

traced in spots affording no indications of Hellenic sites.

... The trade of Athens was considerable, and the luxury of

the Athenian ducal court was celebrated in all the regions of

the West where chivalry flourished."

G. Finlay, History of Greece from its Conquest by the

Crusaders, chapter 7.

ALSO IN:

C. C. Felton, Greece, Ancient and Modern: 4th Course.

lecture 5.

ATHENS: A. D. 1311-1456.

Under the Catalans and the Florentines.

See CATALAN GRAND COMPANY.

ATHENS: A. D. 1456.

The Turks in possession.

Athens was not occupied by the Turks until three years after

the conquest of Constantinople (see CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D.

1453). In the meantime the reign of the Florentine dukes of

the house of Acciaioli came to a tragical close. The last of

the dukes, Maurice Acciaioli died, leaving a young son and a

young widow, the latter renowned for her beauty and her

talents. The duchess, whom the will of her husband had made

regent, married a comely Venetian named Palmerio, who was said

to have poisoned his wife in order to be free to accept her

hand. Thereupon a nephew of the late duke, named Franco,

stirred up insurrections at Athens and fled to Constantinople

to complain to the sultan, Mahomet II. "The sultan, glad of

all pretexts that coloured his armed intervention in the

affairs of these principalities, ordered Omar, son of

Tourakhan, chief of the permanent army of the Peloponnesus, to

take possession of Athens, to dethrone the duchess and to

confine her sons in his prisons of the citadel of Megara."

This was done; but Palmerio, the duchess's husband, made his

way to the sultan and interceded in her behalf. "Mahomet, by

the advice of his viziers, feigned to listen equally to the

complaints of Palmerio, and to march to reestablish the

legitimate sovereignty. But already Franco, entering Megara

under the auspices of the Ottomans, had strangled both the

duchess and her son. Mahomet, advancing in turn to punish him

for his vengeance, expelled Franco from Athens on entering it,

and gave him, in compensation, the inferior and dependent

principality of Thebes, in Boeotia. The sultan, as lettered as

he was warlike, evinced no less pride and admiration than

Sylla at the sight of the monuments of Athens. 'What

gratitude,' exclaimed he before the Parthenon and the temple

of Theseus, 'do not religion and the Empire owe to the son of

Tourakhan, who has made them a present of these spoils of the

genius of the Greeks.'"

A. Lamartine, History of Turkey, book 13, section 10-12.

ATHENS: A. D. 1466.

Capture and plundering by the Venetians.

See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.

ATHENS: A. D. 1687.

Siege, bombardment and capture by the Venetians.

Destructive explosion in the Parthenon.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

ATHENS: A. D. 1821-1829.

The Greek revolution and war of independence.

Capture by the Turks.

See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

----------ATHENS: End--------------

ATHERTON GAG, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1836.

ATHLONE, Siege of (A. D. 1691).

See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

ATHRAVAS.

See MAGIANS.

ATIMIA.

The penalty of Atimia, under ancient Athenian law, was the

loss of civic rights.

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

part 3, chapter 3.

ATIMUCA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TIMUCUA.

ATLANTA: A. D. 1864 (May-September).

Sherman's advance to the city.

Its siege and capture.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA); and (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

ATLANTA: A. D. 1864 (September).

Exclusive military occupation of the city.

Removal of inhabitants.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864

(SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).

ATLANTA: A. D. 1864 (November).

Destruction of the city.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864

(NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).

----------ATLANTA: End----------

ATLANTIC OCEAN:

The name.

The Atlantic Ocean is mentioned by that name in a single

passage of Herodotus; "but it is clear, from the incidental

way in which it [the name] is here introduced, that it was one

well known in his day."

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,

chapter 7, section 1, note.

For a sketch of the history of the modern use of the name,

See PACIFIC OCEAN.

{187}

ATREBATES, The.

This name was borne by a tribe in ancient Belgic Gaul, which

occupied modern Artois and part of French Flanders, and, also,

by a tribe or group of tribes in Britain, which dwelt in a

region between the Thames and the Severn. The latter was

probably a colony from the former.

See BELGÆ;

also BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

ATROPATENE.--MEDIA ATROPATENE.

"Atropatene, as a name for the Alpine land in the northwest of

Iran (now Aderbeijan), came into use in the time of the Greek

Empire [Alexander's]; at any rate we cannot trace it earlier.

'Athrapaiti' means 'lord of fire;' 'Athrapata,' 'one protected

by fire;' in the remote mountains of this district the old

fire worship was preserved with peculiar zeal under the

Seleucids."

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 7, chapter 4.

Atropatene "comprises the entire basin of Lake Urumiyeh,

together with the country intervening between that basin and

the high mountain chain which curves round the southwestern

corner of the Caspian."

G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Media, chapter 1.

Atropatene was "named in honour of the satrap Atropates, who

had declared himself king after Alexander's death."

J. P. Mahaffy, Story of Alexander's Empire, chapter 13.

ATSINAS.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET.

ATTABEGS.

See ATABEGS.

ATTACAPAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATTACAPAN FAMILY.

ATTAMAN, or HETMAN.

See COSSACKS.

ATTECOTTI, The.

See OTADENI;

also, BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

ATTIC SALT.

Thyme was a favorite condiment among the ancient Greeks,

"which throve nowhere else so well as in Attica. Even salt was

seasoned with thyme. Attic salt, however, is famed rather in

the figurative than in the literal sense, and did not form an

article of trade."

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

part 3, chapter 3.

ATTIC TALENT.

See TALENT.

ATTIC WAR, The.

See TEN YEARS' WAR.

ATTICA.

"It forms a rocky peninsula, separated from the mainland by

trackless mountains, and jutting so far out into the Eastern

Sea that it lay out of the path of the tribes moving from

north to south. Hence the migratory passages which agitated

the whole of Hellas left Attica untouched, and for this reason

Attic history is not divided into such marked epochs as that of

Peloponnesus; it possesses a superior unity, and presents an

uninterrupted development of coalitions of life native in

their origin to the land. ... On the other hand Attica was

perfectly adapted by nature for receiving immigrants from the

sea. For the whole country, as its name indicates, consists of

coast-land; and the coast abounds in harbours, and on account of

the depth of water in the roads is everywhere accessible;

while the best of its plains open towards the coast and invite

the mariner to land. The first landings by which the

monotonous conditions of the age of the Pelasgians were

interrupted where those of the Phoenicians, who domesticated

the worship of Aphrodite, as well as that of the Tyrian Melcar

on the coasts. Afterwards the tribes of the shores of Asia Minor

came across; in the first place the Carians, who introduced

the worship of the Carian Zeus and Posidon, and were followed

by Cretans, Lycians, Dardanians and Old Ionians. The

population became mixed. ... This first epoch of the national

history the ancients connected with the name of Cecrops. It

forms the transition from the life of rural districts and

villages to that of a state. Attica has become a land with

twelve citadels, in each of which dwells a chieftain or king,

who has his domains, his suite, and his subjects. Every

twelfth is a state by itself, with its separate public hall

and common hearth. If under these circumstances a common

national history was to be attained to, one of the twelve

towns, distinguished by special advantages of situation, would

have to become the capital. And to such a position undeniable

advantages entitled the city whose seat was in the plain of

the Cephisus. ... Into the centre of the entire plain advances

from the direction of Hymettus a group of rocky heights, among

them an entirely separate and mighty block which, with the

exception of a narrow access from the west, offers on all

sides vertically precipitous walls, surmounted by a broad

level sufficiently roomy to afford space for the sanctuaries

of the national gods and the habitations of the national

rulers. It seems as if nature had designedly placed this rock

in this position as the ruling castle and the centre of the

national history. This is the Acropolis of Athens, among the

twelve castles of the land that which was preëminently named

after the national king Cecrops. ... So far from being

sufficiently luxuriant to allow even the idle to find easy

means of sustenance, the Attic soil was stony, devoid of a

sufficient supply of water, and for the most part only adapted

to the cultivation of barley; everywhere ... labour and a

regulated industry were needed. But this labour was not

unremunerative. Whatever orchard and garden fruits prospered

were peculiarly delicate and agreeable to the taste; the

mountain-herbs were nowhere more odourous than on Hymettus;

and the sea abounded with fish. The mountains, not only by the

beauty of their form invest the whole scenery with a certain

nobility, but in their depths lay an abundance of the most

excellent building-stone and silver ore; in the lowlands was

to be found the best kind of clay for purposes of manufacture.

The materials existed for all arts and handicrafts; and

finally Attica rejoiced in what the ancients were wise enough

to recognize as a special favour of Heaven, a dry and

transparent atmosphere, by its peculiar clearness productive

of bodily freshness, health and elasticity, while it sharpened

the senses, disposed the soul to cheerfulness and aroused and

animated the powers of the mind. Such were the institutions of

the land which was developing the germs of its peculiar

history at the time when the [Dorian] migrations were

agitating the whole mainland. Though Attica was not herself

overrun by hostile multitudes, yet about the same time she

admitted manifold accessions of foreign population in smaller

groups. By this means she enjoyed all the advantages of an

invigorating impulse without exposing herself to the evils of

a violent revolution. ... The immigrants who domesticated

themselves in Attica were ... chiefly families of superior

eminence, so that Attica gained not only in numbers of

population, but also in materials of culture of every

description."

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

ALSO IN:

J. I. Lockhart, Attica and Athens.

See also. ATHENS: THE BEGINNING.

{188}

ATTILA'S CONQUESTS AND EMPIRE.

See HUNS.

ATTIOUANDARONK, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS. &c.

ATTYADÆ, The.

The first dynasty of the kings of Lydia, claimed to be sprung

from Attys, son of the god Manes.

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 4, chapter 17.

AUBAINE, The right of.

"A prerogative by which the Kings of France claimed the

property of foreigners who died in their kingdom without being

naturalized." It was suppressed by Colbert, in the reign of

Louis XIV.

J. A. Blanqui, History of Political Economy in Europe,

page 285.

AUCH:

Origin of the name.

See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

AUCKLAND, Lord, The Indian Administration of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1836-1845.

AUDENARDE.

See OUDINARDE.

AUDIENCIAS.

"For more than two centuries and a half the whole of South

America, except Brazil, settled down under the colonial

government of Spain, and during the greater part of that time

this vast territory was under the rule of the Viceroys of Peru

residing at Lima. The impossibility of conducting an efficient

administration from such a centre ... at once became apparent.

Courts of justice called Audiencias were, therefore,

established in the distant provinces, and their presidents,

sometimes with the title of captains-general, had charge of

the executive under the orders of the Viceroys. The Audiencia

of Charcas (the modern Bolivia) was established in 1559. Chile

was ruled by captains-general, and an Audiencia was

established at Santiago in 1568. In New Grenada the president

of the Audiencia, created in 1564, was also captain-general.

The Audiencia of Quito, also with its president as

captain-general, dated from 1542; and Venezuela was under a

captain-general."

C. R. Markham, Colonial History of South America.

(Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 8, page 295).

AUERSTADT, Battle of.

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

AUGEREAU, Marshal, Campaigns of.

See

FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (SEPTEMBER);

GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER);

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

and RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER);

1813 (AUGUST), (OCTOBER), (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

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

See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

AUGSBURG: Origin.

See AUGUSTA VINDELICORUM.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 955.

Great defeat of the Hungarians.

See HUNGARIANS: A. D. 934-955.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 1530.

Sitting of the Diet.

Signing and reading of the Protestant Confession of Faith.

The Imperial Decree condemning the Protestants.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 1555.

The Religious Peace concluded.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1552-1561.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 1646.

Unsuccessful siege by Swedes and French.

See GERMANY; A. D. 1646-1648.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 1686-1697.

The League and the War of the League.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1686;

and FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, and after.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 1703.

Taken by the French.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1703.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 1801-1803.

One of six free cities which survived the Peace of Luneville.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 1806.

Loss of municipal freedom.

Absorption in the kingdom of Bavaria.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

----------AUGSBURG: End----------

AUGURS.--PONTIFICES.--FETIALES.

"There was ... enough of priesthood and of priests in Rome.

Those, however, who had business with a god resorted to the

god, and not to the priest. Every suppliant and inquirer

addressed himself directly to the divinity; ... no

intervention of a priest was allowed to conceal or to obscure

this original and simple relation. But it was no easy matter

to hold converse with a god. The god had his own way of

speaking, which was intelligible only to those acquainted with

it; but one who did rightly understand it knew not only how to

ascertain, but also how to manage, the will of the god, and

even in case of need to overreach or to constrain him. It was

natural, therefore, that the worshipper of the god should

regularly consult such men of skill and listen to their

advice; and thence arose the corporations or colleges of men

specially skilled in religious lore, a thoroughly national

Italian institution, which had a far more important influence

on political development than the individual priests or

priesthoods. These colleges have been often, but erroneously,

confounded with the priesthoods. The priesthoods were charged

with the worship of a specific divinity. ... Under the Roman

constitution and that of the Latin communities in general

there were originally but two such colleges: that of the

augurs and that of the pontifices. The six augurs were skilled

in interpreting the language of the gods from the flight of

birds; an art which was prosecuted with great earnestness and

reduced to a quasi-scientific system. The five 'bridge

builders' (pontifices) derived their name from their function,

as sacred as it was politically important, of conducting the

building and demolition of the bridge over the Tiber. They

were the Roman engineers, who understood the mystery of

measures and numbers; whence there devolved upon them also the

duties of managing the calendar of the state, of proclaiming

to the people the time of new and full moon and the days of

festivals, and of seeing that every religious and every

judicial act took place on the right day. ... Thus they

acquired (although not probably to the full extent till after

the abolition of the monarchy) the general oversight of Roman

worship and of whatever was connected with it. [The president

of their college was called the Pontifex Maximus.] ... They

themselves described the sum of their knowledge as 'the

science of things divine and human.' ... By the side of these

two oldest and most eminent corporations of men versed in

spiritual lore may be to some extent ranked the college of the

twenty state-heralds (fetiales, of uncertain derivation)

destined as a living repository to preserve traditionally the

remembrance of the treaties concluded with neighboring

communities, to pronounce an authoritative opinion on alleged

infractions of treaty rights, and in case of need to demand

satisfaction and declare war."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book I, chapter 12.

ALSO IN:

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

section 103.

See, also, AUSPICES, and FETIALES.

{189}

AUGUSTA TREVIRORUM.

See TUÈVES, ORIGIN OF.

AUGUSTA VEROMANDUORUM.

Modern St. Quentin.

See BELGÆ.

AUGUSTA VINDELICORUM.

"Augusta Vindelicorum is the modern Augsburg, founded, it may

be supposed, about the year 740 [B. C. 14] after the conquest

of Rhætia by Drusus. ... The Itineraries represent it as the

centre of the roads from Verona, Sirmium, and Treviri."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 36, note.

AUGUSTODUNUM.

The Emperor Augustus changed the name of Bibracte in Gaul to

Augustodunum, which time has corrupted, since to Autun.

AUGUSTONEMETUM.

See GERGOVIA OF THE ARVERNI.

AUGUSTUS.--AUGUSTA:

The Title.

"Octavius [see ROME: B. C. 31-14] had warily declined any of

the recognized designations of sovereign rule. Antonius had

abolished the dictatorship; his successor respected the

acclamations with which the people had greeted this decree.

The voices which had saluted Cæsar with the title of king were

peremptorily commanded to be dumb. Yet Octavius was fully

aware of the influence which attached to distinctive titles of

honour. While he scrupulously renounced the names upon which

the breath of human jealousy had blown, he conceived the

subtler policy of creating another for himself, which

borrowing its original splendour from his own character,

should reflect upon him an untarnished lustre. ... The epithet

Augustus ... had never been borne by any man before. ... But

the adjunct, though never given to a man, had been applied to

things most noble, most venerable and most divine. The rites

of the gods were called august, the temples were august; the

word itself was derived from the holy auguries by which the

divine will was revealed; it was connected with the favour and

authority of Jove himself. ... The illustrious title was

bestowed upon the heir of the Cæsarian Empire in the middle of

the month of January, 727 [B. C. 27], and thenceforth it is by

the name of Augustus that he is recognized in Roman history."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 30.

"When Octavianus had firmly established his power and was now

left without a rival, the Senate, being desirous of

distinguishing him by some peculiar and emphatic title,

decreed, in B. C. 27, that he should be styled Augustus, an

epithet properly applicable to some object demanding respect

and veneration beyond what is bestowed upon human things. ...

This being an honorary appellation ... it would, as a matter

of course, have been transmitted by inheritance to his

immediate descendants. ... Claudius, although he could not be

regarded as a descendant of Octavianus, assumed on his

accession the title of Augustus, and his example was followed

by all succeeding rulers ... who communicated the title of

Augusta to their consorts."

W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity., chapter 5.

See, also, ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.

AULA REGIA, The.

See CURIA REGIS OF THE NORMAN KINGS.

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

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

AULERCI, The.

The Aulerci were an extensive nation in ancient Gaul which

occupied the country from the lower course of the Seine to the

Mayenne. It was subdivided into three great tribes--the

Aulerci Cenomanni, Aulerci Diablintes and Aulerci Eburovices.

Napoleon III., History of Cæsar, book 3, chapter 2.

AULIC COUNCIL, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

AUMALE, Battle of (1592).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.

AUNEAU, Battle of (1587).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

AURANGZEB, Moghul Emperor, or Padischah of India, A. D.

1658-1707.

AURAY, Battle of (1365).

See BRITTANY: A. D. 1341-1365.

AURELIAN, Roman Emperor. A. D.270-275.

AURELIAN ROAD, The.

One of the great Roman roads of antiquity, which ran from Rome

to Pisa and Luna.

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 4, chapter 11.

AURELIO, King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 768-774.

AURUNCANS, The.

See AUSONIANS;

also OSCANS.

AUSCI, The.

See AQUITAINE, THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

AUSGLEICH, The.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.

AUSONIANS, OR AURUNCANS, The.

A tribe of the ancient Volscians, who dwelt in the lower

valley of the Liris, and who are said to have been

exterminated by the Romans, B. C. 314.

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 3, chapter 10.

See, also, OSCANS.

AUSPICES, Taking the.

"The Romans, in the earlier ages of their history, never

entered upon any important business whatsoever, whether public

or private, without endeavouring, by means of divination, to

ascertain the will of the gods in reference to the

undertaking. ... This operation was termed 'sumere auspicia;'

and if the omens proved unfavourable the business was

abandoned or deferred. ... No meeting of the Comitia Curiata

nor of the Comitia Centuriata could be held unless the

auspices had been previously taken. ... As far as public

proceedings were concerned, no private individual, even among

the patricians, had the right of taking auspices. This duty

devolved upon the supreme magistrate alone. ... In an army

this power belonged exclusively to the commander-in-chief; and

hence all achievements were said to be performed under his

auspices, even although he were not present. ... The objects

observed in taking these auspices were birds, the class of

animals from which the word is derived ('Auspicium ab ave

spicienda'). Of these, some were believed to give indications

by their flight ... others by their notes or cries ... while a

third class consisted of chickens ('pulli') kept in cages.

When it was desired to obtain an omen from these last, food

was placed before them, and the manner in which they comported

themselves was closely watched. ... The manner of taking the

auspices previous to the Comitia was as follows:--The

magistrate who was to preside at the assembly arose

immediately after midnight on the day for which it had been

summoned, and called upon an augur to assist him. ... With his

aid a region of the sky and a space of ground, within which

the auspices were observed, were marked out by the divining

staff ('lituus') of the augur. ... This operation was

performed with the greatest care. ... In making the necessary

observations, the president was guided entirely by the augur,

who reported to him the result."

W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity., chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 6, chapter 13.

See, also, AUGUR.

{190}

AUSTERLITZ, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

AUSTIN, Stephen F., and the settlement of Texas.

See TEXAS: A. D. 1819-1835.

AUSTIN CANONS, OR CANONS OF ST. AUGUSTINE.

"About the middle of the 11th century an attempt had been made

to redress the balance between the regular and secular clergy,

and restore to the latter the influence and consideration in

spiritual matters which they had, partly by their own fault,

already to a great extent lost. Some earnest and thoughtful

spirits, distressed at once by the abuse of monastic

privileges and by the general decay of ecclesiastical order,

sought to effect a reform by the establishment of a stricter

and better organized discipline in those cathedral and other

churches which were served by colleges of secular priests. ...

Towards the beginning of the twelfth century the attempts at

canonical reform issued in the form of what was virtually a

new religious order, that of the Angustinians, or Canons

Regular of the order of S. Angustine. Like the monks and

unlike the secular canons, from whom they were carefully

distinguished, they had not only their table and dwelling but

all things in common, and were bound by a vow to the

observance of their rule, grounded upon a passage in one of

the letters of that great father of the Latin Church from whom

they took their name. Their scheme was a compromise between

the old fashioned system of canons and that of the monastic

confraternities; but a compromise leaning strongly towards the

monastic side. ... The Austin canons, as they were commonly

called, made their way across the channel in Henry's reign."

K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings,

volume 1, chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

E. L. Cutts, Scenes and Characters of the Middle Age.,

chapter 3.

AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.

Discovery and early exploration.

The founding of the penal colonies at Sydney and Norfolk Island.

"Australia has had no Columbus. It is even doubtful if the

first navigators who reached her shores set out with any idea

of discovering a great south land. At all events, it would

seem, their achievements were so little esteemed by themselves

and their countrymen that no means were taken to preserve

their names in connexion with their discoveries. Holland long

had the credit of bringing to light the existence of that

island-continent, which until recent years was best known by

her name. In 1861, however, Mr. Major, to whom we are indebted

for more recent research upon the subject, produced evidence

which appeared to demonstrate that the Portuguese had reached

the shores of Australia in 1601, five years before the Dutch

yacht Duyphen, or Dove,--the earliest vessel whose name has

been handed down,--sighted, about March, 1606, what is

believed to have been the coast near Cape York, Mr. Major, in

a learned paper read before the Society of Antiquaries in

1872, indicated the probability that the first discovery was

made 'in or before the year 1531.' The dates of two of the six

maps from which Mr. Major derives his information are 1531 and

1542. The latter clearly indicates Australia, which is called

Jave la Grande. New Zealand is also marked."

F. P. Labilliere, Early History of the Colony of Victoria,

chapter 1.

In 1606, De Quiros, a Spanish navigator, sailing from Peru,

across the Pacific, reached a shore which stretched so far

that he took it to be a continent. "He called the place

'Tierra Australis de Espiritu Santo,' that is 'Southern Land

of the Holy Spirit.' It is now known that this was not really

a continent, but merely one of the New Hebrides Islands, and

more than a thousand miles away from the mainland. ... In

after years, the name he had invented was divided into two

parts; the island he had really discovered being called

Espiritu Santo, while the continent he thought he had

discovered was called Terra Australis. This last name was

shortened by another discoverer--Flinders--to the present term

Australia." After the visit to the Australian coast of the

small Dutch ship, the "Dove," it was touched, during the next

twenty years, by a number of vessels of the same nationality.

"In 1622 a Dutch ship, the 'Leeuwin,' or 'Lioness,' sailed

along the southern coast, and its name was given to the

southwest cape of Australia. ... In 1628 General Carpenter

sailed completely round the large Gulf to the north, which has

taken its name from this circumstance. Thus, by degrees, all

the northern and western, together with part of the southern

shores, came to be roughly explored, and the Dutch even had

some idea of colonizing this continent. ... During the next

fourteen years we hear no more of voyages to Australia; but in

1642 Antony Van Diemen, the Governor of the Dutch possessions

in the East Indies, sent out his friend Abel Jansen Tasman,

with two ships, to make discoveries in the South Seas." Tasman

discovered the island which he called Van Diemen's Land, but

which has since been named in his own honor--Tasmania. "This

he did not know to be an island; he drew it on his maps as if

it were a peninsula belonging to the mainland of Australia."

In 1699, the famous buccaneer, William Dampier, was given the

command of a vessel sent out to the southern seas, and he

explored about 900 miles of the northwestern coast of

Australia; but the description which he gave of the country

did not encourage the adventurous to seek fortune in it. "We

hear of no further explorations in this part of the world

until nearly a century after; and, even then, no one thought

of sending out ships specially for the purpose. But in the

year 1770 a series of important discoveries were indirectly

brought about. The Royal Society of London, calculating that

the planet Venus would cross the disc of the sun in 1769,

persuaded the English Government to send out an expedition to

the Pacific Ocean for the purpose of making observations on

this event which would enable astronomers to calculate the

distance of the earth from the sun. A small vessel, the

'Endeavour,' was chosen; astronomers with their instruments

embarked, and the whole placed under the charge of" the

renowned sailor, Captain James Cook. The astronomical purposes

of the expedition were satisfactorily accomplished at Otaheite,

and Captain Cook then proceeded to an exploration of the

shores of New Zealand and Australia.

{191}

Having entered a fine bay on the south-eastern

coast of Australia, "he examined the country for a few miles

inland, and two of his scientific friends--Sir Joseph Banks

and Dr. Solander--made splendid collections of botanical

specimens. From this circumstance the place was called Botany

Bay, and its two head-lands received the names of Cape Banks

and Cape Solander. It was here that Captain Cook ... took

possession of the country on behalf of His Britannic Majesty,

giving it the name 'New South Wales,' on account of the

resemblance of its coasts to the southern shores of Wales.

Shortly after they had set sail from Botany Bay they observed

a small opening in the land, but Cook did not stay to examine

it, merely marking it on his chart as Port Jackson, in honour

of his friend Sir George Jackson. ... The reports brought home

by Captain Cook completely changed the beliefs current in

those days with regard to Australia. ... It so happened that,

shortly after Cook's return, the English nation had to deal

with a great difficulty in regard to its criminal population.

In 1776 the United States declared their independence, and the

English then found they could no longer send their convicts

over to Virginia, as they had formerly done. In a short time

the gaols of England were crowded with felons. It became

necessary to select a new place of transportation; and, just

as this difficulty arose, Captain Cook's voyages called

attention to a land in every way suited for such a purpose,

both by reason of its fertility and of its great distance.

Viscount Sydney, therefore, determined to send out a party to

Botany Bay, in order to found a convict settlement there; and

in May, 1787, a fleet was ready to sail." After a voyage of

eight months the fleet arrived at Botany Bay, in January,

1788. The waters of the Bay were found to be too shallow for a

proper harbour, and Captain Phillip, the appointed Governor of

the settlement, set out, with three boats, to search for

something better. "As he passed along the coast he turned to

examine the opening which Captain Cook had called Port

Jackson, and soon found himself in a winding channel of water,

with great cliffs frowning overhead. All at once a magnificent

prospect opened on his eyes. A harbour, which is, perhaps, the

most beautiful and perfect in the world, stretched before him

far to the west, till it was lost on the distant horizon. It

seemed a vast maze of winding waters, dotted here and there

with lovely islets. ... Captain Phillip selected, as the place

most suitable to the settlement, a small inlet, which, in

honour of the Minister of State, he called Sydney Cove. It was

so deep as to allow vessels to approach within a yard or two

of the shore." Great difficulties and sufferings attended the

founding of the penal settlement, and many died of actual

starvation as well as of disease; but in twelve years the

population had risen to between 6,000 and 7,000 persons.

Meantime a branch colony had been established on Norfolk

Island. In 1702 Governor Phillip, broken in health, had

resigned, and in 1795 he had been succeeded by Governor

Hunter. "When Governor Hunter arrived, in 1795, he brought

with him, on board his ship, the 'Reliance,' It young surgeon,

George Bass, and a midshipman called Matthew Flinders. They

were young men of the most admirable character. ... Within a

month after their arrival they purchased a small boat about

eight feet in length, which they christened the 'Tom Thumb.'

Its crew consisted of themselves and a boy to assist." In this

small craft they began a survey of the coast, usefully

charting many miles of it. Soon afterwards, George Bass, in an

open whale-boat, pursued his explorations southwards, to the

region now called Victoria, and through the straits which bear

his name, thus discovering the fact that Van Diemen's Land, or

Tasmania, is an island, not a peninsula. In 1798, Bass and

Flinders, again associated and furnished with a small sloop,

sailed round and surveyed the entire coast of Van Diemen's

Land. Bass now went to South America and there disappeared.

Flinders was commissioned by the British Government in 1800 to

make an extensive survey of the Australian coasts, and did so.

Returning to England with his maps, he was taken prisoner on

the way by the French and held in captivity for six years,

while the fruits of his labor were stolen. He died a few years

after being released.

A. and G. Sutherland, History of Australia, chapter 1-3.

ALSO IN:

G. W. Rusden, History of Australia, chapter 1-3 (volume 1).

AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840.

Beginning of the Prosperity of New South Wales.

Introduction of sheep-farming.

The founding of Victoria and South Australia.

"For twenty years and more no one at home gave a thought to

New South Wales, or 'Botany Bay,' as it was still erroneously

called, unless in vague horror and compassion for the poor

creatures who lived there in exile and starvation. The only

civilizing element in the place was the presence of a devoted

clergyman named Johnson, who had voluntarily accompanied the

first batch of convicts. ... Colonel Lachlan Macquarie entered

on the office of governor in 1810, and ruled the settlement

for twelve years. His administration was the first turning

point in its history. ... Macquarie saw that the best and

cheapest way of ruling the convicts was to make them freemen

as soon as possible. Before his time, the governors had looked

on the convicts as slaves, to be worked for the profit of the

government and of the free settlers. Macquarie did all he

could to elevate the class of emancipists, and to encourage

the convicts to persevere in sober industry in the hope of one

day acquiring a respectable position. He began to discontinue

the government farms, and to employ the convicts in

road-making so as to extend the colony in all directions. When

he came to Sydney, the country more than a day's ride from the

town was quite unknown. The growth of the settlement was

stopped on the west by a range called the Blue Mountains,

which before his time no one had succeeded in crossing. But in

1813, there came a drought upon the colony: the cattle, on

which everything depended, were unable to find food. Macquarie

surmised that there must be plenty of pasture on the plains

above the Blue Mountains: he sent an exploring party, telling

them that a pass must be discovered. In a few months, not only

was this task accomplished, and the vast and fertile pastures

of Bathurst reached, but a road 130 miles long was made,

connecting them with Sydney. The Lachlan and Macquarie rivers

were traced out to the west of the Blue Mountains.

{192}

Besides this, coal was found at the mouth of the Hunter river,

and the settlement at Newcastle formed. ... When it became

known that the penal settlement was gradually becoming a free

colony, and that Sydney and its population were rapidly

changing their character, English and Scotch people soon

bethought them of emigrating to the new country. Macquarie

returned home in 1822, leaving New South Wales four times as

populous, and twenty times as large as when he went out, and

many years in advance of what it might have been under a less

able and energetic governor. The discovery of the fine

pastures beyond the Blue Mountains settled the destiny of the

colony. The settlers came up thither with their flocks long

before Macquarie's road was finished; and it turned out that

the downs of Australia were the best sheep-walks in the world.

The sheep thrives better there, and produces finer and more

abundant wool, than anywhere else. John Macarthur, a

lieutenant in the New South Wales corps, had spent several

years in studying the effect of the Australian climate upon

the sheep; and he rightly surmised that the staple of the

colony would be its fine wool. In 1803, he went to England and

procured some pure Spanish merino sheep from the flock of

George III. ... The Privy Council listened to his wool

projects, and he received a large grant of land. Macarthur had

found out the true way to Australian prosperity. When the

great upland pastures were discovered, the merino breed was

well established in the colony; and the sheep-owners, without

waiting for grants, spread with their flocks over immense

tracts of country. This was the beginning of what is called

squatting. The squatters afterwards paid a quit-rent to the

government and thus got their runs, as they called the great

districts where they pastured their flocks, to a certain

extent secured to them. ... Hundreds upon hundreds of square

miles of the great Australian downs were now explored and

stocked with sheep for the English wool-market. ... It was in

the time of Macquarie's successor, Sir Thomas Brisbane, that

the prospects of New South Wales became generally known in

England. Free emigrants, each bringing more or less capital

with him, now poured in; and the demand for labour became

enormous. At first the penal settlements were renewed as

depots for the supply of labour, and it was even proposed that

the convicts should be sold by auction on their arrival; but

in the end the influx of free labourers entirely altered the

question. In Brisbane's time, and that of his successor, Sir

Ralph Darling, wages fell and work became scarce in England;

and English working men now turned their attention to

Australia. Hitherto the people had been either convicts or

free settlers of more or less wealth, and between these

classes there was great bitterness of feeling, each, naturally

enough, thinking that the colony existed for their own

exclusive benefit. The free labourers who now poured in

greatly contributed in course of time to fusing the population

into one. In Brisbane's time, trial by jury and a free press

were introduced. The finest pastures in Australia, the Darling

Downs near Moreton Bay, were discovered and settled [1825].

The rivers which pour into Moreton Bay were explored: one of

them was named the Brisbane, and a few miles from its mouth

the town of the same name was founded. Brisbane is now the

capital of the colony of Queensland: and other explorations in

his time led to the foundation of a second independent colony.

The Macquarie was traced beyond the marshes, in which it was

supposed to lose itself, and named the Darling: and the Murray

river was discovered [1829]. The tracing out of the Murray

river by the adventurous traveller Sturt, led to a colony on

the site which he named South Australia. In Darling's time,

the Swan River Colony, now called Western Australia, was

commenced. Darling ... was the first to sell the land at a

small fixed price, on the system adopted in America. ...

Darling returned to England in 1831; and the six-years

administration of his successor, Sir Richard Bourke, marks a

fresh turning-point in Australian history. In his time the

colony threw off two great offshoots. Port Phillip, on which

now stands the great city of Melbourne, had been discovered in

1802, and in the next year the government sent hither a

convict colony. This did not prosper, and this fine site was

neglected for thirty years. When the sudden rise of New South

Wales began, the squatters began to settle to the west and

north of Port Phillip; and the government at once sent an

exploring party, who reported most favourably of the country

around. In 1836, Governor Bourke founded a settlement in this

new land, which had been called, from its rich promise,

Australia Felix: and under his directions the site of a

capital was laid out, to be called Melbourne, in honour of the

English Prime Minister. This was in 1837, so that the

beginning of the colony corresponds nearly with that of Queen

Victoria's reign; a circumstance which afterwards led to its

being named Victoria. Further west still, a second new colony

arose about this time on the site discovered by Sturt in 1829.

This was called South Australia, and the first governor

arrived there at the end of the year 1836. The intended

capital was named Adelaide, in honour of the Queen of William

IV. Both the new colonies were commenced on a new system,

called from its inventor the Wakefield system, but the

founders of South Australia were able to carry it out most

effectually, because they were quite independent of the

experience and the prejudices of the Sydney government. Mr.

Wakefield was an ingenious man and a clever writer. ... His

notion was that the new colonies ought to be made 'fairly to

represent English society.' His plan was to arrest the strong

democratic tendencies of the new community, and to reproduce

in Australia the strong distinction of classes which was found

in England. He wanted the land sold as dear as land-owners:

and the produce of the land was to be applied in tempting

labourers to emigrate with the prospect of better wages than

they got at home. A Company was easily formed to carry out

these ideas in South Australia. ... Like the settlement of

Carolina as framed by Locke and Somers, it was really a plan

for getting the advantages of the colony into the hands of the

non-labouring classes: and by the natural laws of political

economy, it failed everywhere. Adelaide became the scene of an

Australian 'bubble.' The land-jobbers and money-lenders made

fortunes: but the people who emigrated, mostly belonging to

the middle and upper classes, found the scheme to be a

delusion. Land rapidly rose in value, and as rapidly sank; and

lots for which the emigrants had paid high prices became

almost worthless. The labourers emigrated elsewhere, and so

did those of the capitalists who had anything left. ... The

depression of South Australia, however, was but temporary. It

contains the best corn land in the whole island: and hence it

of course soon became the chief source of the food supply of

the neighbouring colonies, besides exporting large quantities

of corn to England. It contains rich mines of copper, and

produces large quantities of wool."

E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, chapter 12.

ALSO IN:

G. W. Rusden, History of Australia, volume 1-2.

{193}

AUSTRALIA: A.D. 1839-1855.

Progress of the Port Phillip District.

Its Separation from New South Wales and erection into the

colony of Victoria.

Discovery of Gold.

Constitutional organization of the colony.

"In 1839 the population of Port Phillip amounted to nearly

6,000, and was being rapidly augmented from without. The sheep

in the district exceeded half a million, and of cattle and

horses the numbers were in proportion equally large. The place

was daily growing in importance. The Home Government therefore

decided to send an officer, with the title of Superintendent,

to take charge of the district, but to act under the Governor

of New South Wales. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Esq., was

appointed to this office. ... He arrived at Melbourne on the

30th September, 1839. Soon after this all classes of the new

community appear to have become affected by a mania for

speculation. ... As is always the case when speculation takes

the place of steady industry, the necessaries of life became

fabulously dear. Of money there was but little, in

consideration of the amount of business done, and large

transactions were effected by means of paper and credit. From

highest to lowest, all lived extravagantly. ... Such a state

of things could not last forever. In 1842, by which time the

population had increased to 24,000, the crash came. ... From

this depression the colony slowly recovered, and a sounder

business system took the place of the speculative one. ... All

this time, however, the colony was a dependency of New South

Wales, and a strong feeling had gained ground that it suffered

in consequence. ... A cry was raised for separation. The

demand was, as a matter of course, resisted by New South

Wales, but as the agitation was carried on with increased

activity, it was at last yielded to by the Home authorities.

The vessel bearing the intelligence arrived on the 11th

November, 1850. The news soon spread, and great was the

satisfaction of the colonists. Rejoicings were kept up in

Melbourne for five consecutive days. ... Before, however, the

separation could be legally accomplished, it was necessary

that an Act should be passed in New South Wales to settle

details. ... The requisite forms were at length given effect

to, and, on the 1st July, 1851, a day which has ever since

been scrupulously observed as a public holiday, it was

proclaimed that the Port Phillip district of New South Wales

had been erected into a separate colony to be called Victoria,

after the name of Her Most Gracious Majesty. At the same time

the Superintendent, Mr. C. J. La Trobe, was raised to the rank

of Lieutenant-Governor. At the commencement of the year of

separation the population of Port Phillip numbered 76,000, the

sheep 6,000,000, the cattle 380,000. ... In a little more than

a month after the establishment of Victoria as an independent

colony, it became generally known that rich deposits of gold

existed within its borders. ... The discovery of gold ... in

New South Wales, by Hargreaves, in February, 1851, caused

numbers to emigrate to that colony. This being considered

detrimental to the interests of Victoria, a public meeting was

held in Melbourne on the 9th of June, at which a

'gold-discovery committee' was appointed, which was authorized

to offer rewards to any that should discover gold in remunerative

quantities within the colony. The colonists were already on

the alert. At the time this meeting was held, several parties

were out searching for, and some had already found gold. The

precious metal was first discovered at Clunes, then in the

Yarra ranges at Anderson's Creek, soon after at Buninyong and

Ballarat, shortly afterwards at Mount Alexander, and

eventually at Bendigo. The deposits were found to be richer

and to extend over a wider area than any which had been

discovered in New South Wales. Their fame soon spread to the

adjacent colonies, and thousands hastened to the spot. ...

When the news reached home, crowds of emigrants from the

United Kingdom hurried to our shores. Inhabitants of other

European countries quickly joined in the rush. Americans from

the Atlantic States were not long in following. Stalwart

Californians left their own gold-yielding rocks and placers to

try their fortunes at the Southern Eldorado. Last of all,

swarms of Chinese arrived, eager to unite in the general

scramble for wealth. ... The important position which the

Australian colonies had obtained in consequence of the

discovery of gold, and the influx of population consequent

thereon, was the occasion of the Imperial Government

determining in the latter end of 1852 that each colony should

be invited to frame such a Constitution for its government as

its representatives might deem best suited to its own peculiar

circumstances. The Constitution framed in Victoria, and

afterwards approved by the British Parliament, was avowedly

based upon that of the United Kingdom. It provided for the

establishment of two Houses of Legislature, with power to make

laws, subject to the assent of the Crown as represented

generally by the Governor of the colony; the Legislative

Council, or Upper House, to consist of 30, and the Legislative

Assembly, or Lower House, to consist of 60 members. Members of

both Houses to be elective and to possess property

qualifications. Electors of both Houses to possess either

property or professional qualifications [the property

qualification of members and electors of the Lower House has

since been abolished]. ... The Upper House not to be

dissolved, but five members to retire every two years, and to

be eligible for re-election. The Lower House to be dissolved

every five years [since reduced to three], or oftener, at the

discretion of the Governor. Certain officers of the

Government, four at least of whom should have seats in

Parliament, to be deemed 'Responsible Ministers.' ... This

Constitution was proclaimed in Victoria on the 23d November,

1855."

H. H. Hayter, Notes on the Colony of Victoria, chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

F. P. Labilliere, Early History of the Colony of

Victoria, volume 2.

W. Westgarth, First Twenty Years of the Colony of

Victoria.

{194}

AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1859.

Separation of the Moreton Bay District from New South Wales.

Its erection into the colony of Queensland.

"Until December, 1859, the north-west portion of the Fifth

Continent was known as the Moreton Bay district, and belonged

to the colony of New South Wales; but at that date it had

grown so large that it was erected into a separate and

independent colony, under the name of Queensland. It lies

between latitude 10° 43' South and 29° South, and longitude

138° and 153° East, bounded on the north by Torres Straits; on

the north-east by the Coral Sea; on the east by the South

Pacific; on the south by New South Wales and South Australia;

on the west by South Australia and the Northern Territory; and

on the north-west by the Gulf of Carpentaria. It covers an

area ... twenty times as large as Ireland, twenty-three times

as large as Scotland, and eleven times the extent of England.

... Numerous good harbours are found, many of which form the

outlets of navigable rivers. The principal of these [is]

Moreton Bay, at the head of which stands Brisbane, the capital

of the colony. ... The mineral wealth of Queensland is very

great, and every year sees it more fully developed. ... Until

the year 1867, when the Gympie field was discovered, gold

mining as an industry was hardly known."

C. H. Eden, The Fifth Continent, chapter 10.

AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1885-1892.

Proposed Federation of the Colonies.

"It has been a common saying in Australia that our fellow

countrymen in that part of the world did not recognise the

term 'Australian;' each recognised only his own colony and the

empire. But the advocates of combination for certain common

purposes achieved a great step forward in the formation of a

'Federal Council' in 1885. It was to be only a 'Council,' its

decisions having no force over any colony unless accepted

afterwards by the colonial Legislature. Victoria, Queensland,

Tasmania, and West Australia joined, New South Wales, South

Australia, and New Zealand standing out, and, so constituted,

it met twice. The results of the deliberations were not

unsatisfactory, and the opinion that the move was in the right

direction rapidly grew. In February of 1890 a Federation

Conference, not private but representative of the different

Governments, was called at Melbourne. It adopted an address to

the Queen declaring the opinion of the conference to be that

the best interests of the Australian colonies require the

early formation of a union under the Crown into one

Government, both legislative and executive. Events proceed

quickly in Colonial History. In the course of 1890 the

hesitation of New South Wales was finally overcome; powerful

factors being the weakening of the Free Trade position at the

election of 1890, the report of General Edwards on the

Defences, and the difficulties about Chinese immigration. A

Convention accordingly assembled at Sydney in March, 1891,

which agreed upon a Constitution to be recommended to the

several Colonies."

A. Caldecott, English Colonization and Empire,

chapter 7, section 2.

"On Monday, March 2nd, 1891, the National Australasian

Convention met at the Parliament House, Sydney, New South

Wales, and was attended by seven representatives from each

Colony, except New Zealand, which only sent three. Sir Henry

Parkes (New South Wales) was elected President of the

Convention, and Sir Samuel Griffith (Queensland),

Vice-President. A series of resolutions, moved by Sir Henry

Parkes, occupied the attention of the Convention for several

days. These resolutions set forth the principles upon which

the Federal Government should be established, which were to

the effect that the powers and privileges of existing Colonies

should be kept intact, except in cases where surrender would

be necessary in order to form a Federal Government; that

intercolonial trade and intercourse should be free; that power

to impose Customs duties should rest with the Federal

Government and Parliament; and that the naval and military

defence of Australia should be entrusted to the Federal Forces

under one command. The resolutions then went on to approve of

a Federal Constitution which should establish a Federal

Parliament to consist of a Senate and a House of

Representatives; that a Judiciary, to consist of a Federal

Supreme Court, to be a High Court of Appeal for Australia,

should be established; and that a Federal Executive,

consisting of a Governor-General, with responsible advisers,

should be constituted. These resolutions were discussed at

great length, and eventually were adopted. The resolutions

were then referred to three Committees chosen from the

delegates, one to consider Constitutional Machinery and the

distribution of powers and functions; one to deal with matters

relating to Finance, Taxation, and Trade Regulations; and the

other to consider the question of the establishment of a

Federal Judiciary. A draft Bill, to constitute the

'Commonwealth of Australia,' was brought up by the first

mentioned of these Committees, and after full consideration

was adopted by the Convention, and it was agreed that the Bill

should be presented to each of the Australian Parliaments for

approval and adoption. On Thursday, April 9th. the Convention

closed its proceedings. The Bill to provide for the Federation

of the Australasian colonies entitled 'A Bill to constitute a

Commonwealth of Australia,' which was drafted by the National

Australasian Convention, has been introduced into the

Parliaments of most of the colonies of the group, and is still

(October, 1892), under consideration. In Victoria it has

passed the Lower House with some amendments."

Statesman's Year-book, 1893, page 308.

AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1890.

New South Wales and Victoria.

"New South Wales bears to Victoria a certain statistical

resemblance. The two colonies have [1890] about the same

population, and, roughly speaking, about the same revenues,

expenditure, debt and trade. In each, a great capital collects

in one neighbourhood more than a third of the total

population. ... But ... considerable differences lie behind

and are likely to develop in the future. New South Wales, in

the opinion of her enemies, is less enterprising than

Victoria, and has less of the go-ahead spirit which

distinguishes the Melbourne people. On the other hand she

possesses a larger territory, abundant supplies of coal, and

will have probably, in consequence, a greater future. Although

New South Wales is three and a half times as large as

Victoria, and has the area of the German Empire and Italy

combined, she is of course much smaller than the three other

but as yet less important colonies of the Australian continent

[namely Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia].

{195}

As the country was in a large degree settled by assisted

emigrants, of whom something like half altogether have been

Irish, while the English section was largely composed of

Chartists, ... the legislation of New South Wales has

naturally shown signs of its origin. Manhood suffrage was

carried in 1858; the abolition of primogeniture in 1862; safe

and easy transfer of land through the machinery of the Torrens

Act in the same year; and also the abolition of state aid to

religion. A public system of education was introduced, with

other measures of democratic legislation. ... Public

education, which in Victoria is free, is still paid for by

fees in New South Wales, though children going to or returning

from school are allowed to travel free by railway. In general

it may be said that New South Wales legislation in recent

times has not been so bold as the legislation of Victoria. ...

The land of New South Wales has to a large extent come into

the hands of wealthy persons who are becoming a territorial

aristocracy. This has been the effect firstly of grants and of

squatting legislation, then of the perversion of the Act of

1861 [for 'Free Selection before Survey'] to the use of those

against whom it had been aimed, and finally of natural

causes--soil, climate and the lack of water. ... The traces of

the convict element in New South Wales have become very slight

in the national character. The prevailing cheerfulness,

running into fickleness and frivolity, with a great deal more

vivacity than exists in England, does not suggest in the least

the intermixture of convict blood. It is a natural creation of

the climate, and of the full and varied life led by colonists

in a young country. ... A population of an excellent type has

swallowed up not only the convict element, but also the

unstable and thriftless element shipped by friends in Britain

to Sydney or to Melbourne. The ne'er-do-weels were either

somewhat above the average in brains, as was often the case

with those who recovered themselves and started life afresh,

or people who drank themselves to death and disappeared and

left no descendants. The convicts were also of various

classes; some of them were men in whom crime was the outcome

of restless energy, as, for instance, in many of those

transported for treason and for manslaughter; while some were

people of average morality ruined through companions, wives,

or sudden temptation, and some persons of an essentially

depraved and criminal life. The better classes of convicts, in

a new country, away from their old companions and old

temptations, turned over a new leaf, and their abilities and

their strong vitality, which in some cases had wrought their

ruin in the old world, found healthful scope in subduing to

man a new one. Crime in their cases was an accident, and would

not be transmitted to the children they left behind them. On

the other hand, the genuine criminals, and also the drunken

ne'er-do-weels, left no children. Drink and vice among the

'assigned servants' class of convicts, and an absence of all

facilities for marriage, worked them off the face of the

earth, and those who had not been killed before the gold

discovery generally drank themselves to death upon the

diggings."

Sir C. W. Dilke, Problems of Greater Britain,

part 2, chapter 2.

AUSTRASIA AND NEUSTRIA, OR NEUSTRASIA.

"It is conjectured by Luden, with great probability, that the

Ripuarians were originally called the 'Eastern' people to

distinguish them from the Salian Franks who lived to the West.

But when the old home of the conquerors on the right bank of

the Rhine was united with their new settlements in Gaul, the

latter, as it would seem, were called Neustria or Neustrasia

(New Lands); while the term Austrasia came to denote the

original seats of the Franks, on what we now call the German

bank of the Rhine. The most important difference between them

(a difference so great as to lead to their permanent

separation into the kingdoms of France and Germany by the

treaty of Verdun) was this: that in Neustria the Frankish

element was quickly absorbed by the mass of Gallo-Romanism by

which it was surrounded; while in Austrasia, which included

the ancient seats of the Frankish conquerors, the German

element was wholly predominant. The import of the word

Austrasia (Austria, Austrifrancia) is very fluctuating. In its

widest sense it was used to denote all the countries

incorporated into the Frankish Empire, or even held in

subjection to it, in which the German language and population

prevailed; in this acceptation it included therefore the

territory of the Alemanni, Bavarians, Thuringians, and even

that of the Saxons and Frises. In its more common and proper

sense it meant that part of the territory of the Franks

themselves which was not included in Neustria. It was

subdivided into Upper Austrasia on the Moselle, and Lower

Austrasia on the Rhine and Meuse. Neustria (or, in the fulness

of the monkish Latinity, Neustrasia) was bounded on the north

by the ocean, on the south by the Loire, and on the southwest

[southeast?] towards Burgundy by a line which, beginning

below Gien on the Loire, ran through the rivers Loing and

Yonne, not far from their sources, and passing north of

Auxerre and south of Troyes, joined the river Aube above

Arcis."

W. C. Perry, The Franks, chapter 3.

"The northeastern part of Gaul, along the Rhine, together with

a slice of ancient Germany, was already distinguished, as we

have seen, by the name of the Eastern Kingdom, or Oster-rike,

Latinized into Austrasia. It embraced the region first

occupied by the Ripumarian Franks, and where they still lived

the most compactly and in the greatest number. ... This was,

in the estimation of the Franks, the kingdom by eminence,

while the rest of the north of Gaul was simply not

it--'ne-oster-rike,' or Neustria. A line drawn from the mouth

of the Scheldt to Cambrai, and thence across the Marne at

Chateau-Thierry to the Aube of Bar-sur-Aube, would have

separated the one from the other, Neustria comprising all the

northwest of Gaul, between the Loire and the ocean, with the

exception of Brittany. This had been the first possession of

the Salian Franks in Gaul. ... To such an extent had they been

absorbed and influenced by the Roman elements of the

population, that the Austrasians scarcely considered them

Franks, while they, in their turn, regarded the Austrasians as

the merest untutored barbarians."

P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul,

book 3, chapter 13, with note.

ALSO IN:

E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe,

chapter 5, section 5.

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

{196}

AUSTRIA: The Name.

"The name of Austria, Oesterreich--Ostrich as our forefathers

wrote it---is, naturally enough, a common name for the eastern

part of any kingdom. The Frankish kingdom of the Merwings had its

Austria; the Italian kingdom of the Lombards had its Austria

also. We are half inclined to wonder that the name was never

given in our own island either to Essex or to East-Anglia.

But, while the other Austrias have passed away, the

Oesterreich, the Austria, the Eastern mark, of the German

kingdom, its defence against the Magyar invader, has lived on

to our own times. It has not only lived on, but it has become

one of the chief European powers. And it has become so by a

process to which it would be hard to find a parallel."--

E. A. Freeman, The Historical Geography of Europe, volume 1,

chapter 8, page 305.

AUSTRIA:

The birthplace.

"On the disputed frontier, in the zone of perpetual conflict,

were formed and developed the two states which, in turn, were

to dominate over Germany, namely, Austria and Prussia. Both

were born in the midst of the enemy. The cradle of Austria was

the Eastern march, established by Charlemagne on the Danube,

beyond Bavaria, at the very gate through which have passed so

many invaders from the Orient. ... The cradle of Prussia was

the march of Brandenburg, between the Elbe and the Oder, in

the region of the exterminated Slavs."

E. Lavisse, General View of the Political

History of Europe, chapter 3, section 13.

AUSTRIA:

The Singularity of Austrian history.

A power which is not a national power.

"It is by no means an easy task to tell the story of the

various lands which have at different times come under the

dominion of Austrian princes, the story of each land by

itself, and the story of them all in relation to the common

power. A continuous narrative is impossible. ... Much mischief

has been done by one small fashion of modern speech. It has

within my memory become usual to personify nations and powers

on the smallest occasions in a way which was formerly done

only in language more or less solemn, rhetorical or poetical.

We now talk every moment of England, France, Germany, Russia,

Italy, as if they were persons. And as long as it is only

England, France, Germany, Russia, or Italy of which we talk in

this way, no practical harm is done; the thing is a mere

question of style. For those are all national powers. ... But

when we go on to talk in this way of 'Austria,' of 'Turkey,'

direct harm is done; thought is confused, and facts are

misrepresented. ... I have seen the words 'Austrian national

honour;' I have come across people who believed that 'Austria'

was one land inhabited by 'Austrians,' and that 'Austrians'

spoke the 'Austrian' language. All such phrases are

misapplied. It is to be presumed that in all of them 'Austria'

means something more than the true Austria, the archduchy; what

is commonly meant by them is the whole dominions of the

sovereign of Austria. People fancy that the inhabitants of

those dominions have a common being, a common interest, like

that of the people of England, France, or Italy. ... There is

no Austrian language, no Austrian nation; therefore there can

be no such thing as 'Austrian national honour.' Nor can there

be an 'Austrian policy' in the same sense in which there is an

English or a French policy, that is, a policy in which the

English or French government carries out the will of the

English or French nation. ... Such phrases as 'Austrian

interests,' 'Austrian policy,' and the like, do not mean the

interests or the policy of any land or nation at all. They

simply mean the interests and policy of a particular ruling

family, which may often be the same as the interests and

wishes of particular parts of their dominions, but which can

never represent any common interest or common wish on the part

of the whole. ... We must ever remember that the dominions of the

House of Austria are simply a collection of kingdoms, duchies,

etc., brought together by various accidental causes, but which

have nothing really in common, no common speech, no common

feeling, no common interest. In one case only, that of the

Magyars in Hungary, does the House of Austria rule over a

whole nation; the other kingdoms, duchies, etc., are only

parts of nations, having no tie to one another, but having the

closest ties to other parts of their several nations which lie

close to them, but which are under other governments. The only

bond among them all is that a series of marriages, wars,

treaties, and so forth, have given them a common sovereign.

The same person is king of Hungary, Archduke of Austria, Count

of Tyrol, Lord of Trieste, and a hundred other things. That is

all. ... The growth and the abiding dominion of the House of

Austria is one of the most remarkable phænomena in European

history. Powers of the same kind have arisen twice before; but

in both cases they were very short-lived, while the power of

the House of Austria has lasted for several centuries. The

power of the House of Anjou in the twelfth century, the power

of the House of Burgundy in the fifteenth century, were powers

of exactly the same kind. They too were collections of scraps,

with no natural connexion, brought together by the accidents of

warfare, marriage, of diplomacy. Now why is it that both these

powers broke in pieces almost at once, after the reigns of two

princes in each case, while the power of the House of Austria

has lasted so long? Two causes suggest themselves. One is the

long connexion between the House of Austria and the Roman

Empire and kingdom of Germany. So many Austrian princes were

elected Emperors as to make the Austrian House seem something

great and imperial in itself. I believe that this cause has

done a good deal towards the result; but I believe that

another cause has done yet more. This is that, though the

Austrian power is not a national power, there is, as has been

already noticed, a nation within it. While it contains only

scraps of other nations, it contains the whole of the Magyar

nation. It thus gets something of the strength of a national

power. ... The kingdom of Hungary is an ancient kingdom, with

known boundaries which have changed singularly little for

several centuries; and its connexion with the archduchy of

Austria and the kingdom of Bohemia is now of long standing.

Anything beyond this is modern and shifting. The so-called

'empire of Austria' dates only from the year 1804. This is one

of the simplest matters in the world, but one which is

constantly forgotten. ... A smaller point on which confusion

also prevails is this.

{197}

All the members of the House of Austria are commonly spoken of

as archdukes and archduchesses. I feel sure that many people,

if asked the meaning of the word archduke, would say that it

was the title of the children of the 'Emperor of Austria,' as

grand-duke is used in Russia, and prince in most countries. In

truth, archduke is the title of the sovereign of Austria. He

has not given it up; for he calls himself Archduke of Austria

still, though he calls himself 'Emperor of Austria' as well.

But by German custom, the children of a duke or count are all

called dukes and counts for ever and ever. In this way the

Prince of Wales is called 'Duke of Saxony,' and in the same

way all the children of an Archduke of Austria are archdukes

and archduchesses. Formally and historically then, the taking

of an hereditary imperial title by the Archduke of Austria in

1804, and the keeping of it after the prince who took it had

ceased in 1806 to be King of Germany and Roman Emperor-elect,

was a sheer and shameless imposture. But it is an imposture

which has thoroughly well served its ends."

E. A. Freeman, Preface to Leger's History of

Austria-Hungary.

"Medieval History is a history of rights and wrongs; modern

History as contrasted with medieval divides itself into two

portions; the first a history of powers, forces, and

dynasties; the second, a history in which ideas take the place

of both rights and forces. ... Austria may be regarded as

representing the more ancient form of right. ... The middle

ages proper, the centuries from the year 1000 to the year

1500, from the Emperor Henry II. to the Emperor Maximilian,

were ages of legal growth, ages in which the idea of right, as

embodied in law, was the leading idea of statesmen, and the idea

of rights justified or justifiable by the letter of law, was a

profound influence with politicians. ... The house of Austria

... lays thus the foundation of that empire which is to be one

of the great forces of the next age; not by fraud, not by

violence, but here by a politic marriage, here by a well

advocated inheritance, here by a claim on an imperial fief

forfeited or escheated: honestly where the letter of the law

is in her favour, by chicanery it may be here and there, but

that a chicanery that wears a specious garb of right. The

imperial idea was but a small influence compared with the

super-structure of right, inheritance, and suzerainty, that

legal instincts and a general acquiescence in legal forms had

raised upon it."

William  Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Medieval

and Modern History, pages 209-215.

[Image]

ETHNOGRAPHICAL MAP OF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

NOTE: The shaded parts denote the distribution of the Germans.

AUSTRIA:

The Races.

"The ethnical elements of the population are as follows (1890

for Austria and 1880 for Hungary) on the basis of language;--

Austria (1890):

German 8,461,580;

Bohemian, Moravian and Slovak 5,472,871;

Polish 3,719,232;

Ruthenian 3,105,221;

Slovene 1,176,672;

Servian and Croatian 644,926;

Italian and Latin 675,305;

Roumanian 209,110;

Magyar 8,139.

Hungary (1880):

German 1,972,115;

Bohemian, Moravian and Slovak 1,892,806;

Ruthenian 360,051;

Slovene 86,401;

Servian and Croatian 2,359,708;

Roumanian 2,423,387;

Magyar 6,478,711;

Gipsies 82,256;

Others 83,940,"

Statesman's Year-Book, 1893; edited by J. S, Keltie.

----------AUSTRIA: End----------

A Logical Outline of Austrian History

In Which The Dominant Conditions And

Influences Are Distinguished By Colors.

[Red]   Physical or material.

[Blue]  Ethnological.

[Green] Social and political.

[Brown] Intellectual, moral and religious.

[Black] Foreign.

The history of Austria, so far as it has importance, is unique in

being the history of a Family and not the history of a State,--

the history of a Dynastic and not of a National Power.

Territorially, the name was attached, until 1806, to an inconsiderable

arch-duchy, on the Danube, in that corner of Teutonic

Europe where the Germans of the Middle Ages fought back the

Turanian races and the Slaves. Dynastically, it became connected,

in the 13th century, with a House, then insignificant, in

Alsace, and to the future remarkable fortunes of that House the

territory so named contributed little more than a strong central

position and a capital town.

Rodolph, Count of Hapsburg, with whom the importance of Austrian

history begins, was elected Emperor in 1272, for the reason that

his possessions were small and the resoluteness of his character

was unknown. He disappointed the Electors by increasing the

weight and reviving the power of the Imperial office, which they

had not at all desired, and he used its power vigorously for the

benefit of himself and his own. The King of Bohemia resisted him

and was defeated and slain; and a part of the dominions which the

Bohemian king had acquired, including Austria (then a duchy),

Carniola and Styria, was appropriated by Rodolph, for his sons.

The House of Hapsburg thus became the House of Austria, and its

history is what bears the name of Austrian history from that time

until 1806. The Hapsburg family has never produced men of the

higher intellectual powers, or the higher qualities of any kind;

but a remarkable vitality has been proved in it, and a politic

self-seeking capability, which has never, perhaps, persisted

through so many generations in any other line. It owes to these

qualities the acquisition, again and again, of the elective

Imperial crown, until that crown settled, at last, upon the heirs

of the House, in practically hereditary succession, despite the

wish of the princes of Germany to keep it shifting among the

weaker members of their order, and despite the rivalry of greater

houses with ambitions like its own. The prestige of the splendid

Imperial title, and the influence derived from the theoretical

functions of the Emperor--small as the actual powers that he

held might be--were instruments of policy which the Austrian

princes knew how to use with enormous effect. Austrian marriages

and Austrian diplomacy, often alluded to as examples of luck and

craft in political affairs, show, rather, it may be, the

consistent calculation and sagacity with which the House of

Austria has pursued its aims.

By marriages, by diplomacy, and by pressures brought to bear

from the headship of the Empire, the family plucked, one by one,

the coronets of Tyrol and Carinthia (1363), Franche-Comté and

Flanders, with the Low Countries entire (1477), and the crowns of

Spain, Naples, Sicily and Sardinia (1516), Bohemia (including

Moravia), and Hungary (1526). Its many diadems were never

moulded into one, but have been, from first to last, the

carefully distinguished emblems of so many separate sovereignties,

united in no way but by homage to a common prince.

The one most fortunate acquisition of the House, which has given

most stability to the heterogeneous structure of it power, in the

judgement of the ablest among modern historians is the Hungarian

crown. Its Burgundian and Spanish marriages, which brought to it

the rich Netherlands and the vast realm of Ferdinand and

Isabella, brought also a division the Family, and the rooting of

s second stem in Spain; and while its grandeur among the

dynasties of Europe was augmented, the real gain of the House in

its older seat was small. But the Kingdom on Hungary has been a

mass of very concrete political power in its hands, and has

supplied in some degree the weight of nationality that was

otherwise wanting in the dominions of the House.

The mixture of races under the Austrian sovereigns is the most

extraordinary in Europe. Their possessions exactly cover that

part of the continent in which its earlier and later invaders

fought longest and most; where the struggle between them was

final, and where they mingled their settlements together. The

Slavic peoples are predominant in numbers; the Germans are

scarcely more than one-fourth of the whole; and yet, until

recent years, the Austrian power figured chiefly as a German

power in European politics, and took leadership in Germany itself.

This position accrued to it through the persisting, potent

influence of the Imperial title which the Archdukes of Austria

bore, with mediæval fictions from Rome and from Germany woven

together and clinging around it; and through the broken and

divided condition of the German land, where petty courts and

princelings disputed precedence with one another, and none could

lead. When time raised up one strong and purely German kingdom,

to rally and encourage a German sentiment of nationality, then

Austria--expelled by it from the Teutonic circle--first found her

true place in the politics of Europe.

For Germany the relationship was never a fortunate one. Alien

interests came constantly between the Emperors and the Empire--

the proper subject of their care,--and they were drawn to alien

sympathies by their connection with Spain. They imbibed the

hateful temper of the Spanish Church, and fought the large

majority of their German lieges, on the questions of the

Reformation, for a century and a half. Among the combatants of

the frightful "Thirty Years War" they were chiefly

responsible for the death and ruin spread over the face of

Germanic Europe. At no time did Germany find leading or strength

in her nominal Emperors, nor in the states making up the

hereditary possessions of their House. In the dark days when the

sword of Napoleon threatened every neighbor of France, they

deserted their station of command. It was the time which the head

of the House of Austria chose for abdicating the crown of the

Holy Roman Empire--that lingering fiction of history,--and yet

assuming to be an Emperor still--the Emperor of an Empire which

rested on the small duchy of Austria for its name.

The renunciation was timely; for now, when Germany rose to break

the yoke of Napoleon, she found leadership within her own family

of states. Then began the transformation in Germanic Europe which

extinguished, after half a century, the last remains of the false

relations to it of the Austrian House. Prussia opened her eyes to

the new conditions of the age; set the schoolmaster at work among

her children; made herself an example and a stimulus to all her

neighbors. The Family which called itself Austria did otherwise.

It was blind, and it preferred blindness. It read lessons in

nothing but the Holy Alliance and the Treaty of Vienna. It

listened to no teacher but Metternich. It made itself the

resurrectionist of a dead Past in all the graveyards of Feudal

Europe, and was heard for half a century as the supporter and

champion of every hateful thing in government. It had won

Lombardy and Venice by its double traffic with Napoleon and with

those who cast Napoleon down; and it enraged the whole civilized

world by the cold brutality of its oppressions there.

Events in due time brought the two "systems" of domestic polity--

the Prussian and the Austrian--to account, and weighed them

together. As a consequence, it happens to-day that the House of

Austria has neither place nor voice in the political organization

of Germany; has no footing in Italy; has no dungeons of tyranny

in its dominions; has no disciples of Metternich among its

statesmen. Its face and its feet are now turned quite away from

the paths of ambition and of policy which it trod so long. It has

learned, and is learning, so fast that it may yet be a teacher

in the school of liberal politics which it entered so late. It

has set Hungary by the side of Austria, treading the one great

nation of its subjects no longer under foot. It sees its

interests and recognizes its duties in that quarter of Europe to

which History and Geography have been pointing from Vienna and

Buda-Pesth since the days of Charlemagne. Its mission in Europe

is to command the precarious future of the southeastern

states, so far as may be, and to guard them against the dangerous

Muscovite, until they grow in civilization and strength and are

united as one Power. In this mission it is the ally and the

colleague of both Germany and Italy, and the three Powers are

united by stronger bonds than were possible before each stood

free.

[Right Margin]

9th Century.

The March.

A. D. 1272.

Rodolph of Hapsburg.

Emperor.

A. D. 1282.

The House in possession.

A. D. 1438.

The Imperial Crown.

A. D. 1363-1526.

Gathering of crowns and coronets.

The mixture of races.

A. D. 1521-1531.

The Reformation.

A. D. 1618-1648.

Thirty Years War.

A. D. 1806.

End of the Holy Roman Empire.

A. D. 1815-1866.

Policy of Metternich.

vs. policy of Stein.

A. D. 1859.

Loss of Lombardy.

A. D. 1866.

Seven Weeks War.

Loss of Venice.

A. D. 1867.

Austro-Hungarian Empire.

A. D. 1882.

The Triple Alliance.

-----End of "A Logical Outline..."-----

{198}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.

The Rise of the Margraviate, and the creation of the Duchy,

under the Babenbergs.

Changing relations to Bavaria.

End of the Babenberg Dynasty.

"Austria, as is well known, is but the Latin form of the

German Oesterreich, the kingdom of the east [see above:

AUSTRASIA]. This celebrated historical name appears for the

first time in 996. in a document signed by the emperor Otto

III. ('in regione vulgari nomine Osterrichi'). The land to

which it is there applied was created a march after the

destruction of the Avar empire [805], and was governed like

all the other German marches. Politically it was divided into

two margraviates; that of Friuli, including Friuli properly so

called, Lower Pannonia to the south of the Drave, Carinthia,

Istria, and the interior of Dalmatia--the sea-coast having

been ceded to the Eastern emperor;--the eastern margraviate

comprising Lower Pannonia to the north of the Drave, Upper

Pannonia, and the Ostmark properly so called. The Ostmark

included the Traungau to the east of the Enns, which was

completely German, and the Grunzvittigau. ... The early

history of these countries lacks the unity of interest which

the fate of a dynasty or a nation gives to those of the Magyar

and the Chekh. They form but a portion of the German kingdom,

and have no strongly marked life of their own. The march, with

its varying frontier, had not even a geographical unity. In

876, it was enlarged by the addition of Bavaria; in 890, it

lost Pannonia, which was given to Bracislav, the Croat prince,

in return for his help against the Magyars, and in 937, it was

destroyed and absorbed by the Magyars, who extended their

frontier to the river Enns. After the battle of Lechfeld or

Augsburg (955), Germany and Italy being no longer exposed to

Hungarian invasions, the march was re-constituted and granted

to the margrave Burkhard, the brother-in-law of Henry of

Bavaria. Leopold of Babenberg succeeded him (973), and with

him begins the dynasty of Babenberg, which ruled the country

during the time of the Premyslides [in Bohemia] and the house

of Arpad [in Hungary]. The Babenbergs derived their name from

the castle of Babenberg, built by Henry, margrave of Nordgau,

in honor of his wife, Baba, sister of Henry the Fowler. It

reappears in the name of the town of Bamberg, which now forms

part of the kingdom of Bavaria. ... Though not of right an

hereditary office, the margraviate soon became so, and

remained in the family of the Babenbergs; the march was so

important a part of the empire that no doubt the emperor was

glad to make the defence of this exposed district the especial

interest of one family. ... The marriages of the Babenbergs

were fortunate; in 1138 the brother of Leopold [Fourth of that

name in the Margraviate] Conrad of Hohenstaufen, Duke of

Franconia, was made emperor. It was now that the struggle

began between the house of Hohenstaufen and the great house of

Welf [or Guelf: See GUELFS AND GHIBELINES] whose

representative was Henry the Proud, Duke of Saxony and

Bavaria. Henry was defeated in the unequal strife, and was

placed under the ban of the Empire, while the duchy of Saxony

was awarded to Albert the Bear of Brandenburg, and the duchy

of Bavaria fell to the share of Leopold IV. (1138). Henry the

Proud died in the following year, leaving behind him a son

under age, who was known later on as Henry the Lion. His uncle

Welf would not submit to the forfeiture by his house of their

old dominions, and marched against Leopold to reconquer

Bavaria, but he was defeated by Conrad at the battle of

Weinsberg (1140). Leopold died shortly after this victory, and

was succeeded both in the duchy of Bavaria and in the

margraviate of Austria by his brother, Henry II." Henry II.

endeavored to strengthen himself in Bavaria by marrying the

widow of Henry the Proud, and by extorting from her son, Henry

the Lion, a renunciation of the latter's rights. But Henry the

Lion afterwards repudiated his renunciation, and in 1156 the

German diet decided that Bavaria should be restored to him.

Henry of Austria was wisely persuaded to yield to the

decision, and Bavaria was given up. "He lost nothing by this

unwilling act of disinterestedness, for he secured from the

emperor considerable compensation. From this time forward,

Austria, which had been largely increased by the addition of

the greater part of the lands lying between the Enns and the

Inn, was removed from its almost nominal subjection to Bavaria

and became a separate duchy [Henry II. being the first

hereditary Duke of Austria]. An imperial edict, dated the 21st

of September, 1156, declares the new duchy hereditary even in

the female line, and authorizes the dukes to absent themselves

from all diets except those which were held in Bavarian

territory. It also permits them, in case of a threatened

extinction of their dynasty, to propose a successor. ... Henry

II. was one of the founders of Vienna. He constructed a

fortress there, and, in order to civilize the surrounding

country, sent for some Scotch monks, of whom there were many

at this time in Germany." In 1177 Henry II. was succeeded by

Leopold V., called the Virtuous. "In his reign the duchy of

Austria gained Styria, an important addition to its territory.

This province was inhabited by Slovenes and Germans, and took

its name from the castle of Steyer, built in 980 by Otokar

III., count of the Trungau. In 1056, it was created a

margraviate, and in 1150 it was enlarged by the addition of

the counties of Maribor (Marburg) and Cilly. In 1180, Otokar

VI. of Styria (1164-1102) obtained the hereditary title of

duke from the Emperor in return for his help against Henry the

Lion." Dying without children, Otokar made Leopold of Austria

his heir. "Styria was annexed to Austria in 1192, and has

remained so ever since. ... Leopold V. is the first of the

Austrian princes whose name is known in Western Europe. He

joined the third crusade," and quarrelled with Richard Coeur

de Lion at the siege of St. Jean d' Acre. Afterwards, when

Richard, returning home by the Adriatic, attempted to pass

through Austrian territory incognito, Leopold revenged himself

by seizing and imprisoning the English king, finally selling

his royal captive to a still meaner Emperor for 20,000 marks.

Leopold VI. who succeeded to the Austrian duchy in 1198, did

much for the commerce of his country. "He made Vienna the

staple town, and lent a sum of 30,000 marks of silver to the

city to enable it to increase its trade. He adorned it with

many new buildings, among them the Neue Burg." His son, called

Frederick the Fighter (1230-1246) was the last of the

Babenberg dynasty. His hand was against all his neighbors,

including the Emperor Frederick II., and their hands were

against him. He perished in June, 1246, on the banks of the

Leitha, while at war with the Hungarians.

L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, chapter 9.

ALSO IN:

E. F. Henderson, Select History Documents of the

Middle Ages, book 2, number 7.

{199}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.

Rodolph of Hapsburg and the acquisition of the Duchy for his family.

"The House of Austria owes its origin and power to Rhodolph of

Hapsburgh, son of Albert IV. count of Hapsburgh. The Austrian

genealogists, who have taken indefatigable but ineffectual

pains to trace his illustrious descent from the Romans, carry

it with great probability to Ethico, duke of Alsace, in the

seventh century, and unquestionably to Guntram the Rich, count

of Alsace and Brisgau, who flourished in the tenth." A grandson

of Guntram, Werner by name, "became bishop of Strasburgh, and

on an eminence above Windiisch, built the castle of Hapsburgh

['Habichtsburg' 'the castle of vultures'], which became the

residence of the future counts, and gave a new title to the

descendants of Guntram. ... The successors of Werner increased

their family inheritance by marriages, donations from the

Emperors, and by becoming prefects, advocates, or

administrators of the neighbouring abbeys, towns, or

districts, and his great grandson, Albert III., was possessor

of no inconsiderable territories in Suabia, Alsace, and that

part of Switzerland which is now called the Argau, and held

the landgraviate of Upper Alsace. His son, Rhodolph, received

from the Emperor, in addition to his paternal inheritance, the

town and district of Lauffenburgh, an imperial city on the

Rhine. He acquired also a considerable accession of territory

by obtaining the advocacy of Uri, Schweitz, and Underwalden,

whose natives laid the foundation of the Helvetic Confederacy,

by their union against the oppressions of feudal tyranny."

W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria, chapter 1.

"On the death of Rodolph in 1232 his estates were divided

between his sons Albert IV. and Rodolph II.; the former

receiving the landgraviate of Upper Alsace, and the county of

Hapsburg, together with the patrimonial castle; the latter,

the counties Rheinfelden and Lauffenburg, and some other

territories. Albert espoused Hedwige, daughter of Ulric, count

of Kyburg; and from this union sprang the great Rodolph, who

was born on the 1st of May 1218, and was presented at the

baptismal font by the Emperor Frederic II. On the death of his

father Albert in 1240, Rodolph succeeded to his estates; but

the greater portion of these were in the hands of his paternal

uncle, Rodolph of Lauffenburg; and all he could call his own

lay within sight of the great hall of his castle. ... His

disposition was wayward and restless, and drew him into

repeated contests with his neighbours and relations. ... In a

quarrel with the Bishop of Basel, Rodolph led his troops

against that city, and burnt a convent in the suburbs, for

which he was excommunicated by Pope Innocent IV. He then

entered the service of Ottocar II. King of Bohemia, under whom

he served, in company with the Teutonic Knights, in his wars

against the Prussian pagans; and afterwards against Bela IV.

King of Hungary." The surprising election, in 1272, of this

little known count of Hapsburg, to be King of the Romans, with

the substance if not the title of the imperial dignity which

that election carried with it, was due to a singular

friendship which he had acquired some fourteen years before.

When Archbishop Werner, Elector of Mentz, was on his way to

Rome in 1259, to receive the pallium, he "was escorted across

the Alps by Rodolph of Hapsburg, and under his protection

secured from the robbers who beset the passes. Charmed with

the affability and frankness of his protector, the Archbishop

conceived a strong regard for Rodolph;" and when, in 1272,

after the Great Interregnum [see GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272],

the Germanic Electors found difficulty in choosing an Emperor,

the Elector of Mentz recommended his friend of Hapsburg as a

candidate. "The Electors are described by a contemporary as

desiring an Emperor but detesting his power. The comparative

lowliness of the Count of Hapsburg recommended him as one from

whom their authority stood in little jeopardy; but the claims

of the King of Bohemia were vigorously urged; and it was at

length agreed to decide the election by the voice of the Duke

of Bavaria. Lewis without hesitation nominated Rodolph. ...

The early days of Rodolph's reign were disturbed by the

contumacy of Ottocar, King of Bohemia. That Prince ...

persisted in refusing to acknowledge the Count of Hapsburg as

his sovereign. Possessed of the dutchies of Austria, Styria,

Carniola and Carinthia, he might rely upon his own resources;

and he was fortified in his resistance by the alliance of

Henry, Duke of Lower Bavaria. But the very possession of these

four great fiefs was sufficient to draw down the envy and

distrust of the other German Princes. To all these

territories, indeed, the title of Ottocar was sufficiently

disputable. On the death of Frederic II. fifth duke of Austria

[and last of the Babenberg dynasty] in 1246, that dutchy,

together with Styria and Carniola, was claimed by his niece

Gertrude and his sister Margaret. By a marriage with the

latter, and a victory over Bela IV. King of Hungary, whose

uncle married Gertrude, Ottocar obtained possession of Austria

and Styria; and in virtue of a purchase from Ulric, Duke of

Carinthia and Carniola, he possessed himself of those dutchies

on Ulric's death in 1269, in defiance of the claims of Philip,

brother of the late Duke. Against so powerful a rival the

Princes assembled at Augsburg readily voted succours to

Rodolph; and Ottocar having refused to surrender the Austrian

dominions, and even hanged the heralds who were sent to

pronounce the consequent sentence of proscription, Rodolph

with his accustomed promptitude took the field [1276], and

confounded his enemy by a rapid march upon Austria. In his way

he surprised and vanquished the rebel Duke of Bavaria, whom he

compelled to join his forces; he besieged and reduced to the

last extremity the city of Vienna; and had already prepared a

bridge of boats to cross the Danube and invade Bohemia, when

Ottocar arrested his progress by a message of submission. The

terms agreed upon were severely humiliating to the proud soul

of Ottocar," and he was soon in revolt again, with the support

of the Duke of Bavaria. Rodolph marched against him, and a

desperate battle was fought at Marschfeld, August 26, 1278, in

which Ottocar, deserted at a critical moment by the Moravian

troops, was defeated and slain. "The total loss of the

Bohemians on that fatal day amounted to more than 14,000 men.

In the first moments of his triumph, Rodolph designed to

appropriate the dominions of his deceased enemy.

{200}

But his avidity was restrained by the Princes of the

Empire, who interposed on behalf of the son of Ottocar; and

Wenceslaus was permitted to retain Bohemia and Moravia. The

projected union of the two families was now renewed: Judith of

Hapsburg was affianced to the young King of Bohemia; whose

sister Agnes was married to Rodolph, youngest son of the King

of the Romans." In 1282, Rodolph, "after satisfying the

several claimants to those territories by various cessions of

lands .... obtained the consent of a Diet held at Augsburg to

the settlement of Austria, Styria, and Carniola, upon his two

surviving sons; who were accordingly jointly invested with

those dutchies with great pomp and solemnity; and they are at

this hour enjoyed by the descendants of Rodolph of Hapsburg."

Sir R. Comyn, History of the Western Empire, chapter 14.

ALSO IN:

J. Planta, History of the Helvetic Confederacy.

book 1. chapter 5 (volume 1).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1282-1315.

Relations of the House of Hapsburg to the Swiss Forest Cantons.

The Tell Legend.

The Battle of Morgarten.

See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1290.

Beginning of Hapsburg designs upon the crown of Hungary.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1291-1349.

Loss and recovery of the imperial crown.

Liberation of Switzerland.

Conflict between Frederick and Lewis of Bavaria.

The imperial crown lost once more.

Rudolf of Hapsburg desired the title of King of the Romans for

his son. "But the electors already found that the new house of

Austria was becoming too powerful, and they refused. On his

death, in fact, in 1291, a prince from another family, poor

and obscure, Adolf of Nassau, was elected after an interregnum

of ten months. His reign of six years is marked by two events;

he sold himself to Edward I. in 1291, against Philip the Fair,

for 100,000 pounds sterling, and used the money in an attempt

to obtain in Thuringia a principality for his family as Rudolf

had done in Austria. The electors were displeased and chose

Albert of Austria to succeed him, who conquered and killed his

adversary at Göllheim, near Worms (1298). The ten years reign

of the new king of the Romans showed that he was very

ambitious for his family, which he wished to establish on the

throne of Bohemia, where the Slavonic dynasty had lately died

out, and also in Thuringia and Meissen, where he lost a

battle. He was also bent upon extending his rights, even

unjustly--in Alsace and Switzerland--and it proved an

unfortunate venture for him. For, on the one hand, he roused

the three Swiss cantons of Uri, Schweitz, and Unterwalden to

revolt; on the other hand, he roused the wrath of his nephew

John of Swabia, whom he defrauded of his inheritance (domains

in Switzerland. Swabia, and Alsace). As he was crossing the

Reuss, John thrust him through with his sword (1308). The

assassin escaped. One of Albert's daughters, Agnes, dowager

queen of Hungary, had more than a thousand innocent people

killed to avenge the death of her father. The greater part of

the present Switzerland had been originally included in the

Kingdom of Burgundy, and was ceded to the empire, together

with that kingdom, in 1033. A feudal nobility, lay and

ecclesiastic, had gained a firm footing there. Nevertheless,

by the 12th century the cities had risen to some importance.

Zurich, Basel, Bern, and Freiburg had an extensive commerce

and obtained municipal privileges. Three little cantons, far

in the heart of the Swiss mountains, preserved more than all

the others their indomitable spirit of independence. When

Albert of Austria became Emperor [King?] he arrogantly tried

to encroach upon their independence. Three heroic

mountaineers, Werner Stauffacher, Arnold of Melchthal, and

Walter Fürst, each with ten chosen friends, conspired together

at Rütli, to throw off the yoke. The tyranny of the Austrian

bailiff Gessler, and William Tell's well-aimed arrow, if

tradition is to be believed, gave the signal for the

insurrection."

See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

"Albert's violent death left to Leopold, his successor in the

duchy of Austria, the care of repressing the rebellion. He

failed and was completely defeated at Mortgarten (1315). That

was Switzerland's field of Marathon. ... When Rudolf of

Hapsburg was chosen by the electors, it was because of his

poverty and weakness. At his death accordingly they did not

give their votes for his son Albert. ... Albert, however,

succeeded in overthrowing his rival. But on his death they

were firm in their decision not to give the crown for a third

time to the new and ambitions house of Hapsburg. They likewise

refused, for similar reasons, to accept Charles of Valois,

brother of Philip the Fair, whom the latter tried to place on

the imperial throne, in order that he might indirectly rule

over Germany. They supported the Count of Luxemburg, who

became Henry VII. By choosing emperors [kings?] who were

poor, the electors placed them under the temptation of

enriching themselves at the expense of the empire. Adolf

failed, it is true, in Thuringia, but Rudolf gained Austria by

victory; Henry succeeded in Bohemia by means of marriage, and

Bohemia was worth more than Austria at that time because,

besides Moravia, it was made to cover Silesia and a part of

Lusatia (Oberlausitz). Henry's son, John of Luxemburg, married

the heiress to that royal crown. As for Henry himself he

remained as poor as before. He had a vigorous, restless

spirit, and went to try his fortunes on his own account beyond

the Alps. ... He was seriously threatening Naples, when he

died either from some sickness or from being poisoned by a

Dominican in partaking of the host (1313). A year's

interregnum followed; then two emperors [kings?] at once:

Lewis of Bavaria and Frederick the Fair, son of the Emperor

Albert. After eight years of war, Lewis gained his point by

the victory of Mühldorf (1322), which delivered Frederick into

his hands. He kept him in captivity for three years, and at

the end of that time became reconciled with him, and they were

on such good terms that both bore the title of King and

governed in common. The fear inspired in Lewis by France and

the Holy See dictated this singular agreement. Henry VII. had

revived the policy of interference by the German emperors in

the affairs of Italy, and had kindled again the quarrel with

the Papacy which had long appeared extinguished. Lewis IV. did

the same. ... While Boniface VIII. was making war on Philip

the Fair, Albert allied himself with him; when, on the other

hand, the Papacy was reduced to the state of a servile

auxiliary to France, the Emperor returned to his former

hostility.

{201}

When ex-communicated by Pope John XXII., who

wished to give the empire to the king of France, Charles IV.,

Lewis IV. made use of the same weapons. . . . Tired of a crown

loaded with anxieties, Lewis of Bavaria was finally about to

submit to the Pope and abdicate, when the electors perceived

the necessity of supporting their Emperor and of formally

releasing the supreme power from foreign dependency which

brought the whole nation to shame. That was the object of the

Pragmatic Sanction of Frankfort, pronounced in 1338 by the

Diet, on the report of the electors. . . . The king of France

and Pope Clement VI., whose claims were directly affected by

this declaration, set up against Lewis IV. Charles of

Luxemburg, son of John the Blind, who became king of Bohemia

in 1346, when his father had been killed fighting on the

French side at the battle of Crécy. Lewis died the following

year. He had gained possession of Brandenburg and the Tyrol

for his house, but it was unable to retain possession of them.

The latter county reverted to the house of Austria in 1363.

The electors most hostile to the French party tried to put up,

as a rival candidate to Charles of Luxemburg, Edward III.,

king of England, who refused the empire; then they offered it

to a brave knight, Gunther of Schwarzburg, who died, perhaps

poisoned, after a few months (1349). The king of Bohemia then

became Emperor as Charles IV. by a second election."

V. Duruy, The History of the Middle Ages, book 9, chapter 30.

See, also, Germany: A. D. 1314-1347.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.

Forged charters of Duke Rudolf.

The Privilegium Majus.

His assumption of the Archducal title.

Acquisition of Tyrol.

Treaties of inheritance with Bohemia and Hungary.

King John, of Bohemia, had married his second son, John Henry,

at the age of eight, to the afterwards notable Margaret

Maultasche (Pouch mouth), daughter of the duke of Tyrol and

Carinthia, who was then twelve years old. He hoped by this

means to reunite those provinces to Bohemia. To thwart this

scheme, the Emperor, Louis of Bavaria, and the two Austrian

princes, Albert the Wise and Otto the Gay, came to an

understanding. "By the treaty of Hagenau (1330), it was

arranged that on the death of duke Henry, who had no male

heirs, Carinthia should become the property of Austria, Tyrol

that of the Emperor. Henry died in 1335, whereupon the

Emperor, Louis of Bavaria, declared that Margaret Maultasche

had forfeited all rights of inheritance, and proceeded to

assign the two provinces to the Austrian princes, with the

exception of some portion of the Tyrol which devolved on the

house of Wittelsbach. Carinthia alone, however, obeyed the

Emperor; the Tyrolese nobles declared for Margaret, and, with

the help of John of Bohemia, this princess was able to keep

possession of this part of her inheritance. ... Carinthia also

did Dot long remain in the undisputed possession of Austria.

Margaret was soon divorced from her very youthful husband

(1342), and shortly after married the son of the Emperor Louis

of Bavaria, who hoped to be able to invest his son, not only

with Tyrol, but also with Carinthia, and once more we find the

houses of Hapsburg and Luxemburg united by a common interest..

. ... When ... Charles IV. of Bohemia was chosen emperor, he

consented to leave Carinthia in the possession of Austria.

Albert did homage for it. ... According to the wish of their

father, the four sons of Albert reigned after him; but the

eldest, Rudolf IV., exercised executive authority in the name

of the others [1358--1365]. ... He was only 19 when he came to

the throne, but he had already married one of the daughters of

the Emperor Charles IV. Notwithstanding this family alliance,

Charles had not given Austria such a place in the Golden Bull

[see GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1492] as seemed likely to secure

either her territorial importance or a proper position for her

princes. They had not been admitted into the electoral college

of the Empire, and yet their scattered possessions stretched

from the banks of the Leitha to the Rhine. ... These

grievances were enhanced by their feeling of envy towards

Bohemia, which had attained great prosperity under Charles IV.

It was at this time that, in order to increase the importance

of his house, Rudolf, or his officers of state, had recourse

to a measure which was often employed in that age by princes,

religious bodies, and even by the Holy See. It was pretended

that there were in existence a whole series of charters which

had been granted to the house of Austria by various kings and

emperors, and which secured to their princes a position

entirely independent of both empire and Emperor. According to

these documents, and more especially the one called the

'privilegium majus,' the duke of Austria owed no kind of

service to the empire, which was, however, bound to protect

him; ... he was to appear at the diets with the title of

archduke, and was to have the first place among the electors.

... Rudolf pretended that these documents had just come to

light, and demanded their confirmation from Charles IV., who

refused it. Nevertheless on the strength of these lying

charters, he took the title of palatine archduke, without

waiting to ask the leave of Charles, and used the royal

insignia. Charles IV., who could not fail to be irritated by

these pretensions, in his turn revived the claims which he had

inherited from Premysl Otokar II. to the lands of Austria,

Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola. These claims, however, were

simply theoretical, and no attempt was made to enforce them,

and the mediation of Louis the Great, King of Hungary, finally

led to a treaty between the two princes, which satisfied the

ambition of the Habsburgs (1364). By this treaty, the houses

of Habsburg in Austria and of Luxemburg in Bohemia each

guaranteed the inheritance of their lands to the other, in

case of the extinction of either of the two families, and the

estates of Bohemia and Austria ratified this agreement. A

similar compact was concluded between Austria and Hungary, and

thus the boundaries of the future Austrian state were for the

first time marked out. Rudolf himself gained little by these

long and intricate negotiations, Tyrol being all he added to

his territory. Margaret Maultasche had married her son

Meinhard to the daughter of Albert the Wise, at the same time

declaring that, in default of heirs male to her son, Tyrol

should once more become the possession of Austria, and it did

so in 1363. Rudolf immediately set out for Botzen, and there

received the homage of the Tyrolese nobles. ...The acquisition

of Tyrol was most important to Austria. It united Austria

Proper with the old possessions of the Habsburgs in Western

Germany, and opened the way to Italy. Margaret Maultasche died

at Vienna in 1369. The memory of this restless and dissolute

princess still survives among the Tyrolese."

L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, pages 143-148.

{202}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1386-1388.

Defeats by the Swiss at Sempach and Naefels.

SEE SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1437-1516.

Contests for Hungary and Bohemia.

The right of Succession to the Hungarian Crown secured.

"Europe would have had nothing to fear from the Barbarians, if

Hungary had been permanently united to Bohemia, and had held

them in check. But Hungary interfered both with the

independence and the religion of Bohemia. In this way they

weakened each other, and in the 15th century wavered between

the two Sclavonic and German powers on their borders (Poland

and Austria) [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442, and 1442-1458].

United under a German prince from 1455 to 1458, separated for

a time under national sovereigns (Bohemia until 1471, Hungary

until 1490), they were once more united under Polish princes

until 1526, at which period they passed definitively into the

hands of Austria. After the reign of Ladislas of Austria, who

won so much glory by the exploits of John Hunniades, George

Podiebrad obtained the crown of Bohemia, and Matthias

Corvinus, the son of Hunniades, was elected King of Hungary

(1458). These two princes opposed successfully the chimerical

pretensions of the Emperor Frederick III. Podiebrad protected

the Hussites and incurred the enmity of the Popes. Matthias

victoriously encountered the Turks and obtained the favour of

Paul II., who offered him the crown of Podiebrad, his

father-in-law. The latter opposed to the hostility of Matthias

the alliance of the King of Poland, whose eldest son,

Ladislas, he designated as his successor. At the same time,

Casimir, the brother of Ladislas, endeavoured to take from

Matthias the crown of Hungary. Matthias, thus pressed on all

sides, was obliged to renounce the conquest of Bohemia, and

content himself with the provinces of Moravia, Silesia, and

Lusatia, which were to return to Ladislas if Matthias died

first (1475-1478). The King of Hungary compensated himself at

the expense of Austria. On the pretext that Frederick III. had

refused to give him his daughter, he twice invaded his states

and retained them in his possession [see HUNGARY: A. D.

1471-1487]. With this great prince Christendom lost its chief

defender, Hungary her conquests and her political

preponderance (1490). The civilization which he had tried to

introduce into his kingdom was deferred for many centuries.

... Ladislas (of Poland), King of Bohemia, having been elected

King of Hungary, was attacked by his brother John Albert, and

by Maximilian of Austria, who both pretended to that crown. He

appeased his brother by the cession of Silesia (1491), and

Maximilian by vesting in the House of Austria the right of

succession to the throne of Hungary, in case he himself should

die without male issue. Under Ladislas, and under his son

Louis II., who succeeded him while still a child, in 1516

Hungary was ravaged with impunity by the Turks."

J. Michelet, A Summary of Modern History, chapter 4.

See, also, BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1438-1493.

The Imperial Crown lastingly regained.

The short reign of Albert II., and the long reign of Frederick III.

"After the death of Sigismund, the princes, in 1438, elected

an emperor [king?] from the house of Austria, which, with

scarcely any intermission, has ever since occupied the ancient

throne of Germany. Albert II. of Austria, who, as son-in-law

of the late Emperor Sigismund, had become at the same time

King of Hungary and Bohemia, was a well-meaning, distinguished

prince, and would, without doubt, have proved of great benefit

to the empire; but he died ... in the second year of his

reign, after his return from an expedition against the Turks.

... In the year 1431, during the reign of Sigismund, a new

council was assembled at Basle, in order to carry on the work

of reforming the church as already commenced at Constance. But

this council soon became engaged in many perplexing

controversies with Pope Eugene IV. ... The Germans, for a

time, took no part in the dispute; at length, however, under

the Emperor [King?] Albert II., they formally adopted the

chief decrees of the council of Basle, at a diet held at Mentz

in the year 1439. ... Amongst the resolutions then adopted

were such as materially circumscribed the existing privileges

of the pope. ... These and other decisions, calculated to give

important privileges and considerable independence to the

German church, were, in a great measure, annulled by Albert's

cousin and successor, Duke Frederick of Austria, who was

elected by the princes after him in the year 1440, as

Frederick III. ... Frederick, the emperor, was a prince who

meant well but, at the same time, was of too quiet and easy a

nature; his long reign presents but little that was calculated

to distinguish Germany or add to its renown. From the east the

empire was endangered by the approach of an enemy--the Turks,

against whom no precautionary measures were adopted. They, on

the 29th of May, 1453, conquered Constantinople. ... They then

made their way towards the Danube, and very nearly succeeded

also in taking Hungary [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458]. ... The

Hungarians, on the death of the son of the Emperor Albert II.,

Wladislas Posthumus, in the year 1457, without leaving an heir

to the throne, chose Matthias, the son of John Corvinus, as

king, being resolved not to elect one from amongst the

Austrian princes. The Bohemians likewise selected a private

nobleman for their king, George Padriabrad [or Podiebrad], and

thus the Austrian house found itself for a time rejected from

holding possession of either of these countries. ... In

Germany, meantime, there existed numberless contests and

feuds; each party considered only his own personal quarrels.

... The emperor could not give any weight to public measures:

scarcely could he maintain his dignity amongst his own

subjects. The Austrian nobility were even bold enough to send

challenges to their sovereign; whilst the city of Vienna

revolted, and his brother Albert, taking pleasure in this

disorder, was not backward in adding to it. Things even went

to such an extremity, that, in 1462, the Emperor Frederick,

together with his consort and son, Maximilian, then four years

of age, was besieged by his subjects in his own castle of

Vienna. A plebeian burgher, named Holzer, had placed himself

at the head of the insurgents, and was made burgomaster,

whilst Duke Albert came to Vienna personally to superintend

the siege of the castle, which was intrenched and bombarded.

{203}

...The German princes, however, could not witness with indifference

such disgraceful treatment of their emperor, and they

assembled to liberate him. George Padriabrad, King of Bohemia,

was the first who hastened to the spot with assistance, set

the emperor at liberty, and effected a reconciliation between

him and his brother. The emperor, however, was obliged to

resign to him, for eight years, Lower Austria and Vienna.

Albert died in the following year. ... In the Germanic empire,

the voice of the emperor was as little heeded as in his

hereditary lands. ... The feudal system raged under

Frederick's reign to such an extent, that it was pursued even

by the lower classes. Thus, in 1471, the shoeblacks in Leipsic

sent a challenge to the university of that place; and the

bakers of the Count Palatine Lewis, and those of the Margrave

of Baden defied several imperial cities in Swabia. The most

important transaction in the reign of Frederick, was the union

which he formed with the house of Burgundy, and which laid the

foundation for the greatness of Austria. ... In the year 1486,

the whole of the assembled princes, influenced especially by

the representations of the faithful and now venerable Albert,

called the Achilles of Brandenburg, elected Maximilian, the

emperor's son, King of Rome. Indeed, about this period a

changed and improved spirit began to show itself in a

remarkable degree in the minds of many throughout the empire,

so that the profound contemplator of coming events might

easily see the dawn of a new era. ... These last years were

the best in the whole life of the emperor, and yielded to him

in return for his many sufferings that tranquillity which was

so well merited by his faithful generous disposition. He died

on the 19th of August, 1493, after a reign of 54 years. The

emperor lived long enough to obtain, in the year 1490, the

restoration of his hereditary estates by the death of King

Matthias, by means of a compact made with Wladislas, his

successor."

F. Kohlrausch, History of Germany, chapter 14.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1468.

Invasion by George Podiebrad of Bohemia.

The crusade against him.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1471-1491.

Hungarian invasion and capture of Vienna.

Treaty of Presburg.

Succession to the throne of Hungary secured.

"George, King of Bohemia, expired in 1471; and the claims of

the Emperor and King of Hungary being equally disregarded, the

crown was conferred on Uladislaus, son of Casimir IV. King of

Poland, and grandson of Albert II. To this election Frederic

long persisted in withholding his assent; but at length he

determined to crush the claim of Matthias by formally

investing Uladislaus with the kingdom and electorate of

Bohemia, and the office of imperial cup-bearer. In revenge for

this affront, Matthias marched into Austria: took possession

of the fortresses of the Danube; and compelled the Emperor to

purchase a cessation of hostilities by undertaking to pay an

hundred thousand golden florins, one-half of which was

disbursed by the Austrian states at the appointed time. But as

the King of Hungary still delayed to yield up the captured

fortresses, Frederic refused all further payment; and the war

was again renewed. Matthias invaded and ravaged Austria; and

though he experienced formidable resistance from several

towns, his arms were crowned with success, and he became

master of Vienna and Neustadt. Driven from his capital the

terrified Emperor was reduced to the utmost distress, and

wandered from town to town and from convent to convent,

endeavouring to arouse the German States against the

Hungarians. Yet even in this exigency his good fortune did not

wholly forsake him; and he availed himself of a Diet at

Frankfort to procure the election of his son Maximilian as

King of the Romans. To this Diet, however, the King of Bohemia

received no summons, and therefore protested against the

validity of the election. A full apology and admission of his

right easily satisfied Uladislaus, and he consented to remit

the fine which the Golden Bull had fixed as the penalty of the

omission. The death of Matthias Corvinus in 1490, left the

throne of Hungary vacant, and the Hungarians, influenced by

their widowed queen, conferred the crown upon the King of

Bohemia, without listening to the pretensions of Maximilian.

That valorous prince, however, sword in hand, recovered his

Austrian dominions; and the rival kings concluded a severe

contest by the treaty of Presburg, by which Hungary was for

the present secured to Uladislaus; but on his death without

heirs was to vest in the descendants of the Emperor."

Sir R. Comyn, The History of the Western Empire,

chapter 28 (volume 2).

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487, and 1487-1526.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1477-1495.

Marriage of Maximilian with Mary of Burgundy.

His splendid dominion.

His joyous character.

His vigorous powers.

His ambitions and aims.

"Maximilian, who was as active and enterprising as his father

was indolent and timid, married at eighteen years of age, the

only daughter of Charles the Bold, duke of Burgundy."

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477

"She brought him Flanders, Franche-Comte, and all the Low

Countries. Louis XI., who disputed some of those territories,

and who, on the death of the duke, had seized Burgundy,

Picardy, Ponthieu, and Artois, as fiefs of France, which could

not be possessed by a woman, was defeated by Maximilian at

Guinegaste; and Charles VIII., who renewed the same claims,

was obliged to conclude a disadvantageous peace." Maximilian

succeeded to the imperial throne on the death of his father in

1493.

W. Russell, History of Modern Europe, letter 49 (volume 1).

"Between the Alps and the Bohemian frontier, the mark Austria

was first founded round and about the castles of Krems and

Melk. Since then, beginning first in the valley towards

Bavaria and Hungary, and coming to the House of Hapsburg, it

had extended across the whole of the northern slope of the

Alps until where the Slavish, Italian, and German tongues

part, and over to Alsace; thus becoming an archduchy from a

mark. On all sides the Archdukes had claims; on the German

side to Switzerland, on the Italian to the Venetian

possessions, and on the Slavish to Bohemia and Hungary. To

such a pitch of greatness had Maximilian by his marriage with

Maria of Burgundy brought the heritage received from Charles

the Bold. True to the Netherlanders' greeting, in the

inscription over their gates, 'Thou art our Duke, fight our

battle for us,' war was from the first his handicraft. He

adopted Charles the Bold's hostile attitude towards France; he

saved the greater part of his inheritance from the schemes of

Louis XI. Day and night it was his whole thought, to conquer

it entirely.

{204}

But after Maria of Burgundy's premature death, revolution

followed revolution, and his father Frederick being too old to

protect himself, it came about that in the year 1488 he was

ousted from Austria by the Hungarians, whilst his son was kept

a prisoner in Bruges by the citizens, and they had even to

fear the estrangement of the Tyrol. Yet they did not lose

courage. At this very time the father denoted with the vowels,

A. E. I. O. U. ('Alles Erdreich ist Oesterreich

unterthan'--All the earth is subject to Austria), the extent

of his hopes. In the same year, his son negotiated for a

Spanish alliance. Their real strength lay in the imperial

dignity of Maximilian, which they had from the German Empire.

As soon as it began to bestir itself, Maximilian was set at

liberty; as soon as it supported him in the persons of only a

few princes of the Empire, he became lord in his Netherlands.

... Since then his plans were directed against Hungary and

Burgundy. In Hungary he could gain nothing except securing the

succession to his house. But never, frequently as he concluded

peace, did he give up His intentions upon Burgundy. ... Now

that he had allied himself with a Sforza, and had joined the

Liga, now that his father was dead, and the Empire was pledged

to follow him across the mountains, and now, too, that the

Italian complications were threatening Charles, he took fresh

hope, and in this hope he summoned a Diet at Worms. Maximilian

was a prince of whom, although many portraits have been drawn,

yet there is scarcely one that resembles another, so easily

and entirely did he suit himself to circumstances. ... His

soul is full of motion, of joy in things, and of plans. There

is scarcely anything that he is not capable of doing. In his

mines he is a good screener, in his armoury the best plater,

capable of instructing others in new inventions. With musket

in hand, he defends his best marksman, George Purkhard; with

heavy cannon, which he has shown how to cast, and has placed

on wheels, he comes as a rule nearest the mark. He commands

seven captains in their seven several tongues; he himself

chooses and mixes his food and medicines. In the open country,

he feels himself happiest. ... What really distinguishes his

public life is that presentiment of the future greatness of

his dynasty which he has inherited of his father, and the

restless striving to attain all that devolved upon him from

the House of Burgundy. All his policy and all his schemes were

concentrated, not upon his Empire, for the real needs of which

he evinced little real care, and not immediately upon the

welfare of his hereditary lands, but upon the realization of

that sole idea. Of it all his letters and speeches are full.

... In March, 1495, Maximilian came to the Diet at Worms. ...

At this Reichstag the King gained two momentous prospects. In

Wurtemberg there had sprung of two lines two counts of quite

opposite characters. ... With the elder, Maximilian now

entered into a compact. Wurtemberg was to be raised to a

dukedom--an elevation which excluded the female line from the

succession--and, in the event of the stock failing, was to be

a 'widow's portion' of the realm to the use of the Imperial

Chamber. Now as the sole hopes of this family centred in a

weakling of a boy, this arrangement held out to Maximilian and

his successors the prospect of acquiring a splendid country.

Yet this was the smaller of his two successes. The greater was

the espousal of his children, Philip and Margaret, with the

two children of Ferdinand the Catholic, Juana and Juan, which

was here settled. This opened to his house still greater

expectations,--it brought him at once into the most intimate

alliance with the Kings of Spain. These matters might

possibly, however, have been arranged elsewhere. What

Maximilian really wanted in the Reichstag at Worms was the

assistance of the Empire against the French with its

world-renowned and much-envied soldiery. For at this time in

all the wars of Europe, German auxiliaries were decisive. ...

If Maximilian had united the whole of this power in his hand,

neither Europe nor Asia would have been able to withstand him.

But God disposed that it should rather be employed in the

cause of freedom than oppression. What an Empire was that

which in spite of its vast strength allowed its Emperor to be

expelled from his heritage, and did not for a long time take

steps to bring him back again? If we examine the constitution

of the Empire, not as we should picture it to ourselves in

Henry III. 's time, but as it had at length become--the legal

independence of the several estates, the emptiness of the

imperial dignity, the electiveness of a head, that afterwards

exercised certain rights over the electors,--we are led to

inquire not so much into the causes of its disintegration, for

this concerns us little, as into the way in which it was held

together. What welded it together, and preserved it, would

(leaving tradition and the Pope out of the question) appear,

before all else, to have been the rights of individuals, the

unions of neighbours, and the social regulations which

universally obtained. Such were those rights and privileges

that not only protected the citizen, his guild, and his

quarter of the town against his neighbours and more powerful

men than himself, but which also endowed him with an inner

independence. ... Next, the unions of neighbours. These were

not only leagues of cities and peasantries, expanded from

ancient fraternities--for who can tell the origin of the

Hansa, or the earliest treaty between Uri and Schwyz?--into

large associations, or of knights, who strengthened a really

insignificant power by confederations of neighbours, but also

of the princes, who were bound together by joint inheritances,

mutual expectancies, and the ties of blood, which in some

cases were very close. This ramification, dependent upon a

supreme power and confirmed by it, bound neighbour to

neighbour; and, whilst securing to each his privilege and his

liberty, blended together all countries of Germany in legal

bonds of union. But it is only in the social regulations that

the unity was really perceivable. Only as long as the Empire

was an actual reality, could the supreme power of the

Electors, each with his own special rights, be maintained;

only so long could dukes and princes, bishops and abbots hold

their neighbours in due respect, and through court offices or

hereditary services, through fiefs and the dignity of their

independent position give their vassals a peculiar position to

the whole. Only so long could the cities enjoying

immediateness under the Empire, carefully divided into free

and imperial cities, be not merely protected, but also assured

of a participation in the government of the whole. Under this

sanctified and traditional system of suzerainty and vassalage

all were happy and contented, and bore a love to it such as is

cherished towards a native town or a father's house. For some

time past, the House of Austria had enjoyed the foremost

position. It also had a union, and, moreover, a great faction

on its side. The union was the Suabian League. Old Suabia was

divided into three leagues--the league of the peasantry (the

origin of Switzerland); the league of the knights in the Black

Forest, on the Kocher, the Neckar, and the Danube; and the

league of the cities. The peasantry were from the first

hostile to Austria. The Emperor Frederick brought it to pass

that the cities and knights, that had from time out of mind

lived in feud, bound themselves together with several princes,

and formed, under his protection, the league of the land of

Suabia. But the party was scattered throughout the whole

Empire."

L. von Ranke, History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations,

book 1, chapter 3.

{205}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1493-1519.

The Imperial reign of Maximilian.

Formation of the Circle of Austria.

The Aulic Council.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1499.

The Swabian War with the Swiss Confederacy and the Graubunden,

or Grey Leagues (Grisons).

Practical independence of both acquired.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526.

Extraordinary aggrandizement of the House of Austria by its marriages.

The Heritage of Charles V.

His cession of the German inheritance to Ferdinand.

The division of the House into Spanish and German branches.

Acquisition of Hungary and Bohemia.

In 1496, Philip the Fair, son of Maximilian, Archduke and

Emperor, by his marriage with Mary of Burgundy, "espoused the

Infanta of Spain, daughter of Ferdinand [of Aragon] and

Isabella of Castile. They had two sons, Charles and Ferdinand,

the former of whom, known in history by the name of Charles

V., inherited the Low Countries in right of his father, Philip

(1506). On the death of Ferdinand, his maternal grandfather

(1516), he became heir to the whole Spanish succession, which

comprehended the kingdoms of Spain, Naples, Sicily, and

Sardinia, together with Spanish America. To these vast

possessions were added his patrimonial dominions in Austria,

which were transmitted to him by his paternal grandfather, the

Emperor Maximilian I. About the same time (1519), the Imperial

dignity was conferred on this prince by the electors [see

GERMANY: A. D. 1519]; so that Europe had not seen, since the

time of Charlemagne, a monarchy so powerful as that of Charles

V. This Emperor concluded a treaty with his brother Ferdinand;

by which he ceded to him all his hereditary possessions in

Germany. The two brothers thus became the founders of the two

principal branches of the House of Austria, viz., that of

Spain, which began with Charles V. (called Charles I. of

Spain), and ended with Charles II. (1700); and that of

Germany, of which Ferdinand I. was the ancestor, and which

became extinct in the male line in the Emperor Charles VI.

(1740). These two branches, closely allied to each other,

acted in concert for the advancement of their reciprocal

interests; moreover they gained each their own separate

advantages by the marriage connexions which they formed.

Ferdinand I. of the German line married Anne (1521), sister of

Louis King of Hungary and Bohemia, who having been slain by

the Turks at the battle of Mohacs (1526), these two kingdoms

devolved to Ferdinand of the House of Austria. Finally, the

marriage which Charles V. contracted with the Infant Isabella,

daughter of Emmanuel, King of Portugal, procured Philip II. of

Spain, the son of that marriage, the whole Portuguese

monarchy, to which he succeeded on the death of Henry, called

the Cardinal (1580). So vast an aggrandisement of power

alarmed the Sovereigns of Europe."

C. W. Koch, The Revolutions of Europe, period 6.

ALSO IN:

W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria,

chapter 25 and 27 (volume 1).

W. Robertson, History of the Reign of Charles V., book 1.

See, also, SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1519.

Death of Maximilian.

Election of Charles V., "Emperor of the Romans."

See GERMANY: A. D. 1519.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1519-1555.

The imperial reign of Charles V.

The objects of his policy.

His conflict with the Reformation and with France.

"Charles V. did not receive from nature all the gifts nor all

the charms she can bestow, nor did experience give him every

talent; but he was equal to the part he had to play in the

world. He was sufficiently great to keep his many-jewelled

diadem. ... His ambition was cold and wise. The scope of his

ideas, which are not quite easy to divine, was vast enough to

control a state composed of divers and distant portions, so as

to make it always very difficult to amalgamate his armies, and

to supply them with food, or to procure money. Indeed its very

existence would have been exposed to permanent danger from

powerful coalitions, had Francis I. known how to place its

most vulnerable points under a united pressure from the armies

of France, of England, of Venice, and of the Ottoman Empire.

Charles V. attained his first object when he prevented the

French monarch from taking possession of the inheritance of

the house of Anjou, at Naples, and of that of the Viscontis at

Milan. He was more successful in stopping the march of Solyman

into Austria than in checking the spread of the Reformation in

Germany. ... Charles V. had four objects very much at heart:

he wished to be the master in Italy, to check the progress of

the Ottoman power in the west of Europe, to conquer the King

of France, and to govern the Germanic body by dividing it, and

by making the Reformation a religious pretext for oppressing

the political defenders of that belief. In three out of four

of these objects he succeeded. Germany alone was not

conquered: if she was beaten in battle, neither any political

triumph nor any religious results ensued. In Germany, Charles

V. began his work too late, and acted too slowly; he undertook

to subdue it at a time when the abettors of the Reformation

had grown strong, when he himself was growing weaker. ... Like

many other brilliant careers, the career of Charles V. was

more successful and more striking at the commencement and the

middle than at the end, of its course. At Madrid, at Cambrai,

at Nice, he made his rival bow down his head. At Crespy he

again forced him to obey his will, but as he had completely

made up his mind to have peace, Charles dictated it, in some

manner, to his own detriment.

{206}

At Passau he had to yield to the terms of his enemy--of an

enemy whom Charles V. encountered in his old age, and when his

powers had decayed. Although it may be said that the extent

and the power of the sovereignty which Charles V. left to his

successor at his death were not diminished, still his armies

were weakened, his finances were exhausted, and the country

was weary of the tyranny of the imperial lieutenants. The

supremacy of the empire in Germany, for which he had struggled

so much, was as little established at the end as at the

beginning of his reign; religious unity was solemnly destroyed

by the 'Recess' of Augsburg. But that which marks the position

of Charles V. as the representative man of his epoch, and as

the founder of the policy of modern times, is that, wherever

he was victorious, the effect of his success was to crush the

last efforts of the spirit of the middle ages, and of the

independence of nations. In Italy, in Spain, in Germany, and

in the Low Countries, his triumphs were so much gain to the

cause of absolute monarchy and so much loss to the liberty

derived from the old state of society. Whatever was the

character of liberty in the middle ages--whether it were

contested or incomplete, or a mockery--it played a greater

part than in the four succeeding centuries. Charles V. was

assuredly one of those who contributed the most to found and

consolidate the political system of modern governments. His

history has an aspect of grandeur. Had Francis I. been as

sagacious in the closet as he was bold in the field, by a

vigorous alliance with England, with Protestant Germany, and

with some of the republics of Italy, he might perhaps have

balanced and controlled the power of Charles V. But the French

monarch did not possess the foresight and the solid

understanding necessary to pursue such a policy with success.

His rival, therefore, occupies the first place in the

historical picture of the epoch. Charles V. had the sentiment

of his position and of the part he had to play."

J. Van Praet, Essays on the Political History of the 15th,

16th, and 17th Centuries, pages 190-194.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1519 to 1152-1561,

and FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523, to 1547-1559.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1525-1527.

Successful Contest for the Hungarian and Bohemian Crowns.

In Hungary, "under King Matthias the house of Zapolya, so

called from a Slavonic village near Poschega, whence it

originated, rose to peculiar eminence. To this house, in

particular, King Wladislas had owed his accession to the

throne; whence, however, it thought itself entitled to claim a

share in the sovereign power, and even a sort of prospective

right to the throne. Its members were the wealthiest of all

the magnates; they possessed seventy-two castles. ... It is

said that a prophecy early promised the crown to the young

John Zapolya. Possessed of all the power conferred by his rich

inheritance, Count of Zips, and Woiwode of Transylvania, he

soon collected a strong party around him. It was he who mainly

persuaded the Hungarians, in the year 1505, to exclude all

foreigners from the throne by a formal decree; which, though

they were not always able to maintain in force, they could

never be induced absolutely to revoke. In the year 1514 the

Woiwode succeeded in putting down an exceedingly formidable

insurrection of the peasants with his own forces; a service

which the lesser nobility prized the more highly, because it

enabled them to reduce the peasantry to a still harder state

of servitude. His wish was, on the death of Wladislas, to

become Gubernator of the kingdom, to marry the deceased king's

daughter Anne, and then to await the course of events. But he

was here encountered by the policy of Maximilian. Anne was

married to the Archduke Ferdinand; Zapolya was excluded from

the administration of the kingdom; even the vacant Palatinate

was refused him and given to his old rival Stephen Bathory. He

was highly incensed. ... But it was not till the year 1525

that Zapolya got the upper hand at the Rakosch. ... No one

entertained a doubt that he aimed at the throne. ... But

before anything was accomplished--on the contrary, just as

these party conflicts had thrown the country into the utmost

confusion, the mighty enemy, Soliman, appeared on the

frontiers of Hungary, determined to put an end to the anarchy.

... In his prison at Madrid, Francis I. had found means to

entreat the assistance of Soliman; urging that it well

beseemed a great emperor to succour the oppressed. Plans were

laid at Constantinople, according to which the two sovereigns

were to attack Spain with a combined fleet, and to send armies

to invade Hungary and the north of Italy. Soliman, without any

formal treaty, was by his position an ally of the Ligue, as

the king of Hungary was, of the emperor. On the 23d of April,

1526, Soliman, after visiting the groves of his forefathers

and of the old Moslem martyrs, marched out of Constantinople

with a mighty host, consisting of about a hundred thousand

men, and incessantly strengthened by fresh recruits on its

road. ... What power had Hungary, in the condition we have

just described, of resisting such an attack? ... The young

king took the field with a following of not more than three

thousand men. ... He proceeded to the fatal plain of Mohaez,

fully resolved with his small band to await in the open field

the overwhelming force of the enemy. ... Personal valour could

avail nothing. The Hungarians were immediately thrown into

disorder, their best men fell, the others took to flight. The

young king was compelled to flee. It was not even granted him

to die in the field of battle; a far more miserable end a

waited him. Mounted behind a Silesian soldier, who served him

as a guide, he had already been carried across the dark waters

that divide the plain; his horse was already climbing the

bank, when he slipped, fell back, and buried himself and his

rider in the morass. This rendered the defeat decisive. ...

Soliman had gained one of those victories which decide the

fate of nations during long epochs. ... That two thrones, the

succession to which was not entirely free from doubt, had thus

been left vacant, was an event that necessarily caused a great

agitation throughout Christendom. It was still a question

whether such a European power as Austria would continue to

exist;--a question which it is only necessary to state, in

order to be aware of its vast importance to the fate of

mankind at large, and of Germany in particular. ... The claims

of Ferdinand to both crowns, unquestionable as they might be

in reference to the treaties with the reigning houses, were

opposed in the nations themselves, by the right of ejection

and the authority of considerable rivals.

{207}

In Hungary, as soon as the Turks had retired, John Zapolya

appeared with the fine army which he had kept back from the

conflict; the fall of the king was at the same time the fall

of his adversaries.  ... Even in Tokay, however, John Zapolya

was saluted as king. Meanwhile, the dukes of Bavaria conceived

the design of getting possession of the throne of Bohemia. ...

Nor was it in the two kingdoms alone that these pretenders had

a considerable party. The state of politics in Europe was such

as to insure them powerful supporters abroad. In the first

place, Francis I. was intimately connected with Zapolya: in a

short time a delegate from the pope was at his side, and the

Germans in Rome maintained that Clement assisted the faction

of the Woiwode with money. Zapolya sent an agent to Venice

with a direct request to be admitted a member of the Ligue of

Cognac. In Bohemia, too, the French had long had devoted

partisans. ... The consequences that must have resulted, had

this scheme succeeded, are so incalculable, that it is not too

much to say they would have completely changed the political

history of Europe. The power of Bavaria would have outweighed

that of Austria in both German and Slavonian countries, and

Zapolya, thus supported, would have been able to maintain his

station; the Ligue, and with it high ultra-montane opinions

would have held the ascendency in eastern Europe. Never was

there a project more pregnant with danger to the growing power

of the house of Austria. Ferdinand behaved with all the

prudence and energy which that house has so often displayed in

difficult emergencies. For the present, the all-important

object was the crown of Bohemia. ... All his measures were

taken with such skill and prudence, that on the day of

election, though the Bavarian agent had, up to the last

moment, not the slightest doubt of the success of his

negotiations, an overwhelming majority in the three estates

elected Ferdinand to the throne of Bohemia. This took place on

the 23d October, 1526. ... On his brother's birth-day, the

24th of February, 1527, Ferdinand was crowned at Prague. ....

The affairs of Hungary were not so easily or so peacefully

settled. ... At first, when Zapolya came forward, full armed

and powerful out of the general desolation, he had the

uncontested superiority. The capital of the kingdom sought his

protection, after which he marched to Stuhlweissenburg, where

his partisans bore down all attempts at opposition: he was

elected and crowned (11th of November, 1526); in Croatia, too,

he was acknowledged king at a diet; he filled all the numerous

places, temporal and spiritual, left vacant by the disaster of

Mohaez, with his friends. ... [But] the Germans advanced

without interruption; and as soon as it appeared possible that

Ferdinand might be successful, Zapolya's followers began to

desert him. ... Never did the German troops display more

bravery and constancy. They had often neither meat nor bread,

and were obliged to live on such fruits as they found in the

gardens: the inhabitants were wavering and uncertain--they

submitted, and then revolted again to the enemy; Zapolya's

troops, aided by their knowledge of the ground, made several

very formidable attacks by night; but the Germans evinced, in

the moment of danger, the skill and determination of a Roman

legion: they showed, too, a noble constancy under difficulties

and privations. At Tokay they defeated Zapolya and compelled

him to quit Hungary. ... On the 3rd November, 1527, Ferdinand

was crowned in Stuhlweissenburg: only five of the magnates of

the kingdom adhered to Zapolya. The victory appeared complete.

Ferdinand, however, distinctly felt that this appearance was

delusive. ... In Bohemia, too, his power was far from secure.

His Bavarian neighbours had not relinquished the hope of

driving him from the throne at the first general turn of

affairs. The Ottomans, meanwhile, acting upon the persuasion

that every land in which the head of their chief had rested

belonged of right to them, were preparing to return to

Hungary; either to take possession of it themselves, or at

first, as was their custom, to bestow it on a native

ruler--Zapolya, who now eagerly sought an alliance with

them--as their vassal."

L. Von Ranke, History of the Reformation in Germany,

book 4, chapter 4 (volume 2).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1564-1618.

The tolerance of Maximilian II.

The bigotry and tyranny of Rodolph and Ferdinand II.

Prelude to the Thirty Years War.

"There is no period connected with these religious wars that

deserves more to be studied than these reigns of Ferdinand I.,

Maximilian [the Second], and those of his successors who preceded

the thirty years' war. We have no sovereign who exhibited that

exercise of moderation and good sense which a philosopher

would require, but Maximilian; and he was immediately followed

by princes of a different complexion. ... Nothing could be

more complete than the difficulty of toleration at the time

when Maximilian reigned; and if a mild policy could be

attended with favourable effects in his age and nation, there

can be little fear of the experiment at any other period. No

party or person in the state was then disposed to tolerate his

neighbour from any sense of the justice of such forbearance,

but from motives of temporal policy alone. The Lutherans, it

will be seen, could not bear that the Calvinists should have

the same religious privileges with themselves. The Calvinists

were equally opinionated and unjust; and Maximilian himself

was probably tolerant and wise, chiefly because he was in his

real opinions a Lutheran, and in outward profession, as the

head of the empire, a Roman Catholic. For twelve years, the

whole of his reign, he preserved the religious peace of the

community, without destroying the religious freedom of the

human mind. He supported the Roman Catholics, as the

predominant party, in all their rights, possessions, and

privileges; but he protected the Protestants in every exercise

of their religion which was then practicable. In other words,

he was as tolerant and just as the temper of society then

admitted, and more so than the state of things would have

suggested. ... The merit of Maximilian was but too apparent

the moment that his son Rodolph was called upon to supply his

place. ... He had always left the education of his son and

successor too much to the discretion of his bigoted consort.

Rodolph, his son, was therefore as ignorant and furious on his

part as were the Protestants on theirs; he had immediate

recourse to the usual expedients--force, and the execution of

the laws to the very letter. ... After Rodolph comes Matthias,

and, unhappily for all Europe, Bohemia and the empire fell

afterwards under the management of Ferdinand II. Of the

different Austrian princes, it is the reign of Ferdinand II.

that is more particularly to be considered. Such was the

arbitrary nature of his government over his subjects in

Bohemia, that they revolted. They elected for their king the

young Elector Palatine, hoping thus to extricate themselves

from the bigotry and tyranny of Ferdinand. This crown so

offered was accepted; and, in the event, the cause of the

Bohemians became the cause of the Reformation in Germany, and

the Elector Palatine the hero of that cause. It is this which

gives the great interest to this reign of Ferdinand II., to

these concerns of his subjects in Bohemia, and to the

character of this Elector Palatine. For all these events and

circumstances led to the thirty years' war."

W. Smyth, Lectures on Modern History, volume I, lecture 13.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1611-1618,

and GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

{208}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1567-1660.

Struggles of the Hapsburg House in Hungary and Transylvania to

establish rights of sovereignty.

Wars with the Turks.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604, and 1606-1660.

----------AUSTRIA: End----------

Seventeenth Century: Second Half.

Contemporaneous Events.

A.D.

1651.

Invasion of England by Charles II. and the Scots;

Cromwell's victory at Worcester; complete conquest of

Scotland.

1652.

Victorious naval war of the English with the Dutch.

End of the Fronde.

Institution of the Liberum Veto in Poland.

1653.

Expulsion of "the Rump" by Cromwell, and establishment of

the Protectorate in England.

Adoption of the Instrument of Government.

Return of Mazarin to power in France.

The Cromwellian settlement of Ireland.

1654.

Incorporation of Scotland with the English Commonwealth,

under Cromwell.

Peace  between the English and Dutch.

Conquest of Nova Scotia, by the New England colonists.

1655.

Alliance of England and France against Spain.

English conquest of Jamaica.

1656.

Beginning of the persecution of the Quakers in Massachusetts.

1658.

Capture of Dunkirk from the Spaniards and possession given

by the French to the English.

Death of Cromwell and succession of his son Richard as

Protector.

1659.

Meeting of a new Parliament in England;

its dissolution;

resuscitation and re-expulsion of the Rump, and formation

of a provisional government by the Army.

1660.

March of the English army under Monk from Scotland to

London.

Call of a new Parliament by Monk, and restoration of the

monarchy, in the person of Charles II.

1661.

Restoration of the Church of England and ejection of 2,000

nonconformist ministers.

Personal assumption of government by Louis XIV. in France.

Beginning of the ministry of Colbert.

1662.

Sale of Dunkirk to France by Charles II.

Restoration of episcopacy in Scotland and persecution of

the Covenanters.

1664.

Seizure of New Netherland (henceforth New York) by the

English from the Dutch and grant of the province to the

duke of York.

Grant of New Jersey to Berkeley and Carteret.

1665.

Outbreak of the great Plague in London.

Formal declarations of war between the English and the

Dutch.

1666.

The great fire in London.

Tremendous naval battles between Dutch and English and

defeat of the former.

1667.

Ravages by a Dutch fleet in the Thames.

Peace treaties of Breda, between England, Holland, France

and Denmark.

War of Louis XIV., called the War of the Queen's Rights, in

the Spanish Netherlands.

1668.

Triple alliance of England, Holland and Sweden against

France.

1669.

First exploring journey of La Salle from the St. Lawrence

to the West.

1670.

Treaty of the king of England with Louis XIV. of France,

betraying his allies, the Dutch, and engaging to profess

himself a Catholic,

1672.

Alliance of England and France against the Dutch.

Restoration of the Stadtholdership in Holland to the Prince

of Orange, and murder of the De Witts.

1673.

Recovery of New Netherland by the Dutch from the English.

1674.

Treaty of Westminster, restoring peace between the Dutch

and English and ceding New Netherland to the latter.

1675. War with the Indians in New England, known

as King Philip's War.

1678.

Pretended Popish Plot in England.

Treaties of Nimeguen.

1679.

Passage of the Habeas Corpus Act in England.

Oppression of Scotland and persecution of the Covenanters.

Defeat of Claverhouse at Drumclog.

Defeat of Covenanters at Bothwell Bridge.

1680.

First naming of the Whig and Tory parties in England.

1681.

Merciless despotism of the duke of York in Scotland.

Beginning of "dragonnade" persecution of Protestants in

France.

Grant of Pennsylvania by Charles II. to William Penn.

1682.

Exploration of the Mississippi to its mouth by La Salle.

1683.

The Rye-house Plot, and execution of Lord Russell and

Algernon Sidney, in England.

Great invasion of Hungary and Austria by the Turks;

their siege of Vienna, and the deliverance of the city by

John Sobieski, king of Poland.

Establishment of a penny post in London.

1685.

Death of Charles II., king of England, and accession of his

brother James II., an avowed Catholic.

Rebellion of the duke of Monmouth.

Revocation of the Edict of Nantes by Louis XIV. of France.

1686.

Consolidation of New England under a royal

governor-general.

League of Augsburg against Louis XIV. of France.

1688.

Declaration of Indulgence by James II. of England, and

imprisonment and trial of the seven bishops for refusing to

publish it.

Invitation to William and Mary of Orange to accept the

English crown.

Arrival in England of the Prince of Orange and flight of

James.

1689.

Completion of the English Revolution.

Settlement of the crown on William and Mary.

Passage of the Toleration Act and the Bill of Rights.

Landing of James II. in Ireland and war in that island;

siege and successful defense of Londonderry.

1690.

The first congress of the American colonies.

Battle of the Boyne in Ireland.

1692.

The Salem Witchcraft madness in Massachusetts.

Massacre of Glencoe in Scotland.

1695.

Passage of the first of the Penal Laws, oppressing

Catholics in Ireland.

1697.

Peace of Ryswick.

Cession of Strasburg and restoration of Acadia to France.

1699.

Peace of Carlowitz, between Turkey, Russia, Poland, Venice,

and the Emperor.

1700.

Prussia raised in rank to a kingdom.

First campaigns of Charles XII. of Sweden.

Seventeenth Century: First Half.

Contemporaneous Events.

A.D.

1602.

Chartering of Dutch East India Company.

First acting of Shakespeare's "Hamlet."

1603.

Death of Queen Elizabeth of England and accession of James I.

1600.

Gunpowder plot of English Catholics.

Publication of Bacon's "Advancement of Learning," and part

1 of Cervantes' "Don Quixote."

1606.

Charter granted to the London and Plymouth companies, for

American colonization.

Organization of the Independent church of Brownists at

Scrooby, England.

1607.

Settlement of Jamestown, Virginia.

Migration of Scrooby Independents to Holland.

1609.

Settlement of the exiled Pilgrims of Scrooby at Leyden.

Construction of the telescope by Galileo and discovery of

Jupiter's moons.

1610.

Assassination of Henry IV. of France and accession of Louis XIII.

1611.

Publication in England of the King James or Authorized

version of the Bible.

1614.

Last meeting of the States General of France before the

Revolution.

1610.

Appearance at Frankfort-on-the-Main of the first known

weekly newspaper.

1616.

Opening of war between Sweden and Poland.

Death of Shakespeare and Cervantes.

1618.

Rising of Protestants in Bohemia, beginning the Thirty

Years War.

1619.

Trial and execution of John of Barneveldt.

Introduction of slavery in Virginia.

1620.

Decisive defeat of the Protestants of Bohemia in the battle

of the White Mountain.

Rising of the French Huguenots at Rochelle.

Migration of the Pilgrims from Leyden to America.

1621.

Formation of the Dutch West India Company.

The first Thanksgiving Day in New England.

1622.

Appearance of the first known printed newspaper in England

"The Weekly Newes."

1624.

Beginning of Richelieu's ministry, in France.

1625.

Death of James I., of England, and accession of Charles I.;

beginning of the English struggle between King and

Parliament.

Engagement of Wallenstein and his army in the service of

the Emperor against the Protestants.

1627.

Alliance of England with the French Huguenots.

Siege of Rochelle by Richelieu.

1628.

Passage by the English Parliament of the act called the

Petition of Right.

Assassination of the duke of Buckingham.

Surrender of Rochelle to Richelieu.

Publication of Harvey's discovery of the circulation of the

blood.

1629.

Tumult in the English Parliament, dissolution by the king

and arrest of Eliot and others.

1630.

Appearance in Germany of Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden,

as the champion of Protestantism.

Settlement of the colony of Massachusetts Bay, in New

England, and founding of Boston.

The Day of the Dupes in France.

1631.

Siege, capture and sack of Magdeburg by the imperial

general, Tilly.

Defeat of Tilly on the Breitenfeld, at Leipzig, by Gustavus

Adolphus.

1632.

Defeat and death of Tilly.

Victory and death of Gustavus Adolphus at Lützen.

Patent to Lord Baltimore by James I., of England, granting

him the territory in America called Maryland.

First Jesuit mission to Canada.

1634.

Assassination of Wallenstein.

Levy of Ship-money in England.

1635.

First settlements in the Connecticut valley.

1636.

Banishment of Roger Williams from Massachusetts, and his

founding of Providence.

1637.

The Pequot War in New England.

Introduction of Laud's Service-book in Scotland; tumult in

St. Giles' church.

1638.

Banishment of Anne Hutchinson from Massachusetts.

Rising in Scotland against the Service-book;

organization of the Tables;

signing of the National Covenant.

1639.

The First Bishops' War of the Scotch with King Charles I.

1640.

Meeting of the Long Parliament in England.

Recovery of independence by Portugal.

1641.

Impeachment and execution of Strafford and adoption of the

Grand Remonstrance by the English Parliament.

Catholic rising in Ireland and alleged massacres of

Protestants.

1642.

King Charles' attempt, in England, to arrest the Five

Members, and opening of the Civil War at Edgehill.

Conspiracy of Cinq Mars in France.

Death of Cardinal Richelieu.

1643.

Meeting of the Westminster Assembly of Divines.

Subscription of the Solemn League and Covenant between the

Scotch and English nations.

Siege of Gloucester and first battle of Newbury.

Death of Louis XIII. of France and accession of Louis XIV.

1644.

Battles of Marston Moor and the second Newbury, in the

English civil war.

1645.

Oliver Cromwell placed second in command of the English

Parliamentary army.

His victory at Naseby.

Exploits of Montrose in Scotland.

1646.

Adoption of Presbyterianism by the English Parliament.

Surrender of King Charles to the Scottish army.

1647.

Surrender of King Charles by the Scots to the English, and

his seizure by the Army.

1648.

The second Civil War in England.

Cromwell's victory at Preston.

Treaty of Newport with the king.

Grand Army Remonstrance, and Pride's Purge of Parliament.

Last campaigns of the Thirty Years War.

Peace of Westphalia; cession of Alsace to France.

1649.

Trial and execution of King Charles I., of England, and

establishment of the Common-wealth.

Campaign of Cromwell in Ireland.

First civil war of the Fronde in France.

1650.

Charles II. in Scotland.

War between the English and the Scotch.

Victory of Cromwell at Dunbar.

The new Fronde in France, in alliance with Spain.

-----End "Contemporaneous Events"-----

AUSTRIA: A. D, 1618-1648.

The Thirty Years War.

The Peace of Westphalia.

"The thirty years' war made Germany the centre-point of

European politics. ... No one at its commencement could have

foreseen the duration and extent. But the train of war was

everywhere laid, and required only the match to set it going;

more than one war was joined to it, and swallowed up in it;

and the melancholy truth, that war feeds itself, was never

more clearly displayed. ... Though the war, which first broke

out in Bohemia, concerned only the house of Austria, yet by

its originating in religious disputes, by its peculiar

character as a religious war, and by the measures adopted both

by the insurgents and the emperor, it acquired such an extent,

that even the quelling of the insurrection was insufficient to

put a stop to it. ... Though the Bohemian war was apparently

terminated, yet the flame had communicated to Germany and

Hungary, and new fuel was added by the act of proscription

promulgated against the elector Frederic and his adherents.

From this the war derived that revolutionary character, which

was henceforward peculiar to it; it was a step that could not

but lead to further results, for the question of the relations

between the emperor and his states, was in a fair way of being

practically considered. New and bolder projects were also

formed in Vienna and Madrid, where it was resolved to renew

the war with the Netherlands. Under the present circumstances,

the suppression of the Protestant religion and the overthrow

of German and Dutch liberty appeared inseparable; while the

success of the imperial arms, supported as they were by the

league and the co-operation of the Spaniards, gave just

grounds for hope. ... By the carrying of the war into Lower

Saxony, the principal scat of the Protestant religion in

Germany (the states of which had appointed Christian IV. of

Denmark, as duke of Holstein, head of their confederacy), the

northern states had already, though without any beneficial

result, been involved in the strife, and the Danish war had

broken out. But the elevation of Albert of Wallenstein to the

dignity of duke of Friedland and imperial general over the

army raised by himself, was of considerably more importance,

as it affected the whole course and character of the war. From

this time the war was completely and truly revolutionary. The

peculiar situation of the general, the manner of the formation

as well as the maintenance of his army, could not fail to make

it such. ... The distinguished success of the imperial arms in

the north of Germany unveiled the daring schemes of

Wallenstein. He did not come forward as conqueror alone, but,

by the investiture of Mecklenburg as a state of the empire, as

a ruling prince. ... But the elevation and conduct of this

novus homo, exasperated and annoyed the Catholic no less than

the Protestant states, especially the league and its chief;

all implored peace, and Wallenstein's discharge. Thus, at the

diet of the electors at Augsburg, the emperor was reduced to

the alternative of resigning him or his allies: He chose the

former. Wallenstein was dismissed, the majority of his army

disbanded, and Tilly nominated commander-in-chief of the

forces of the emperor and the league. ... On the side of the

emperor sufficient care was taken to prolong the war. The

refusal to restore the unfortunate Frederic, and even the sale

of his upper Palatine to Bavaria, must with justice have

excited the apprehensions of the other princes. But when the

Jesuits finally succeeded, not only in extorting the edict of

restitution, but also in causing it to be enforced in the most

odious manner, the Catholic states themselves saw with regret

that peace could no longer exist. ... The greater the success

that attended the house of Austria, the more actively foreign

policy laboured to counteract it. England had taken an

interest in the fate of Frederic V. from the first, though

this interest was evinced by little beyond fruitless

negotiations. Denmark became engaged in the quarrel mostly

through the influence of this power and Holland. Richelieu,

from the time he became prime minister of France, had exerted

himself in opposing Austria and Spain. He found employment for

Spain in the contests respecting Veltelin, and for Austria

soon after, by the war of Mantua. Willingly would he have

detached the German league from the interest of the emperor;

and though he failed in this, he procured the fall of

Wallenstein. ... Much more important, however, was Richelieu's

influence on the war, by the essential share he had in gaining

Gustavus Adolphus' active participation in it. ... The

nineteen years of his [Gustavus Adolphus'] reign which had

already elapsed, together with the Polish war, which lasted

nearly that time, had taught the world but little of the real

worth of this great and talented hero. The decisive

superiority of Protestantism in Germany, under his guidance,

soon created a more just knowledge, and at the same time

showed the advantages which must result to a victorious

supporter of that cause. ... The battle at Leipzig was

decisive for Gustavus Adolphus and his party, almost beyond

expectation. The league fell asunder; and in a short time he

was master of the countries from the Baltic to Bavaria, and

from the Rhine to Bohemia. ... But the misfortunes and death

of Tilly brought Wallenstein again on the stage as absolute

commander-in-chief, bent on plans not a whit less extensive

than those he had before formed. No period of the war gave

promise of such great and rapid successes or reverses as the

present, for both leaders were determined to effect them; but

the victory of Lutzen, while it cost Gustavus his life,

prepared the fall of Wallenstein.

{209}

... Though the fall of Gustavus Adolphus frustrated his own

private views, it did not those of his party. ... The school

of Gustavus produced a number of men, great in the cabinet and

in the field; yet it was hard, even for an Oxensteirn, to

preserve the importance of Sweden unimpaired; and it was but

partially done by the alliance of· Heilbronn. ... If the

forces of Sweden overrun almost every part of Germany in the

following months, under the guidance of the pupils of the

king, Bernard of Weimar and Gustavus Horn, we must apparently

attribute it to Wallenstein's intentional inactivity in

Bohemia. The distrust of him increased in Vienna the more, as

he took but little trouble to diminish it; and though his fall

was not sufficient to atone for treachery, if proved, it was

for his equivocal character and imprudence. His death probably

saved Germany from a catastrophe. ... A great change took

place upon the death of Wallenstein; as a prince of the blood,

Ferdinand, king of Hungary and Bohemia, obtained the command.

Thus an end was put to plans of revolutions from this quarter.

But in the same year the battle of Nordlingen gave to the

imperial arms a sudden preponderance, such as it had never

before acquired. The separate peace of Saxony with the emperor

at Prague, and soon after an alliance, were its consequences;

Sweden driven back to Pomerania, seemed unable of herself,

during the two following years, to maintain her ground in

Germany: the victory of Wittstock turned the scale in her

favour. ... The war was prolonged and greatly extended by the

active share taken in it by France: first against Spain, and

soon against Austria.  ... The German war, after the treaty

with Bernhard of Weimar, was mainly carried on by France, by

the arming of Germans against Germans. But the pupil of

Gustavus Adolphus preferred to fight for himself rather than

others, and his early death was almost as much coveted by

France as by Austria. The success of the Swedish arms revived

under Baner. ... At the general diet, which was at last

convened, the emperor yielded to a general amnesty, or at

least what was so designated. But when at the meeting of the

ambassadors of the leading powers at Hamburg, the

preliminaries were signed, and the time and place of the

congress of peace fixed, it was deferred after Richelieu's

death, (who was succeeded by Mazarin), by the war, which both

parties continued, in the hope of securing better conditions

by victory. A new war broke out in the north between Sweden

and Denmark, and when at last the congress of peace was opened

at Munster and Osnabruck, the negotiations dragged on for

three years. ... The German peace was negotiated at Munster

between the emperor and France, and at Osnabruck between the

emperor and Sweden; but both treaties, according to express

agreement, Oct. 24, 1648, were to be considered as one, under

the title of the Westphalian."

A. H. L. Heeren, A Manual of the History of the

Political System of Europe and its Colonies, pages 91-99.

"The Peace of Westphalia has met manifold hostile comments,

not only in earlier, but also in later, times. German patriots

complained that by it the unity of the Empire was rent; and

indeed the connection of the States, which even before was

loose, was relaxed to the extreme. This was, however, an evil

which could not be avoided, and it had to be accepted in order

to prevent the French and Swedes from using their opportunity

for the further enslavement of the land. ... The religious

parties also made objections to the peace. The strict

Catholics condemned it as a work of inexcusable and arbitrary

injustice. ... The dissatisfaction of the Protestants was

chiefly with the recognition of the Ecclesiastical

Reservation. They complained also that their brethren in the

faith were not allowed the free exercise of their religion in

Austria. Their hostility was limited to theoretical

discussions, which soon ceased when Louis XIV. took advantage

of the preponderance which he had won to make outrageous

assaults upon Germany, and even the Protestants were compelled

to acknowledge the Emperor as the real defender of German

independence."

A. Gindely, History of the Thirty Years' War,

volume 2, chapter 10, section 4.

See, also,

GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620, to 1648;

FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626; and

ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1621.

Formal establishment of the right of primogeniture in the

Archducal Family.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1636-1637.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1624-1626.

Hostile combinations of Richelieu.

The Valtelline war in Northern Italy.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1627-1631.

War with France over the succession to the Duchy of Mantua.

See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1660-1664.

Renewed war with the Turks.

Help from France.

Battle and victory of St. Gothard.

Twenty years truce.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1668-1683.

Increased oppression and religious persecution in Hungary.

Revolt of Tekeli.

The Turks again called in.

Mustapha's great invasion and siege of Vienna.

Deliverance of the city by John Sobieski.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1672-1714.

The wars with Louis XIV. of France: War of the Grand Alliance.

Peace of Ryswick.

"The leading principle of the reign [in France] of Louis XIV.

... is the principle of war with the dynasty of Charles

V.--the elder branch of which reigned in Spain, while the

descendants of the younger branch occupied the imperial throne

of Germany. ... At the death of Mazarin, or to speak more

correctly, immediately after the death of Philip IV., ... the

early ambition of Louis XIV. sought to prevent the junior

branch of the Austrian dynasty from succeeding to the

inheritance of the elder branch. He had no desire to see

reconstituted under the imperial sceptre of Germany the

monarchy which Charles V. had at one time wished to transmit

entire to his son, but which, worn out and weakened, he

subsequently allowed without regret to be divided between his

son and his brother. Before making war upon Austria, Louis

XIV. cast his eyes upon a portion of the territory belonging

to Spain, and the expedition against Holland, begun in 1672

[see NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678],

for the purpose of absorbing the Spanish provinces by

overwhelming them, opened the series of his vast enterprises.

His first great war was, historically speaking, his first

great fault. He failed in his object: for at the end of six

campaigns, during which the French armies obtained great and

deserved success, Holland remained unconquered.

{210}

Thus was Europe warned that the lust of conquest of a young

monarch, who did not himself possess military genius, but who

found in his generals the resources and ability in which he

was himself deficient, would soon threaten her independence.

Condé and Turenne, after having been rebellious subjects under

the Regency, were about to become the first and the most

illustrious lieutenants of Louis XIV. Europe, however, though

warned, was not immediately ready to defend herself. It was

from Austria, more directly exposed to the dangers of the

great war now commencing, that the first systematic resistance

ought to have come. But Austria was not prepared to play such

a part; and the Emperor Leopold possessed neither the genius

nor the wish for it. He was, in fact, nothing more than the

nominal head of Germany. ... Such was the state of affairs in

Europe when William of Orange first made his appearance on the

stage. ... The old question of supremacy, which Louis XIV.

wished to fight out as a duel with the House of Austria, was

now about to change its aspect, and, owing to the presence of

an unexpected genius, to bring into the quarrel other powers

besides the two original competitors. The foe of Louis XIV.

ought by rights to have been born on the banks of the Danube,

and not on the shores of the North Sea. In fact, it was

Austria that at that moment most needed a man of genius,

either on the throne or at the head of affairs. The events of

the century would, in this case, doubtless have followed a

different course: the war would have been less general, and

the maritime nations would not have been involved in it to the

same degree. ... The treaties of peace would have been signed

in some small place in France or Germany, and not in two towns

and a village in Holland, such as Nimeguen, Ryswick, and

Utrecht. . . . William of Orange found himself in a position

soon to form the Triple Alliance which the very policy of

Louis XIV. suggested. For France to attack Holland, when her

object was eventually to reach Austria, and keep her out of

the Spanish succession, was to make enemies at one and the

same time of Spain, of Austria, and of Holland. But if it

afterwards required considerable efforts on the part of

William of Orange to maintain this alliance, it demanded still

more energy to extend it. It formed part of the Stadtholder's

ulterior plans to combine the union between himself and the

two branches of the Austrian family, with the old

Anglo-Swedish Triple Alliance, which had just been dissolved

under the strong pressure brought to bear on it by Louis XIV.

... Louis XIV., whose finances were exhausted, was very soon

anxious to make peace, even on the morrow of his most

brilliant victories; whilst William of Orange, beaten and

retreating, ardently desired the continuance of the war. ...

The Peace of Nimeguen was at last signed, and by it were

secured to Louis XIV. Franche-Comté, and some important places

in the Spanish Low Countries on his northern frontier [see

NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF]. This was the culminating point of the

reign of Louis XIV. Although the coalition had prevented him

from attaining the full object of his designs against the

House of Austria, which had been to absorb by conquest so much

of the territory belonging to Spain as would secure him

against the effect of a will preserving the whole inheritance

intact in the family, yet his armies had been constantly

successful, and many of his opponents were evidently tired of

the struggle. ... Some years passed thus, with the appearance

of calm. Europe was conquered; and when peace was broken,

because, as was said, the Treaty of Nimeguen was not duly

executed, the events of the war were for some time neither

brilliant or important, for several campaigns began and ended

without any considerable result. ... At length Louis XIV.

entered on the second half of his reign, which differed widely

from the first. ... During this second period of more than

thirty years, which begins after the Treaty of Nimeguen and

lasts till the Peace of Utrecht, events succeed each other in

complete logical sequence, so that the reign presents itself

as one continuous whole, with a regular movement of ascension

and decline. ... The leading principle of the reign remained

the same; it was always the desire to weaken the House of

Austria, or to secure an advantageous partition of the Spanish

succession. But the Emperor of Germany was protected by the

coalition, and the King of Spain, whose death was considered

imminent, would not make up his mind to die. ... During the

first League, when the Prince of Orange was contending against

Louis XIV. with the co-operation of the Emperor of Germany, of

the King of Spain, and of the Electors on the Rhine, the

religious element played only a secondary part in the war. But

we shall see this element make its presence more manifest. ...

Thus the influence of Protestant England made itself more and

more felt in the affairs of Europe, in proportion as the

government of the Stuarts, from its violence, its

unpopularity, and from the opposition offered to it, was

approaching its end. ... The second coalition was neither more

united nor more firm than the first had been: but, after the

expulsion of the Stuarts, the germs of dissolution no longer

threatened the same dangers. ... The British nation now made

itself felt in the balance of Europe, and William of Orange

was for the first time in his life successful in war at the

head of his English troops. ... This was the most brilliant

epoch of the life of William III. ... He was now at the height

of his glory, after a period of twenty years from his start in

life, and his destiny was accomplished; so that until the

Treaty of Ryswick, which in 1698 put an end to his hostilities

with France, and brought about his recognition as King of

England by Louis XIV., not much more was left for him to gain;

and he had the skill to lose nothing. ... The negotiations for

the Treaty of Ryswick were conducted with less ability and

boldness, and concluded on less advantageous terms, than the

Truce of Ratisbon or the Peace of Nimeguen. Nevertheless, this

treaty, which secured to Louis the possession of Strasbourg,

might, particularly as age was now creeping on him, have

closed his military career without disgrace, if the eternal

question, for the solution of which he had made so many

sacrifices, and which had always held the foremost place in

his thoughts, had not remained as unsettled and as full of

difficulty as on the day when he had mounted the throne.

{211}

Charles II. of Spain was not dead, and the question of the

Spanish succession, which had so actively employed the armies

of Louis XIV., and taxed his diplomacy, was as undecided as at

the beginning of his reign. Louis XIV. saw two alternatives

before him: a partition of the succession between the Emperor

and himself (a solution proposed thirty years before as a

means to avoid war), or else a will in favour of France,

followed of course by a recommencement of general hostilities.

... Louis XIV. proposed in succession two schemes, not, as

thirty years before, to the Emperor, but to the King of

England, whose power and whose genius rendered him the arbiter

of all the great affairs of Europe. ... In the first of the

treaties of partition, Spain and the Low Countries were to be

given to the Prince of Bavaria; in the second, to the Archduke

Charles. In both, France obtained Naples and Sicily for the

Dauphin. ... Both these arrangements ... suited both France

and England as a pacific solution of the question. ... But

events, as we know, deranged all these calculations, and

Charles II., who, by continuing to live, had disappointed so

much impatient expectation, by his last will provoked a

general war, to be carried on against France by the union of

England with the Empire and with Holland--a union which was

much strengthened under the new dynasty, and which afterwards

embraced the northern states of Germany. ... William III. died

at the age of fifty-two, on the 9th of March, 1702, at the

beginning of the War of Succession. After him, the part he was

to have played was divided. Prince Eugene, Marlborough, and

Heinsius (the Grand Pensionary) had the conduct of political

and especially of military affairs, and acted in concert. The

disastrous consequences to France of that war, in which

William had no part, are notorious. The battles of Blenheim,

of Ramilies, and of Oudenarde brought the allied armies on the

soil of France, and placed Louis XIV. on the verge of ruin."

J. Van Praet, Essays on the Political History of the

15th, 16th, and 17th Centuries, pages 390-414 and 441-455.

ALSO IN:

H. Martin, History of France: Age of Louis XIV:,

volume 2, chapter 2 and 4-6.

T. H. Dyer, History of Modern Europe,

book 5, chapter 5-6 (volume 3).

See, also,

GERMANY: A. D. 1686; and

FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690 to 1697.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1683-1687.

Merciless suppression of the Hungarian revolt.

The crown of Hungary made hereditary in the House of Hapsburg.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1687.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1683-1699.

Expulsion of the Turks from Hungary.

The Peace of Carlowitz.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1699--1711.

Suppression of the Revolt under Rakoczy in Hungary.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1700.

Interest of the Imperial House in the question of the Spanish

Succession.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1701-1713.

The War of the Spanish Succession.

See

GERMANY: A. D. 1702, to 1704;

ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713;

SPAIN: A. D. 1702, to 1707-1710, and

NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704, to 1710-1712.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1711.

The War of the Spanish Succession.

Its Circumstances changed.

"The death of the Emperor Joseph I., who expired April 17,

1711, at the age of thirty-two, changed the whole character of

the War of the Spanish Succession. As Joseph left no male

heirs, the hereditary dominions of the House of Austria

devolved to his brother, the Archduke Charles; and though that

prince had not been elected King of the Romans, and had

therefore to become a candidate for the imperial crown, yet

there could be little doubt that he would attain that dignity.

Hence, if Charles should also become sovereign of Spain and

the Indies, the vast empire of Charles V. would be again

united in one person; and that very evil of an almost

universal monarchy would be established, the prevention of

which had been the chief cause for taking up arms against

Philip V. ... After an interregnum of half a year, during

which the affairs of the Empire had been conducted by the

Elector Palatine and the Elector of Saxony, as imperial vicars

for South and North Germany, the Archduke Charles was

unanimously named Emperor by the Electoral College (Oct.

12th). ... Charles ... received the imperial crown at

Frankfort, Dec. 22d, with the title of Charles VI."

T. H. Dyer, History of Modern Europe,

book 5, chapter 6 (volume 3).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1713-1714.

Ending of the War of the Spanish Succession.

The Peace of Utrecht and the Treaty of Rastadt.

Acquisition of the Spanish Netherlands, Naples and Milan.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1713-1719.

Continued differences with Spain.

The Triple Alliance.

The Quadruple Alliance.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1714.

The Desertion of the Catalans.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1714-1718.

Recovery of Belgrade and final expulsion of the Turks from

Hungary.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738.

The question of the Succession.

The Pragmatic Sanction of Charles VI., and its guarantee by

the Powers.

"On the death [A. D. 1711] of Joseph, the hopes of the house

of Austria and the future destiny of Germany rested on Charles

[then, as titular king of Spain, Charles III., ineffectually

contesting the Spanish throne with the Bourbon heir, Philip V.

afterwards, as Emperor, Charles VI.] who was the only

surviving male of his illustrious family. By that event the

houses of Austria, Germany and Europe were placed in a new and

critical situation. From a principle of mistaken policy the

succession to the hereditary dominions had never been

established according to an invariable rule; for it was not

clearly ascertained whether males of the collateral branches

should be preferred to females in lineal descent, an

uncertainty which had frequently occasioned many vehement

disputes. To obviate this evil, as well as to prevent future

disputes, Leopold [father of Joseph and Charles] had arranged

the order of succession: to Joseph he assigned Hungary and

Bohemia, and the other hereditary dominions; and to Charles

the crown of Spain, and all the territories which belonged to

the Spanish inheritance. Should Joseph die without issue male,

the whole succession was to descend to Charles, and in case of

his death, under similar circumstances, the Austrian dominions

were to devolve on the daughters of Joseph in preference to

those of Charles. This family compact was signed by the two

brothers in the presence of Leopold. Joseph died without male

issue; but left two daughters." He was succeeded by Charles in

accordance with the compact.

{212}

"On the 2nd of August, 1718, soon after the signature of the

Quadruple Alliance, Charles promulgated a new law of

succession for the inheritance of the house of Austria, under

the name of the Pragmatic Sanction. According to the family

compact formed by Leopold, and confirmed by Joseph and

Charles, the succession was entailed on the daughters of

Joseph in preference to the daughters of Charles, should they

both die without issue male. Charles, however, had scarcely

ascended the throne, though at that time without children,

than he reversed this compact, and settled the right of

succession, in default of his male issue, first on his

daughters, then on the daughters of Joseph, and afterwards on

the queen of Portugal and the other daughters of Leopold.

Since the promulgation of that decree, the Empress had borne a

son who died in his infancy, and three daughters, Maria

Theresa, Maria Anne and Maria Amelia. With a view to insure

the succession of these daughters, and to obviate the dangers

which might arise from the claims of the Josephine

archduchesses, he published the Pragmatic Sanction, and

compelled his nieces to renounce their pretensions on their

marriages with the electors of Saxony and Bavaria. Aware,

however, that the strongest renunciations are disregarded, he

obtained from the different states of his extensive dominions

the acknowledgement of the Pragmatic Sanction, and made it the

great object of his reign, to which he sacrificed every other

consideration, to procure the guaranty of the European

powers." This guaranty was obtained in treaties with the

several powers, as follows: Spain in 1725; Russia, 1726,

renewed in 1733; Prussia, 1728; England and Holland, 1731;

France, 1738; the Empire, 1732. The inheritance which Charles

thus endeavored to secure to his daughter was vast and

imposing. "He was by election Emperor of Germany, by

hereditary right sovereign of Hungary, Transylvania, Bohemia,

Austria, Styria, Carinthia and Carniola, the Tyrol, and the

Brisgau, and he had recently obtained Naples and Sicily, the

Milanese and the Netherlands."

W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria,

chapter 80, 84-85 (volume 3).

"The Pragmatic Sanction, though framed to legalize the

accession of Maria Theresa, excludes the present Emperor's

daughters and his grandchild by postponing the succession of

females to that of males in the family of Charles VI."

J. D. Bourchier, The Heritage of the Hapsburgs

(Fortnightly Review, March, 1889).

ALSO IN:

H. Tuttle, History of Prussia, 1740-1745, chapter 2.

S. A. Dunham, History of the Germanic Empire,

book 3, chapter 3 (volume 3).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1719.

Sardinia ceded to the Duke of Savoy in exchange for Sicily.

See

SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725; and

ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1731.

The second Treaty of Vienna with England and Holland.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1726-1731.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1732-1733.

Interference in the election of the King of Poland.

See POLAND: A. D. 1732-1733.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1733-1735.

The war of the Polish Succession.

Cession of Naples and Sicily to Spain, and Lorraine and Bar to

France.

See

FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735, and

ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1737-1739.

Unfortunate war with the Turks, in alliance with Russia.

Humiliating peace of Belgrade.

Surrender of Belgrade, with Servia, and part of Bosnia.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740 (October).

Treachery among the Guarantors of the Pragmatic Sanction.

The inheritance of Marie Theresa disputed.

"The Emperor Charles VI. ... died on the 20th of October,

1740. His daughter Maria Theresa, the heiress of his dominions

with the title of Queen of Hungary, was but twenty-three years

of age, without experience or knowledge of business; and her

husband Francis, the titular Duke of Lorraine and reigning

Grand Duke of Tuscany, deserved the praise of amiable

qualities rather than of commanding talents. Her Ministers

were timorous, irresolute, and useless: 'I saw them in

despair,' writes Mr. Robinson, the British envoy, 'but that

very despair was not capable of rendering them bravely

desperate.' The treasury was exhausted, the army dispersed,

and no General risen to replace Eugene. The succession of

Maria Theresa was, indeed, cheerfully acknowledged by her

subjects, and seemed to be secured amongst foreign powers by

their guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction; but it soon

appeared that such guarantees are mere worthless parchments

where there is strong temptation to break and only a feeble

army to support them. The principal claimant to the succession

was the Elector of Bavaria, who maintained that the will of

the Emperor Ferdinand the First devised the Austrian states to

his daughter, from whom the Elector descended, on failure of

male lineage. It appeared that the original will in the

archives at Vienna referred to the failure not of the male but

of the legitimate issue of his sons; but this document, though

ostentatiously displayed to all the Ministers of state and

foreign ambassadors, was very far from inducing the Elector to

desist from his pretensions. As to the Great Powers--the Court

of France, the old ally of the Bavarian family, and mindful of

its injuries from the House of Austria, was eager to exalt the

first by the depression of the latter. The Bourbons in Spain

followed the direction of the Bourbons in France. The King of

Poland and the Empress of Russia were more friendly in their

expressions than in their designs. An opposite spirit pervaded

England and Holland, where motives of honour and of policy

combined to support the rights of Maria Theresa. In Germany

itself the Elector of Cologne, the Bavarian's brother, warmly

espoused his cause: and 'the remaining Electors,' says

Chesterfield, 'like electors with us, thought it a proper

opportunity of making the most of their votes,--and all at

the expense of the helpless and abandoned House of Austria!'

The first blow, however, came from Prussia, where the King

Frederick William had died a few months before, and been

succeeded by his son Frederick the Second; a Prince surnamed

the Great by poets."

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England,

1713-1783, chapter 23 (volume 3).

"The elector of Bavaria acted in a prompt, honest, and

consistent manner. He at once lodged a protest against any

disposition of the hereditary estates to the prejudice of his

own rights; insisted on the will of Ferdinand I.; and demanded

the production of the original text. It was promptly produced.

But it was found to convey the succession to the heirs of his

daughter, the ancestress of the elector, not, as he contended,

on the failure of male heirs, but in the absence of more

direct heirs born in wedlock. Maria Theresa could, however,

trace her descent through nearer male heirs, and had,

therefore, a superior title. Charles Albert was in any event

only one of several claimants. The King of Spain, a Bourbon,

presented himself as the heir of the Hapsburg emperor Charles

V. The King of Sardinia alleged an ancient marriage contract,

from which he derived a right to the duchy of Milan. Even

August of Saxony claimed territory by virtue of an antiquated

title, which, it was pretended, the renunciation of his wife

could not affect. All these were, however, mere vultures

compared to the eagle [Frederick of Prussia] which was soon to

descend upon its prey."

H. Tuttle, History of Prussia, 1740-1745, chapter 2.

{213}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740 (October-November).

The War of the Succession.

Conduct of Frederick the Great as explained by himself.

"This Pragmatic Sanction had been guarantied by France,

England, Holland, Sardinia, Saxony, and the Roman empire; nay

by the late King Frederic William [of Prussia] also, on

condition that the court of Vienna would secure to him the

succession of Juliers and Berg. The emperor promised him the

eventual succession, and did not fulfil his engagements; by

which the King of Prussia, his successor, was freed from this

guarantee, to which his father, the late king, had pledged

himself, conditionally. ... Frederic I., when he erected

Prussia into a kingdom, had, by that vain grandeur, planted

the scion of ambition in the bosom of his posterity; which,

soon or late, must fructify. The monarchy he had left to his

descendants was, if I may be permitted the expression, a kind

of hermaphrodite, which was rather more an electorate than a

kingdom. Fame was to be acquired by determining the nature of

this being: and this sensation certainly was one of those

which strengthened so many motives, conspiring to engage the

king in grand enterprises. If the acquisition of the dutchy of

Berg had not even met with almost insurmountable impediments,

it was in itself so small that the possession would add little

grandeur to the house of Brandenbourg. These reflections

occasioned the king to turn his views toward the house of

Austria, the succession of which would become matter of

litigation, at the death of the emperor, when the throne of

the Cæsars should be vacant. That event must be favourable to

the distinguished part which the king had to act in Germany,

by the various claims of the houses of Saxony and Bavaria to

these states; by the number of candidates which might canvass

for the Imperial crown; and by the projects of the court of

Versailles, which, on such an occasion, must naturally profit

by the troubles that the death of Charles VI. could not fail

to excite. This accident did not long keep the world in

expectation. The emperor ended his days at the palace La

Favorite, on the 26th [20th] day of October, 1740. The news

arrived at Rheinsberg when the king was ill of a fever. ... He

immediately resolved to reclaim the principalities of Silesia;

the rights of his house to which [long dormant, the claim

dating back to a certain covenant of heritage-brotherhood with

the duke of Liegnitz, in 1537, which the emperor of that day

caused to be annulled by the States of Bohemia] were

incontestable: and he prepared, at the same time, to support

these pretensions, if necessary, by arms. This project

accomplished all his political views; it afforded the means of

acquiring reputation, of augmenting the power of the state,

and of terminating what related to the litigious succession of

the dutchy of Berg. ...The state of the court of Vienna, after

the death of the emperor, was deplorable. The finances were in

disorder; the army was ruined and discouraged by ill success

in its wars with the Turks; the ministry disunited, and a

youthful unexperienced princess at the head of the government,

who was to defend the succession from all claimants. The

result was that the government could not appear formidable. It

was besides impossible that the king should be destitute of

allies. ... The war which he might undertake in Silesia was

the only offensive war that could be favoured by the situation

of his states, for it would be carried on upon his frontiers,

and the Oder would always furnish him with a sure

communication. ... Add to these reasons, an army fit to march,

a treasury ready prepared, and, perhaps, the ambition of

acquiring renown. Such were the causes of the war which the

king declared against Maria Theresa of Austria, queen of

Hungary and Bohemia."

Frederick II. (Frederick the Great), History of My Own

Times: Posthumous Works (translated by Holcroft),

volume 1, chapter 1-2.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.

The War of the Succession: Faithlessness of the King of Prussia.

The Macaulay verdict.

"From no quarter did the young queen of Hungary receive

stronger assurances of friendship and support than from the

King of Prussia. Yet the King of Prussia, the

'Anti-Machiavel,' had already fully determined to commit the

great crime of violating his plighted faith, of robbing the

ally whom he was bound to defend, and of plunging all Europe

into a long, bloody, and desolating war, and all this for no

end whatever except that he might extend his dominions and see

his name in the gazettes. He determined to assemble a great

army with speed and secrecy, to invade Silesia before Maria

Theresa should be apprized of his design, and to add that rich

province to his kingdom. ... Without any declaration of war,

without any demand for reparation, in the very act of pouring

forth compliments and assurances of good will, Frederic

commenced hostilities. Many thousands of his troops were

actually in Silesia before the Queen of Hungary knew that he

had set up any claim to any part of her territories. At length

he sent her a message which could be regarded only as an

insult. If she would but let him have Silesia, he would, he

said, stand by her against any power which should try to

deprive her of her other dominions: as if he was not already

bound to stand by her, or as if his new promise could be of

more value than the old one. It was the depth of winter. The

cold was severe, and the roads deep in mire. But the Prussians

pressed on. Resistance was impossible. The Austrian army was

then neither numerous nor efficient. The small portion of that

army which lay in Silesia was unprepared for hostilities.

Glogau was blockaded; Breslau opened its gates; Ohlau was

evacuated. A few scattered garrisons still held out; but the

whole open country was subjugated: no enemy ventured to

encounter the king in the field; and, before the end of

January, 1741, he returned to receive the congratulations of

his subjects at Berlin.

{214}

Had the Silesian question been merely a question between

Frederic and Maria Theresa it would be impossible to acquit

the Prussian king of gross perfidy. But when we consider the

effects which his policy produced, and could not fail to

produce, on the whole community of civilized nations, we are

compelled to pronounce a condemnation still more severe. ...

The selfish rapacity of the king of Prussia gave the signal to

his neighbours. ... The evils produced by this wickedness were

felt in lands where the name of Prussia was unknown; and, in

order that he might rob a neighbour whom he had promised to

defend, black men fought on the coast of Coromandel, and red

men scalped each other by the great lakes of North America.

Silesia had been occupied without a battle; but the Austrian

troops were advancing to the relief of the fortresses which

still held out. In the spring Frederic rejoined his army. He

had seen little of war, and had never commanded any great body

of men in the field. ... Frederic's first battle was fought at

Molwitz [April 10, 1741], and never did the career of a great

commander open in a more inauspicious manner. His army was

victorious. Not only, however, did he not establish his title

to the character of an able general, but he was so unfortunate

as to make it doubtful whether he possessed the vulgar courage

of a soldier. The cavalry, which he commanded in person, was

put to flight. Unaccustomed to the tumult and carnage of a

field of battle, he lost his self-possession, and listened too

readily to those who urged him to save himself. His English

gray carried him many miles from the field, while Schwerin,

though wounded in two places, manfully upheld the day. The

skill of the old Field-Marshal and the steadiness of the

Prussian battalions prevailed, and the Austrian army was

driven from the field with the loss of 8,000 men. The news was

carried late at night to a mill in which the king had taken

shelter. It gave him a bitter pang. He was successful; but he

owed his success to dispositions which others had made, and to

the valour of men who had fought while he was flying. So

unpromising was the first appearance of the greatest warrior

of that age."

Lord Macaulay, Frederic the Great (Essays, volume 4).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (April-May).

The War of the Succession: French responsibility.

The Carlyle verdict.

"The battle of Mollwitz went off like a signal shot among the

Nations; intimating that they were, one and all, to go

battling. Which they did, with a witness; making a terrible

thing of it, over all the world, for above seven years to

come. ... Not that Mollwitz kindled Europe; Europe was already

kindled for some two years past;--especially since the late

Kaiser died, and his Pragmatic Sanction was superadded to the

other troubles afoot. But ever since that image of Jenkins's

Ear had at last blazed up in the slow English brain, like a

fiery constellation or Sign in the Heavens, symbolic of such

injustices and unendurabilities, and had lighted the

Spanish-English War [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741], Europe was

slowly but pretty surely taking fire. France 'could not see

Spain humbled,' she said: England (in its own dim feeling, and

also in the fact of things), could not do at all without

considerably humbling Spain. France, endlessly interested in

that Spanish-English matter, was already sending out fleets,

firing shots,--almost, or altogether, putting her hand in it.

'In which case, will not, must not, Austria help us?' thought

England,--and was asking, daily, at Vienna ... when the late

Kaiser died. ... But if not as cause, then as signal, or as

signal and cause together (which it properly was), the Battle

of Mollwitz gave the finishing stroke and set all in motion.

... For directly on the back of Mollwitz, there ensued, first,

an explosion of Diplomatic activity, such as was never seen

before; Excellencies from the four winds taking wing towards

Friedrich; and talking and insinuating, and fencing and

fugling, after their sort, in that Silesian camp of his, the

centre being there. A universal rookery of Diplomatists, whose

loud cackle is now as if gone mad to us; their work wholly

fallen putrescent and avoidable, dead to all creatures. And

secondly, in the train of that, there ensued a universal

European War, the French and the English being chief parties

in it; which abounds in battles and feats of arms, spirited

but delirious, and cannot be got stilled for seven or eight

years to come; and in which Friedrich and his War swim only as

an intermittent Episode henceforth. ... The first point to be

noted is, Where did it originate? To which the answer mainly

is ... with Monseigneur, the Maréchal de Belleisle

principally; with the ambitious cupidities and baseless

vanities of the French Court and Nation, as represented by

Belleisle. ... The English-Spanish War had a basis to stand on

in this Universe. The like had the Prussian-Austrian one; so

all men now admit. If Friedrich had not business there, what

man ever had in an enterprise he ventured on? Friedrich, after

such trial and proof as has seldom been, got his claims on

Schlesien allowed by the Destinies. ... Friedrich had business

in this War; and Maria Theresa versus Friedrich had likewise

cause to appear in Court, and do her utmost pleading against

him. But if we ask, What Belleisle or France and Louis XV. had

to do there? the answer is rigorously Nothing. Their own windy

vanities, ambitions,  sanctioned not by fact and the Almighty

Powers, but by Phantasm and the babble of Versailles;

transcendent self-conceit, intrinsically insane; pretensions

over their fellow-creatures which were without basis anywhere

in Nature, except in the French brain; it was this that

brought Belleisle and France into a German War. And Belleisle

and France having gone into an Anti-Pragmatic War, the unlucky

George and his England were dragged into a Pragmatic

one,--quitting their own business, on the Spanish Main, and

hurrying to Germany,--in terror as at Doomsday, and zeal to

save the Keystone of Nature there. That is the notable point

in regard to this War: That France is to be called the author

of it, who, alone of all the parties, had no business there

whatever."

T. Carlyle, History of Friedrich II.,

book 12, chapter 11 (volume 4).

See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1733.

{215}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (May-June).

Mission of Belleisle.

The thickening of the Plot.

"The defeat of Maria Theresa's only army [at Mollwitz] swept

away all the doubts and scruples of France. The fiery

Belleisle had already set out upon his mission to the various

German courts, armed with powers which were reluctantly

granted by the cardinal [Fleury, the French minister], and

were promptly enlarged by the ambassador to suit his own more

ambitious views of the situation. He travelled in oriental

state. ... The almost royal pomp with which he strode into the

presence of princes of the blood, the copious eloquence with

which he pleaded his cause, ... were only the outward

decorations of one of the most iniquitous schemes ever devised

by an unscrupulous diplomacy. The scheme, when stripped of all

its details, did not indeed at first appear absolutely

revolting. It proposed simply to secure the election of

Charles Albert of Bavaria as emperor, an honor to which he had

a perfect right to aspire. But it was difficult to obtain the

votes of certain electors without offering them the prospect

of territorial gains, and impossible for Charles Albert to

support the imperial dignity without greater revenues than

those of Bavaria. It was proposed, therefore, that provinces

should be taken from Maria Theresa herself, first to purchase

votes against her own husband, and then to swell the income of

the successful rival candidate. The three episcopal electors

were first visited, and subjected to various forms of

persuasion, bribes, flattery, threats,--until the effects of

the treatment began to appear; the count palatine was devoted

to France; and these four with Bavaria made a majority of one.

But that was too small a margin for Belleisle's aspirations,

or even for the safety of his project. The four remaining

votes belonged to the most powerful of the German states,

Prussia, Hanover, Saxony and Bohemia. ... Bohemia, if it voted

at all, would of course vote for the grand-duke Francis

[husband of Maria Theresa]. Saxony and Hanover were already

negotiating with Maria Theresa; and it was well understood

that Austria could have Frederick's support by paying his

price." Austria refused to pay the price, and Frederick signed

a treaty with the king of France at Breslau on the 4th of

June, 1741. "The essence of it was contained in four secret

articles. In these the king of Prussia renounced his claim to

Jülich-Berg in behalf of the house of Sulzbach, and agreed to

give his vote to the elector of Bavaria for emperor. The king

of France engaged to guarantee Prussia in the possession of

Lower Silesia, to send within two months an army to the

support of Bavaria, and to provoke an immediate rupture

between Sweden and Russia."

H. Tuttle, History of Prussia, 1740-1745, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria, chapter 99

(volume 3).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (June-September).

Maria Theresa and the Hungarians.

"During these anxious summer months Maria Theresa and the

Austrian court had resided mainly at Presburg, in Hungary.

Here she had been occupied in the solution of domestic as well

as international problems. The Magyars, as a manly and

chivalrous race, had been touched by the perilous situation of

the young queen; but, while ardently protesting their loyalty,

insisted not the less on the recognition of their own

inalienable rights. These had been inadequately observed in

recent years, and in consequence no little disaffection

prevailed in Hungary. The magnates resolved, therefore, as

they had resolved at the beginning of previous reigns, to

demand the restoration of all their rights and privileges. But

it does not appear that they wished to take any ungenerous

advantage of the sex or the necessities of Maria Theresa. They

were argumentative and stubborn, yet not in a bargaining,

mercenary spirit. They accepted in June a qualified compliance

with their demands; and when on the 25th of that month the

queen appeared before the diet to receive the crown of St.

Stephen, and, according to custom, waved the great sword of

the kingdom toward the four points of the compass, toward the

north and the south, the east and the west, challenging all

enemies to dispute her right, the assembly was carried away by

enthusiasm, and it seemed as if an end had forever been put to

constitutional technicalities. Such was, however, not the

case. After the excitement caused by the dramatic coronation

had in a measure subsided, the old contentions revived, as

bitter and vexatious as before. These concerned especially the

manner in which the administration of Hungary should be

adjusted to meet the new state of things. Should the chief

political offices be filled by native Hungarians, as the diet

demanded? Could the co-regency of the grand-duke, which was

ardently desired by the queen, be accepted by the Magyars? For

two months the dispute over these problems raged at Presburg,

until finally Maria Theresa herself found a bold, ingenious,

and patriotic solution. The news of the Franco-Bavarian

alliance and the fall of Passau determined her to throw

herself completely upon the gallantry and devotion of the

Magyars. It had long been the policy of the court of Vienna

not to entrust the Hungarians with arms. ... But Maria Theresa

had not been robbed, in spite of her experience with France

and Prussia, of all her faith in human nature. She took the

responsibility of her decision, and the result proved that her

insight was correct. On the 11th of September she summoned the

members of the diet before her, and, seated on the throne,

explained to them the perilous situation of her dominions. The

danger, she said, threatened herself, and all that was dear to

her. Abandoned by all her allies, she took refuge in the

fidelity and the ancient valor of the Hungarians, to whom she

entrusted herself, her children, and her empire. Here she

broke into tears, and covered, her face with her handkerchief.

The diet responded to this appeal by proclaiming the

'insurrection' or the equipment of a large popular force for

the defence of the queen. So great was the enthusiasm that it

nearly swept away even the original aversion of the Hungarians

to the grand-duke Francis, who, to the queen's delight, was

finally, though not without some murmurs, accepted as

co-regent. ... This uprising was organized not an hour too

early, for dangers were pressing upon the queen from every

side."

H. Tuttle, History of Prussia, 1740-1745, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: Duc de Broglie, Frederick the Great and Maria

Theresa, chapter 4 (volume 2).

{216}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (August-November).

The French-Bavarian onset.

"France now began to act with energy. In the month of August

[1741] two French armies crossed the Rhine, each about 40, 000

strong. The first marched into Westphalia, and frightened

George II. into concluding a treaty of neutrality for Hanover,

and promising his vote to the Elector of Bavaria. The second

advanced through South Germany on Passau, the frontier city of

Bavaria and Austria. As soon as it arrived on German soil, the

French officers assumed the blue and white cockade of

Bavaria, for it was the cue of France to appear only as an

auxiliary, and the nominal command of her army was vested in

the Elector. From Passau the French and Bavarians passed into

Upper Austria, and on Sept. 11 entered its capital, Linz,

where the Elector assumed the title of Archduke. Five days

later Saxony joined the allies. Sweden had already declared

war on Russia. Spain trumped up an old claim and attacked the

Austrian dominions in Italy. It seemed as if Belleisle's

schemes were about to be crowned with complete success. Had

the allies pushed forward, Vienna must have fallen into their

hands. But the French did not wish to be too victorious, lest

they should make the Elector too powerful, and so independent

of them. Therefore, after six weeks' delay, they turned aside

to the conquest of Bohemia."

F. W. Longman, Frederick the Great and the Seven Years

War, chapter 4, section 4.

"While . . . a portion of the French troops, under the command

of the Count de Segur, was left in Upper Austria, the

remainder of the allied army turned towards Bohemia; where

they were joined by a body of Saxons, under the command of

Count Rutowsky. They took Prague by assault, on the night of

the 25th of November, while the Grand Duke of Tuscany, the

husband of Maria Theresa, was marching to his relief. In

Prague, 3,000 prisoners were taken. The elector of Bavaria

hastened there, upon hearing of the success of his arms, was

crowned King of Bohemia, during the month of December, and

received the oath of fidelity from the constituted

authorities. But while he was thus employed, the Austrian

general, Khevenhuller, had driven the Count de Segur out of

Austria, and had himself entered Bavaria; which obliged the

Bavarian army to abandon Bohemia and hasten to the defence of

their own country."

Lord Dover, Life of Frederick II.,

book 2, chapter 2 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: Frederick II., History of My Own Times

(Posthumous Works, volume 1, chapter 5).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (October).

Secret Treaty with Frederick.

Lower Silesia conceded to him.

Austrian success.

"By October, 1741, the fortunes of Maria Theresa had sunk to

the lowest ebb, but a great revulsion speedily set in. The

martial enthusiasm of the Hungarians, the subsidy from

England, and the brilliant military talents of General

Khevenhuller, restored her armies. Vienna was put in a state

of defence, and at the same time jealousies and suspicion made

their way among the confederates. The Electors of Bavaria and

Saxony were already in some degree divided; and the Germans,

and especially Frederick, were alarmed by the growing

ascendency, and irritated by the haughty demeanour of the

French. In the moment of her extreme depression, the Queen

consented to a concession which England had vainly urged upon

her before, and which laid the foundation of her future

success. In October 1741 she entered into a secret convention

with Frederick [called the convention of Ober-Schnellendorf],

by which that astute sovereign agreed to desert his allies,

and desist from hostilities, on condition of ultimately

obtaining Lower Silesia, with Breslau and Neisse. Every

precaution was taken to ensure secrecy. It was arranged that

Frederick should continue to besiege Neisse, that the town

should ultimately be surrendered to him, and that his troops

should then retire into winter quarters, and take no further

part in the war. As the sacrifice of a few more lives was

perfectly indifferent to the contracting parties, and in order

that no one should suspect the treachery that was

contemplated, Neisse, after the arrangement had been made for

its surrender, was subjected for four days and four nights to

the horrors of bombardment. Frederick, at the same time

talked, with his usual cynical frankness, to the English

ambassador about the best way of attacking his allies the

French; and observed, that if the Queen of Hungary prospered,

he would perhaps support her, if not--everyone must look for

himself. He only assented verbally to this convention, and, no

doubt, resolved to await the course of events, in order to

decide which Power it was his interest finally to betray; but

in the meantime the Austrians obtained a respite, which

enabled them to throw their whole forces upon their other

enemies. Two brilliant campaigns followed. The greater part of

Bohemia was recovered by an army under the Duke of Lorraine,

and the French were hemmed in at Prague; while another army,

under General Khevenhuller, invaded Upper Austria, drove

10,000 French soldiers within the walls of Linz, blockaded

them, defeated a body of Bohemians who were sent to the

rescue, compelled the whole French army to surrender, and

then, crossing the frontier, poured in a resistless torrent

over Bavaria. The fairest plains of that beautiful land were

desolated by hosts of irregular troops from Hungary, Croatia,

and the Tyrol; and on the 12th of February the Austrians

marched in triumph into Munich. On that very day the Elector

of Bavaria was crowned Emperor of Germany, at Frankfort, under

the title of Charles VII., and the imperial crown was thus, for

the first time, for many generations, separated from the House

of Austria."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of England, 18th Century,

chapter 3 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

F. Von Raumer, Contributions to Modern History:

Frederick II. and his Times, chapter 13-14.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741-1743.

Successes in Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (January-May).

Frederick breaks faith again.

Battle of Chotusitz.

"The Queen of Hungary had assembled in the beginning of the

year two considerable armies in Moravia and Bohemia, the one

under Prince Lobkowitz, to defend the former province, and the

other commanded by Prince Charles of Lorraine, her

brother-in-law. This young Prince possessed as much bravery

and activity as Frederick, and had equally with him the talent

of inspiring attachment and confidence. ... Frederick, alarmed

at these preparations and the progress of the Austrians in

Bavaria, abruptly broke off the convention of

Ober-Schnellendorf, and recommenced hostilities. ... The King

of Prussia became apprehensive that the Queen of Hungary would

again turn her arms to recover Silesia. He therefore

dispatched Marshal Schwerin to seize Olmutz and lay siege to

Glatz, which surrendered after a desperate resistance on the

9th of January. Soon after this event, the King rejoined his

army, and endeavoured to drive the Austrians from their

advantageous position in the southern parts of Bohemia, which

would have delivered the French troops in the neighbourhood

and checked the progress of Khevenhüller in Bavaria.

{217}

The king advanced to Iglau, on the frontiers of Bohemia, and,

occupying the banks of the Taya, made irruptions into Upper

Austria, his hussars spreading terror even to the gates of

Vienna. The Austrians drew from Bavaria a corps of 10,000 men

to cover the capital, while Prince Charles of Lorraine, at the

head of 50,000 men, threatened the Prussian magazines in Upper

Silesia, and by this movement compelled Frederick to detach a

considerable force for their protection, and to evacuate

Moravia, which he had invaded. Broglie, who commanded the

French forces in that country, must now have fallen a

sacrifice, had not the ever-active King of Prussia brought up

30,000 men, which, under the Prince of Anhalt-Dessau, entering

Bohemia, came up with Prince Charles at Czaslau, about

thirty-five miles from Prague, before he could form a junction

with Prince Lobkowitz. Upon this ensued [May 17, 1742] what is

known in history as the battle of Czaslau [also, and more

commonly, called the battle of Chotusitz]. ... The numbers in

the two armies were nearly equal, and the action was warmly

contested on both sides. ... The Prussians remained masters of

the field, with 18 cannon, two pairs of colours and 1,200

prisoners; but they indeed paid dearly for the honour, for it

was computed that their loss was equal to that of their enemy,

which amounted to 7,000 men on either side; while the Prussian

cavalry, under Field-Marshal Buddenbroch, was nearly ruined.

... Although in this battle the victory was, without doubt, on

the side of the Prussians, yet the immediate consequences were

highly favourable to the Queen of Hungary. The King was

disappointed of his expected advantages, and conceived a

disgust to the war. He now lowered his demands and made

overtures of accommodation, which, on the 11th of June,

resulted in a treaty of peace between the two crowns, which

was signed at Breslau under the mediation of the British

Ambassador."

Sir E. Cust, Annals of the Wars of the 18th Century,

volume 2, page 19.

ALSO IN: T. Carlyle, History of Friedrich II. of

Prussia, book 13, chapter 13 (volume 5).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (June).

Treaty of Breslau with the King of Prussia.

"The following are the preliminary articles which were signed

at Breslau: 1. The queen of Hungary ceded to the king of

Prussia Upper and Lower Silesia, with the principality of

Glatz; except the towns of Troppau, Jaegendorff and the high

mountains situated beyond the Oppa. 2. The Prussians undertook

to repay the English 1,700,000 crowns; which sum was a

mortgage loan on Silesia. The remaining articles related to a

suspension of arms, an exchange of prisoners, and the freedom

of religion and trade. Thus was Silesia united to the Prussian

States. Two years were sufficient for the conquest of that

important province. The treasures which the late king had left

were almost expended; but provinces that do not cost more than

seven or eight millions are cheaply purchased."

Frederic II., History of My Own Times (Posthumous Works,

volume 1), chapter 6.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (June-December).

Expulsion of the French from Bohemia.

Belleisle's retreat from Prague.

"The Austrian arms began now to be successful in all quarters.

Just before the signature of the preliminaries, Prince

Lobcowitz, who was stationed at Budweiss with 10,000 men, made

an attack on Frauenberg; Broglio and Belleisle advanced from

Piseck to relieve the town, and a combat took place at Sahay,

in which the Austrians were repulsed with the loss of 500 men.

This trifling affair was magnified into a decisive victory.

... Marshal Broglio, elated with this advantage, and relying

on the immediate junction of the King of Prussia, remained at

Frauenberg in perfect security. But his expectations were

disappointed; Frederic had already commenced his secret

negotiations, and Prince Charles was enabled to turn his

forces against the French. Being joined by Prince Lobcowitz,

they attacked Broglio, and compelled him to quit Frauenberg

with such precipitation that his baggage fell into the hands

of the light troops, and the French retreated towards Branau,

harassed by the Croats and other irregulars. ... The

Austrians, pursuing their success against the French, drove

Broglio from Branau, and followed him to the walls of Prague,

where he found Belleisle. ... After several consultations, the

two generals called in their posts, and secured their army

partly within the walls and partly within a peninsula of the

Moldau. ... Soon afterwards the duke of Lorraine joined the

army [of Prince Charles], which now amounted to 70 70,000 men,

and the arrival of the heavy artillery enabled the Austrians to

commence the siege."

W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria,

chapter 102 (volume 3).

"To relieve the French at Prague, Marshal Maillebois was

directed to advance with his army from Westphalia. At these

tidings Prince Charles changed the siege of Prague to a

blockade, and marching against his new opponents, checked

their progress on the Bohemian frontier; the French, however,

still occupying the town of Egra. It was under these

circumstances that Belleisle made his masterly and renowned

retreat from Prague. In the night of the 16th of December, he

secretly left the city at the head of 11,000 foot and 3,000

horse, having deceived the Austrians' vigilance by the feint

of a general forage in the opposite quarter; and pushed for

Egra through a hostile country, destitute of resources and

surrounded by superior enemies. His soldiers, with no other

food than frozen bread, and compelled to sleep without

covering on the snow and ice, perished in great numbers; but

the gallant spirit of Belleisle triumphed over every obstacle;

he struck through morasses almost untrodden before, offered

battle to Prince Lobkowitz, who, however, declined engaging,

and at length succeeded in reaching the other French army with

the flower of his own. The remnant left at Prague, and

amounting only to 6,000 men, seemed an easy prey; yet their

threat of firing the city, and perishing beneath its ruins,

and the recent proof of what despair can do, obtained for them

honourable terms, and the permission of rejoining their

comrades at Egra. But in spite of all this skill and courage

in the French invaders, the final result to them was failure;

nor had they attained a single permanent advantage beyond

their own safety in retreat. Maillebois and De Broglie took up

winter quarters in Bavaria, while Belleisle led back his

division across the Rhine; and it was computed that, of the

35,000 men whom he had first conducted into Germany, not more

than 8,000 returned beneath his banner."

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England,

1713-1783, chapter 24 (volume 3).

"Thus, at the termination of the campaign, all Bohemia was

regained, except Egra; and on the 12th of May, 1743, Maria

Theresa was soon afterwards crowned at Prague, to the recovery

of which, says her great rival, her firmness had more

contributed than the force of her arms. The only reverse which

the Austrians experienced in the midst of their successes was

the temporary loss of Bavaria, which, on the retreat of

Kevenhuller, was occupied by marshal Seckendorf; and the

Emperor made his entry into Munich on the 2d of October."

W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria,

chapter 103 (volume 3).

{218}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.

England drawn into the conflict.

The Pragmatic Army.

The Battle of Dettingen.

"The cause of Maria Theresa had begun to excite a remarkable

enthusiasm in England. ... The convention of neutrality

entered into by George II. in September 1741, and the

extortion of his vote for the Elector of Bavaria, properly

concerned that prince only as Elector of Hanover; yet, as he

was also King of England, they were felt as a disgrace by the

English people. The elections of that year went against

Walpole, and in February 1742 he found himself compelled to

resign. He was succeeded in the administration by Pulteney,

Earl of Bath, though Lord Carteret was virtually prime

minister. Carteret was an ardent supporter of the cause of

Maria Theresa. His accession to office was immediately

followed by a large increase of the army and navy; five

millions were voted for carrying on the war, and a subsidy of

£500,000 for the Queen of Hungary. The Earl of Stair, with an

army of 16,000 men, afterwards reinforced by a large body of

Hanoverians and Hessians in British pay, was despatched into

the Netherlands to cooperate with the Dutch. But though the

States-General, at the instance of the British Cabinet, voted

Maria Theresa a subsidy, they were not yet prepared to take an

active part in a war which might ultimately involve them in

hostilities with France. The exertions of the English ministry

in favour of the Queen of Hungary had therefore been confined

during the year 1742 to diplomacy, and they had helped to

bring about ... the Peace of Breslau. In 1743 they were able

to do more," In April, 1743, the Emperor, Charles VII.,

regained possession of Bavaria and returned to Munich, but

only to be driven out again by the Austrians in June. The

Bavarians were badly beaten at Simpach (May 9), and Munich was

taken (June 12) after a short bombardment. "Charles VII. was

now again obliged to fly, and took refuge at Augsburg. At his

command, Seckendorf [his general] made a convention with the

Austrians at the village of Niederschönfeld, by which he

agreed to abandon to them Bavaria, on condition that Charles's

troops should be allowed to occupy unmolested quarters between

Franconia and Suabia. Maria Theresa seemed at first indisposed

to ratify even terms so humiliating to the Emperor. She had

become perhaps a little too much exalted by the rapid turn of

fortune. She had caused herself to be crowned in Prague. She

had received the homage of the Austrians, and entered Vienna

in a sort of triumph. She now dreamt of nothing less than

conquering Lorraine for herself, Alsace for the Empire; of

hurling Charles VII. from the Imperial throne, and placing on

it her own consort." She was persuaded, however, to consent at

length to the terms of the Niederschönfeld convention.

"Meanwhile the allied army of English and Germans, under the

Earl of Stair, nearly 40,000 strong, which, from its destined

object, had assumed the name of the 'Pragmatic Army,' had

crossed the Meuse and the Rhine in March and April, with a

view to cut off the army of Bavaria from France. George II.

had not concealed his intention of breaking the Treaty of

Hanover of 1741, alleging as a ground that the duration of the

neutrality stipulated in it had not been determined; and on

June 19th he had joined the army in person. He found it in a

most critical position. Lord Stair, who had never

distinguished himself as a general, and was now falling into

dotage, had led it into a narrow valley near Aschaffenburg,

between Mount Spessart and the river Main; while Marshal

Noailles [commanding the French], who had crossed the Rhine

towards the end of April, by seizing the principal fords of

the Main, both above and below the British position, had cut

him off both from his magazines at Hanau, and from the

supplies which he had expected to procure in Franconia.

Nothing remained but for him to fight his way back to Hanau."

In the battle of Dettingen, which followed (June 27), all the

advantages of the French in position were thrown away by the

ignorant impetuosity of the king's nephew, the Duke of

Grammont, who commanded one division, and they suffered a

severe defeat. "The French are said to have lost 6,000 men and

the British half that number. It is the last action in which a

king of England has fought in person. But George II., or

rather Lord Stair, did not know how to profit by his victory.

Although the Pragmatic Army was joined after the battle of

Dettingen by 15,000 Dutch troops, under Prince Maurice of

Nassau, nothing of importance was done during the remainder of

the campaign."

T. H. Dyer, History of Modern Europe,

book 6, chapter 4 (volume 3).

ALSO IN:

W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria,

chapter 104 (volume 3).

Sir E. Cust, Annals of the Wars of the 18th Century,

volume 2, pages 30-36.

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England,

1713-1783, chapter 25 (volume 3).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.

Treaty of Worms with Sardinia and England.

See ITALY: A. D. 1743.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743 (October).

The Second Bourbon Family Compact.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744.

The Prussian King strikes in again.

The Union of Frankfort.

Siege and capture of Prague.

"Everywhere Austria was successful, and Frederick had reason

to fear for himself unless the tide of conquest could be

stayed. He explains in the 'Histoire de Mon Temps' that he

feared lest France should abandon the cause of the Emperor,

which would mean that the Austrians, who now boldly spoke of

compensation for the war, would turn their arms against

himself. ... France was trembling, not for her conquests, but

for her own territory. After the battle of Dettingen, the

victorious Anglo-Hanoverian force was to cross the Rhine above

Mayence and march into Alsace, while Prince Charles of

Lorraine, with a strong Austrian army, was to pass near Basle

and occupy Lorraine, taking up his winter quarters in Burgundy

and Champagne. The English crossed without any check and moved

on to Worms, but the Austrians failed in their attempt. Worms

became a centre of intrigue, which Frederick afterwards called

'Cette abyme de mauvaisc fol.' The Dutch were persuaded by

Lord Carteret to join the English, and they did at last send

14,000 men, who were never of the least use.

{219}

Lord Carteret also detached Charles Emanuel, King of Sardinia,

from his French leanings, and persuaded him to enter into the

Austro-English alliance [by the treaty of Worms, Sept. 13,

1743, which conceded to the King of Sardinia Finale, the city

of Placentia, with some other small districts and gave him

command of the allied forces in Italy]. It was clear that

action could not be long postponed, and Frederick began to

recognize the necessity of a new war. His first anxiety was to

guard himself against interference from his northern and

eastern neighbours. He secured, as he hoped, the neutrality of

Russia by marrying the young princess of Anhalt-Zerbst,

afterwards the notorious Empress Catherine, with the

Grand-Duke Peter of Russia, nephew and heir to the reigning

Empress Elizabeth. ... Thus strengthened, as he hoped, in his

rear and flank, and having made the commencement of a German

league called the Union of Frankfurt, by which Hesse and the

Palatinate agreed to join Frederick and the Kaiser, he

concluded on the 5th of June, 1744, a treaty which brought

France also into this alliance. It was secretly agreed that

Frederick was to invade Bohemia, conquer it for the Kaiser,

and have the districts of Königgrätz, Bunzlau, and Leitmeritz

to repay him for his trouble and costs; while France, which

was all this time at war with Austria and England, should send

an army against Prince Charles and the English. ... The first

stroke of the coming war was delivered by France. Louis XV.

sent a large army into the Netherlands under two good leaders,

Noailles and Maurice de Saxe. Urged by his mistress, the

Duchesse de Châteauroux, he joined it himself early, and took

the nominal command early in June. ... The towns [Menin,

Ypres, Fort Knoque, Furnes] rapidly fell before him, and

Marshal Wade, with the Anglo-Dutch-Hanoverian army, sat still

and looked at the success of the French. But on the night of

the 30th June--1st July, Prince Charles crossed the Rhine by

an operation which is worth the study of military students,

and invaded Alsace, the French army of observation falling

back before him. Louis XV. hurried back to interpose between

the Austrians and Paris. ... Maurice de Saxe was left in the

Netherlands with 45,000 men. Thus the French army was

paralysed, and the Austrian army in its turn was actually

invading France. At this time Frederick struck in. He sent

word to the King that, though all the terms of their

arrangement had not yet been fulfilled, he would at once

invade Bohemia, and deliver a stroke against Prague which

would certainly cause the retreat of Prince Charles with his

70,000 men. If the French army would follow Prince Charles in

his retreat, Frederick would attack him, and between France

and Prussia the Austrian army would certainly be crushed, and

Vienna be at their mercy. This was no doubt an excellent plan

of campaign, but, like the previous operations concerted with

Broglio, it depended for success upon the good faith of the

French, and this turned out to be a broken reed. On the 7th of

August the Prussian ambassador at Vienna gave notice of the

Union of Frankfurt and withdrew from the court of Austria; and

on the 15th the Prussian army was put in march upon Prague

[opening what is called the Second Silesian War]. Frederick's

forces moved in three columns, the total strength being over

80,000. ... Maria Theresa was now again in great danger, but

as usual retained her high courage, and once more called forth

the enthusiasm of her Hungarian subjects, who sent swarms of

wild troops, horse and foot, to the seat of war. ... On the

1st of September the three columns met before Prague, which

had better defences than in the last campaign, and a garrison

of some 16,000 men.  ... During the night of the 9th the

bombardment commenced ... and on the 16th the garrison

surrendered. Thus, one month after the commencement of the

march Prague was captured, and the campaign opened with a

brilliant feat of arms."

Colonel C. B. Brackenbury, Frederick the Great, chapter 7.

ALSO IN:

W. Russell, History of Modern Europe, part 2, letter 28.

F. Von Raumer, Contributions to Modern History:

Frederick II. and his Times, chapter 17-19.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

Frederick's retreat and fresh triumph.

Austria recovers the imperial crown.

Saxony subdued.

The Peace of Dresden.

After the reduction of Prague, Frederick, "in deference to the

opinion of Marshal Belleisle, but against his own judgment,

advanced into the south of Bohemia with the view of

threatening Vienna. He thus exposed himself to the risk of

being cut off from Prague. Yet even so he would probably have

been able to maintain himself if the French had fulfilled

their engagements. But while he was conquering the districts

of the Upper Moldau, the Austrian army returned unimpaired

from Alsace. The French had allowed it to cross the Rhine

unmolested, and had not made the slightest attempt to harass

its retreat [but applied themselves to the siege and capture

of Freiburg]. They were only too glad to get rid of it

themselves. In the ensuing operations Frederick was completely

outmanoeuvred. Traun [the Austrian general], without risking a

battle, forced him back towards the Silesian frontier. He had

to choose between abandoning Prague and abandoning his

communications with Silesia, and as the Saxons had cut off his

retreat through the Electorate, there was really no choice in

the matter. So he fell back on Silesia, abandoning Prague and

his heavy artillery. The retreat was attended with

considerable loss. Frederick was much struck with the skill

displayed by Traun, and says, in his 'Histoire de mon Temps,'

that he regarded this campaign as his school in the art of war

and M. de Traun as his teacher. The campaign may have been an

excellent lesson in the art of war, but in other respects it

was very disastrous to Frederick. He had drawn upon himself

the whole power of Austria, and had learnt how little the

French were to be depended upon. His prestige was dimmed by

failure, and even in his own army doubts were entertained of

his capacity. But, bad as his position already was, it became

far worse when the unhappy Emperor died [January 20, 1745], worn

out with disease and calamity. This event put an end to the

Union of Frankfort. Frederick could no longer claim to be

acting in defence of his oppressed sovereign; the ground was

cut from under his feet. Nor was there any longer much hope of

preventing the Imperial Crown from reverting to Austria. The

new Elector of Bavaria was a mere boy. In this altered state

of affairs he sought to make peace. But Maria Theresa would

not let him off so easily.

{220}

In order that she might use all her forces against him, she

granted peace to Bavaria, and gave back to the young elector

his hereditary dominions, on condition of his resigning all

claim to hers and promising to vote for her husband as

Emperor. While Frederick thus lost a friend in Bavaria, Saxony

threw herself completely into the arms of his enemy, and

united with Austria in a treaty [May 18] which had for its

object, not the reconquest of Silesia merely, but the

partition of Prussia and the reduction of the king to his

ancient limits as Margrave of Brandenburg. Saxony was then

much larger than it is now, but it was not only the number of

troops it could send into the field that made its hostility

dangerous. It was partly the geographical position of the

country, which made it an excellent base for operations

against Prussia, but still more the alliance that was known to

subsist between the Elector (King Augustus III. of Poland) and

the Russian Court. It was probable that a Prussian invasion of

Saxony would be followed by a Russian invasion of Prussia.

Towards the end of May, the Austrian and Saxon army, 75,000

strong, crossed the Giant Mountains and descended upon

Silesia. The Austrians were again commanded by Prince Charles,

but the wise head of Traun was no longer there to guide him.

... The encounter took place at Hohenfriedberg [June 5], and

resulted in a complete victory for Prussia. The Austrians and

Saxons lost 9,000 killed and wounded, and 7,000 prisoners,

besides 66 cannons and 73 flags and standards. Four days after

the battle they were back again in Bohemia. Frederick

followed, not with the intention of attacking them again, but

in order to eat the country bare, so that it might afford no

sustenance to the enemy during the winter. For his own part he

was really anxious for peace. His resources were all but

exhausted, while Austria was fed by a constant stream of

English subsidies. As in the former war, England interposed

with her good offices, but without effect; Maria Theresa was

by no means disheartened by her defeat, and refused to hear of

peace till she had tried the chances of battle once more. On

Sept. 13 her husband was elected Emperor by seven votes out of

nine, the dissentients being the King of Prussia and the

Elector Palatine. This event raised the spirits of the

Empress-Queen, as Maria Theresa was henceforward called, and

opened a wider field for her ambition. She sent peremptory

orders to Prince Charles to attack Frederick before he retired

from Bohemia. A battle was accordingly fought at Sohr [Sept.

30], and again victory rested with the Prussians. The season

was now far advanced, and Frederick returned home expecting

that there would be no more fighting till after the winter.

Such however, was far from being the intention of his

enemies." A plan for the invasion of Brandenburg by three

Austrian and Saxon armies simultaneously, was secretly

concerted; but Frederick had timely warning of it and it was

frustrated by his activity and energy. On the 23d of November

he surprised and defeated Prince Charles at Hennersdorf. "Some

three weeks afterwards [Dec. 15] the Prince of Dessau defeated

a second Saxon and Austrian army at Kesselsdorf, a few miles

from Dresden. This victory completed the subjugation of Saxony

and put an end to the war. Three days after Kesselsdorf,

Frederick entered Dresden, and astonished everyone by the

graciousness of his behaviour and by the moderation of his

terms. From Saxony he exacted no cession of territory, but

merely a contribution of 1,000,000 thalers (£150,000) towards

the expenses of the war. From Austria he demanded a guarantee

of the treaty of Breslau, in return for which he agreed to

recognize Francis as Emperor. Peace was signed [at Dresden] on

Christmas Day."

F. W. Longman, Frederick the Great and the Seven Years

War, chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

T. Carlyle, History of Frederick II.,

book 15, chapter 3-15 (volume 4).

Lord Dover, Life of Frederick II.,

book 2, chapter 3-5 (volume 1).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1745.

Overwhelming disasters in Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1745.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1745 (May).

Reverses in the Netherlands.

Battle of Fontenoy.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1745.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1745 (September-October).

The Consort of Maria Theresa elected and crowned Emperor.

Rise of the new House of Hapsburg-Lorraine.

Francis of Lorraine, Grand Duke of Tuscany and husband of

Maria Theresa, was elected Emperor, at Frankfort, Sept. 13,

1745, and crowned Oct. 1, with the title of Francis I. "Thus

the Empire returned to the New House of Austria, that of

Hapsburg-Lorraine, and France had missed the principal object

for which she had gone to war." By the treaties signed at

Dresden, Dec. 25, between Prussia, Austria and Saxony,

Frederick, as Elector of Brandenburg, assented to and

recognized the election of Francis, against which he and the

Elector Palatine had previously protested.

T. H. Dyer, History of Modern Europe,

book 6, chapter 4 (volume 3).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1746-1747.

Further French conquests in the Netherlands.

Lombardy recovered.

Genoa won and lost.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747;

and ITALY; A. D. 1746-1747.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1748 (October).

Termination and results of the War of the Succession.

See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS OF.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1755-1763.

The Seven Years War.

Since the conquest of Silesia by Frederick the Great of

Prussia, "he had cast off all reserve. In his extraordinary

Court at Potsdam this man of wit and war laughed at God, and

at his brother philosophers and sovereigns; he ill-treated

Voltaire, the chief organ of the new opinions; he wounded

kings and queens with his epigrams; he believed neither in the

beauty of  Madam de Pompadour nor in the poetical genius of

the Abbé Bernis, Prime Minister of France. The Empress thought

the moment favourable for the recovery of Silesia; she stirred

up Europe, especially the queens; she persuaded the Queen of

Poland and the Empress of Russia; she paid court to the

mistress of Louis XV. The monstrous alliance of France with

the ancient state of Austria against a sovereign who

maintained the equilibrium of Germany united all Europe

against him. England alone supported him and gave him

subsidies. She was governed at that time by a gouty lawyer,

the famous William Pitt, afterwards Lord Chatham, who raised

himself by his eloquence and by his hatred of the French.

England wanted two things; the maintenance of the balance of power

in Europe, and the destruction of the French and Spanish colonies.

{221}

Her griefs were serious; the Spaniards had ill-treated her

smugglers and the French wanted to prevent her from settling

on their territory in Canada. In India, La Bourdonnaie and his

successor Dupleix threatened to found a great empire in the

face of the English. As a declaration of war the English

confiscated 300 French ships (1756). The marvel of the war was

to see this little kingdom of Prussia, interposed between the

huge powers of Austria, France, and Russia, run from one to

the other, and defy them all. This was the second period of

the art of war. The unskillful adversaries of Frederick

thought that he owed all his success to the precision of the

manœuvres of the Prussian soldiers, to their excellent drill

and rapid firing. Frederick had certainly carried the soldier

machine to perfection. This was capable of imitation: the Czar

Peter III. and the Count of St. Germin created military

automatons by means of the lash. But they could not imitate

the quickness of his manœuvres; the happy arrangement of his

marches, which gave him great facility for moving and

concentrating large masses, and directing them on the weak

points of the enemy. In this terrible chase given by the large

unwieldy armies of the allies to the agile Prussians, one

cannot help noticing the amusing circumspection of the

Austrian tacticians and the stupid folly of the fine gentlemen

who led the armies of France. The Fabius of Austria, the sage

and heavy Daun, was satisfied with a war of positions; he

could not find encampments strong enough or mountains

sufficiently inaccessible; his stationary troops were always

beaten by Frederick. To begin with, he freed himself from the

enmity of Saxony. He did not hurt, he only disarmed her. He

struck his next blow in Bohemia. Repulsed by the Austrians,

and abandoned by the English army, which determined at

Kloster-seven to fight no more, threatened by the Russians,

who were victorious at Joegerndorf, he passed into Saxony and

found the French and Imperialists combined there. Prussia was

surrounded by four armies. Frederick fancied himself lost and

determined on suicide. He wrote to his sister and to d'Argens

announcing his intention. There was only one thing which

frightened him: it was, that when once he was dead the great

distributor of glory--Voltaire--might make free with his

name: he wrote an epistle to disarm him. ... Having written

this epistle he defeated the enemy at Rosbach. The Prince of

Soubise, who thought that he fled, set off rashly in pursuit;

then the Prussians unmasked their batteries, killed 3,000 men,

and took 7,000 prisoners. In the French camp were found an

army of cooks, actors, hair-dressers; a number of parrots,

parasols, and huge cases of lavender-water, &c. (1757). None

but a tactician could follow the King of Prussia in this

series of brilliant and skillful battles. The Seven Years'

War, however varied its incidents, was a political and

strategical war: it has not the interest of the wars for

ideas, the struggles for religion and for freedom of the 16th

century and of our own time. The defeat of Rosbach was

followed by another at Crevelt, and by great reverses balanced

by small advantages; the total ruin of the French navy and

colonies; the English masters of the ocean and conquerors of

India; the exhaustion and humiliation of old Europe in the

presence of young Prussia. This is the history of the Seven

Years War. It was terminated under the ministry of the Duke of

Choiseul," by the Peace of Hubertsburg and the Peace of Paris.

J. Michelet, A Summary of Modern History, pages 300-302.

See

GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756, to 1763;

and, also, SEVEN YEARS' WAR.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1772-1773.

The First Partition of Poland.

See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1777-1779.

The question of the Bavarian Succession.

See BAVARIA: A. D. 1777-1779.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1782-1811.

Abolition of Serfdom.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1787-1791.

War with the Turks.

Treaty of Sistova.

Slight Acquisitions of Territory.

See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1790-1797.

Death of Joseph II. and Leopold II.

Accession of Francis II.

The Coalition against and war with revolutionary France, to

the Peace of Campo Formio.

"It is a mistake to imagine that the European Powers attacked

the Revolution in France. It was the Revolution which attacked

them. The diplomatists of the 18th century viewed at first

with cynical indifference the meeting of the States-General at

Versailles. ... The two points which occupied the attention of

Europe in 1789 were the condition of Poland and the troubles

in the East. The ambitious designs of Catherine and the

assistance lent to them by Joseph threatened the existence of

the Turkish Empire, irritated the Prussian Court, and awakened

English apprehensions, always sensitive about the safety of

Stamboul. Poland, the battle-field of cynical diplomacy, torn

by long dissensions and mined by a miserable constitution, was

vainly endeavouring, under the jealous eyes of her great

neighbours, to avert the doom impending, and to reassert her

ancient claim to a place among the nations of the world. But

Russia had long since determined that Poland must be a vassal

State to her or cease to be a State at all, while Prussia,

driven to face a hard necessity, realised that a strong Poland

and a strong Prussia could not exist together, and that if

Poland ever rose again to power, Prussia must bid good-bye to

unity and greatness. These two questions to the States

involved seemed to be of far more moment than any political

reform in France, and engrossed the diplomatists of Europe

until the summer of 1791. In February, 1790, a new influence

was introduced into European politics by the death of the

Emperor Joseph and the accession of his brother, Leopold II.

Leopold was a man of remarkable ability, no enthusiast and no

dreamer, thoroughly versed in the selfish traditions of

Austrian policy and in some of the subtleties of Italian

statecraft, discerning, temperate, resolute and clear-headed,

quietly determined to have his own way, and generally skilful

enough to secure it. Leopold found his new dominions in a

state of the utmost confusion, with war and rebellion

threatening him on every side. He speedily set about restoring

order. He repealed the unpopular decrees of Joseph. He

conciliated or repressed his discontented subjects. He

gradually re-established the authority of the Crown. ...

Accordingly, the first eighteen months of Leopold's reign were

occupied with his own immediate interests, and at the end of

that time his success was marked.

{222}

Catherine's vast schemes in Turkey had been checked. War had

been averted. Poland had been strengthened by internal

changes. Prussia had been conciliated and outmanœuvred, and

her influence had been impaired. At last, at the end of

August, 1791, the Emperor was free to face the French problem,

and he set out for the Castle of Pillnitz to meet the King of

Prussia and the Emigrant leaders at the Saxon Elector's Court.

For some time past the restlessness of the French Emigrants

had been causing great perplexity in Europe. Received with

open arms by the ecclesiastical princes of the Rhine, by the

Electors of Mayence and Trèves, they proceeded to agitate

busily for their own restoration. ... The object of the

Emigrants was to bring pressure to bear at the European

Courts, with the view of inducing the Powers to intervene

actively in their behalf. ... After his escape from France, in

June, 1790, the Comte de Provence established his Court at

Coblentz, where he was joined by his brother the Comte

d'Artois, and where, on the plea that Louis was a prisoner, he

claimed the title of Regent, and assumed the authority of

King. The Court of the two French princes at Coblentz

represented faithfully the faults and follies of the Emigrant

party. But a more satisfactory spectacle was offered by the

camp at Worms, where Condé was bravely trying to organise an

army to fight against the Revolution in France. To Condé's

standard flocked the more patriotic Emigrants. ... But the

German Princes in the neighbourhood looked with disfavour on

the Emigrant army. It caused confusion in their dominions, and

it drew down on them the hostility of the French Government.

The Emperor joined them in protesting against it. In February,

1792, Condé's army was compelled to abandon its camp at Worms,

and to retire further into Germany. The Emperor was well aware

of the reckless selfishness of the Emigrant princes. He had as

little sympathy with them as his sister. He did not intend to

listen to their demands. If he interfered in France at all, it

would only be in a cautious and tentative manner, and in order

to save Marie Antoinette and her husband. Certainly he would

not undertake a war for the restoration of the Ancien Régime.

... Accordingly, the interviews at Pillnitz came to nothing.

... Early in March, 1792, Leopold suddenly died. His heir

Francis, unrestrained by his father's tact and moderation,

assumed a different tone and showed less patience. The chances

of any effective pressure from the Powers declined, as the

prospect of war rose on the horizon. Francis' language was

sufficiently sharp to give the Assembly the pretext which it

longed for, and on the 20th April, Louis, amid general

enthusiasm, came down to the Assembly and declared war against

Austria. The effects of that momentous step no comment can

exaggerate. It ruined the best hopes of the Revolution, and

prepared the way for a military despotism in the future."

C. E. Mallet, The French Revolution, chapter 7.

See

FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791;

1791 (JULY-DECEMBER);

1791-1792; 1792 (APRIL-JULY), and (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);

1792-1793 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY);

1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL), and (JULY-DECEMBER);

1794 (MARCH-JULY);

1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY);

1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER);

1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);

and 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1794-1796.

The Third partition of Poland.

Austrian share of the spoils.

See POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1797 (October).

Treaty of Campo-Formio with France.

Cession of the Netherlands and Lombard provinces.

Acquisition of Venice and Venetian territories.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1798-1806.

Congress of Rastadt.

Second Coalition against France.

Peace of Luneville.

Third Coalition.

Ulm and Austerlitz.

Peace of Presburg.

Extinction of the Holy Roman Empire.

Birth of the Empire of Austria.

"When Bonaparte sailed for Egypt he had left a congress at

Rastadt discussing means for the execution of certain articles

in the treaty of Campo Formio which were to establish peace

between France and the Empire. ... Though openly undertaking

to invite the Germans to a congress in order to settle a

general peace on the basis of the integrity of the Empire, the

Emperor agreed in secret articles to use his influence to

procure for the Republic the left bank of the Rhine with the

exception of the Prussian provinces, to join with France in

obtaining compensation in Germany for those injured by this

change, and to contribute no more than his necessary

contingent if the war were prolonged. The ratification of

these secret provisions had been extorted from the Congress by

threats before Bonaparte had left; but the question of

indemnification had progressed no farther than a decision to

secularise the ecclesiastical states for the purpose, when

extravagant demands from the French deputies brought

negotiation to a deadlock. Meanwhile, another coalition war

had been brewing. Paul I. of Russia had regarded with little

pleasure the doings of the Revolution, and when his proteges,

the knights of St. John of Jerusalem, had been deprived of

Malta by Bonaparte on his way to Egypt, when the Directory

established by force of arms a Helvetic republic in

Switzerland, when it found occasion to carry off the Pope into

exile and erect a Roman republic, he abandoned the cautious

and self-seeking policy of Catherine, and cordially responded

to Pitt's advances for an alliance. At the same time Turkey

was compelled by the invitation of Egypt to ally itself for

once with Russia. Austria, convinced that the French did not

intend to pay a fair price for the treaty of Campo Formio,

also determined to renew hostilities; and Naples, exasperated

by the sacrilege of a republic at Rome, and alarmed by French

aggressiveness, enrolled itself in the league. The Neapolitan

king, indeed, opened the war with some success, before he

could receive support from his allies; but he was soon

vanquished by the French, and his dominions were converted

into a Parthenopean republic. Austria, on the contrary,

awaited the arrival of the Russian forces; and the general

campaign began early in 1799. The French, fighting against

such generals as the Archduke Charles and the Russian

Suvaroff, without the supervision of Carnot or the strategy

and enterprise of Bonaparte, suffered severe reverses and

great privations. Towards the end the Russian army endured

much hardship on account of the selfishness of the Austrian

cabinet; and this caused the Tsar, who thought he had other

reasons for discontent, to withdraw his troops from the field.

{223}

When Bonaparte was made First Consul the military position of

France was, nevertheless, very precarious. ... The Roman and

Cisalpine republics had fallen. The very congress at Rastadt

had been dispersed by the approach of the Austrians; and the

French emissaries had been sabred by Austrian troopers, though

how their insolence came to be thus foully punished has never

been clearly explained. At this crisis France was rescued from

foreign foes and domestic disorders by its most successful

general. ... In the campaign which followed, France obtained

signal satisfaction for its chagrin. Leaving Moreau to carry

the war into Germany, Bonaparte suddenly crossed the Alps, and

defeated the Austrians on the plain of Marengo. The Austrians,

though completely cowed, refrained from concluding a definite

peace out of respect for their engagements with England; and

armistices, expiring into desultory warfare, prolonged the

contest till Moreau laid the way open to Vienna, by winning a

splendid triumph at Hohenlinden. A treaty of peace was finally

concluded at Lunéville, when Francis II. pledged the Empire to

its provisions on the ground of the consents already given at

Rastadt. In conformity with the treaty of Campo Formio,

Austria retained the boundary of the Adige in Italy; France

kept Belgium and the left bank of the Rhine; and the princes,

dispossessed by the cessions, were promised compensation in

Germany; while Tuscany was given to France to sell to Spain at

the price of Parma, Louisiana, six ships of the line, and a

sum of money. Shortly afterwards peace was extended to Naples

on easy terms. ... The time was now come for the Revolution to

complete the ruin of the Holy Roman Empire. Pursuant to the

treaty of Lunéville, the German Diet met at Regensburg to

discuss a scheme of compensation for the dispossessed rulers.

Virtually the meeting was a renewal of the congress of

Rastadt. ... At Rastadt the incoherence and disintegration of

the venerable Empire had become painfully apparent. ... When

it was known that the head of the nation, who had guaranteed

the integrity of the Empire in the preliminaries of Leoben,

and had renewed the assurance when he convoked the assembly,

had in truth betrayed to the stranger nearly all the left bank

of the Rhine,--the German rulers greedily hastened to secure

every possible trifle in the scramble of redistribution. The

slow and wearisome debates were supplemented by intrigues of

the most degraded nature. Conscious that the French Consul

could give a casting vote on any disputed question, the

princes found no indignity too shameful, no trick too base, to

obtain his favour. ... The First Consul, on his side,

prosecuted with a duplicity and address, heretofore

unequalled, the traditional policy of France in German

affairs. ... Feigning to take into his counsels the young

Tsar, whose convenient friendship was thus easily obtained on

account of his family connections with the German courts, he

drew up a scheme of indemnification and presented it to the

Diet for endorsement. In due time a servile assent was given

to every point which concerned the two autocrats. By this

settlement, Austria and Prussia were more equally balanced

against one another, the former being deprived of influence in

Western Germany, and the latter finding in more convenient

situations a rich recompense for its cessions on the Rhine;

while the middle states, Bavaria, Baden, and Würtemberg,

received very considerable accessions of territory. But if

Bonaparte dislocated yet further the political structure of

Germany, he was at least instrumental in removing the worst of

the anachronisms which stifled the development of improved

institutions among a large division of its people. The same

measure which brought German separatism to a climax, also

extinguished the ecclesiastical sovereignties and nearly all

the free cities. That these strongholds of priestly

obscurantism and bourgeois apathy would some day be invaded by

their more ambitious and active neighbours, had long been

apparent. ... And war was declared when thousands of British

subjects visiting France had already been ensnared and

imprisoned. ... Pitt had taken the conduct of the war out of

the hands of Addington's feeble ministry. Possessing the

confidence of the powers, he rapidly concluded offensive

alliances with Russia, Sweden, and Austria, though Prussia

obstinately remained neutral. Thus, by 1805, Napoleon had put

to hazard all his lately won power in a conflict with the

greater part of Europe. The battle of Cape Trafalgar crushed

for good his maritime power, and rendered England safe from

direct attack. The campaign on land, however, made him master

of central Europe. Bringing the Austrian army in Germany to an

inglorious capitulation at Ulm, he marched through Vienna,

and, with inferior forces won in his best style the battle of

Austerlitz against the troops of Francis and Alexander. The

action was decisive. The allies thought not of renewing the

war with the relays of troops which were hurrying up from

North and South. Russian and Austrian alike wished to be rid

of their ill-fated connection. The Emperor Alexander silently

returned home, pursued only by Napoleon's flattering tokens of

esteem; the Emperor Francis accepted the peace of Presburg,

which deprived his house of the ill-gotten Venetian States,

Tyrol, and its more distant possessions in Western Germany;

the King of Prussia, who had been on the point of joining the

coalition with a large army if his mediation were

unsuccessful, was committed to an alliance with the conqueror

by his terrified negotiator. And well did Napoleon appear to

make the fruits of victory compensate France for its

exertions. The empire was not made more unwieldy in bulk, but

its dependents, Bavaria, Würtemberg, and Baden, received

considerable accessions of territory, and the two first were

raised to the rank of kingdoms; while the Emperor's Italian

principality, which he had already turned into a kingdom of

Italy to the great disgust of Austria, was increased by the

addition of the ceded Venetian lands. But the full depth of

Europe's humiliation was not experienced till the two

following years. In 1806 an Act of Federation was signed by

the kings of Bavaria and Würtemberg, the Elector of Baden, and

thirteen minor princes, which united them into a league under

the protection of the French Emperor. The objects of this

confederacy, known as the Rheinbund were defence against

foreign aggression and the exercise of complete autonomy at

home. ... Already the consequences of the Peace of Lunéville

had induced the ruling Hapsburg to assure his equality with

the sovereigns of France and Russia by taking the imperial

title in his own right; and before the Confederation of the

Rhine was made public he formally renounced his office of

elective Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and released from

allegiance to him all the states and princes of the Reich, The

triumph of the German policy of the Consulate was complete."

A. Weir, The Historical Basis of Modern Europe, chapter 4.

See, also,

FRANCE: A. D. 1798-1799, to 1805, and

GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803, to 1805-1806.

{224}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1809-1814.

The second struggle with Napoleon and the second defeat.

The Marriage alliance.

The Germanic War of Liberation.

The final alliance and the overthrow of the Corsican.

"On the 12th of July, 1806, fourteen princes of the south and

west of Germany united themselves into the confederation of

the Rhine, and recognised Napoleon as their protector. On the

1st of August, they signified to the diet of Ratisbon their

separation from the Germanic body. The Empire of Germany

ceased to exist, and Francis II. abdicated the title by

proclamation. By a convention signed at Vienna, on the 15th of

December, Prussia exchanged the territories of Anspach, Cleves

and Neufchâtel for the electorate of Hanover, Napoleon had all

the west under his power. Absolute master of France and Italy,

as emperor and king, he was also master of Spain, by the

dependence of that court; of Naples and Holland, by his two

brothers; of Switzerland, by the act of mediation; and in

Germany he had at his disposal the kings of Bavaria and

Wurtemberg, and the confederation of the Rhine against Austria

and Prussia. ... This encroaching progress gave rise to the

fourth coalition. Prussia, neutral since the peace of Bâle,

had, in the last campaign, been on the point of joining the

Austro-Russian coalition. The rapidity of the emperor's

victories had alone restrained her; but now, alarmed at the

aggrandizement of the empire, and encouraged by the fine

condition of her troops, she leagued with Russia to drive the

French from Germany. ... The campaign opened early in October.

Napoleon, as usual, overwhelmed the coalition by the

promptitude of his marches and the vigour of his measures. On

the 14th of October, he destroyed at Jena the military

monarchy of Prussia, by a decisive victory. ... The campaign

in Poland was less rapid, but as brilliant as that of Prussia.

Russia, for the third time, measured its strength with France.

Conquered at Zurich and Austerlitz, it was also defeated at Eylau

and Friedland. After these memorable battles, the emperor

Alexander entered into a negotiation, and concluded at Tilsit,

on the 21st of June, 1807, an armistice which was followed by

a definitive treaty on the 7th of July. The peace of Tilsit

extended the French domination on the continent. Prussia was

reduced to half its extent. In the south of Germany, Napoleon

had instituted the two kingdoms of Bavaria and Wurtemberg

against Austria; further to the north, he created the two

feudatory kingdoms of Saxony and Westphalia against Prussia.

... In order to obtain universal and uncontested supremacy, he

made use of arms against the continent, and the cessation of

commerce against England. But in forbidding to the continental

states all communication with England, he was preparing new

difficulties for himself, and soon added to the animosity of

opinion excited by his despotism, and the hatred of states

produced by his conquering domination, the exasperation of

private interests and commercial suffering occasioned by the

blockade. ... The expedition of Portugal in 1807, and the

invasion of Spain in 1808, began for him and for Europe a new

order of events. ... The reaction manifested itself in three

countries, hitherto allies of France, and it brought on the

fifth coalition. The court of Rome was dissatisfied; the

peninsula was wounded in its national pride by having imposed

upon it a foreign king; in its usages, by the suppression of

convents, of the Inquisition, and of the grandees; Holland

suffered in its commerce from the blockade, and Austria

supported impatiently its losses and subordinate condition.

England, watching for an opportunity to revive the struggle on

the continent, excited the resistance of Rome, the peninsula,

and the cabinet of Vienna. ... Austria ... made a powerful

effort, and raised 550,000 men, comprising the Landwehr, and

took the field in the spring of 1809. The Tyrol rose, and King

Jerome was driven from his capital by the Westphalians: Italy

wavered; and Prussia only waited till Napoleon met with a

reverse, to take arms; but the emperor was still at the height

of his power and prosperity. He hastened from Madrid in the

beginning of February, and directed the members of the

confederation to keep their contingents in readiness. On the

12th of April he left Paris, passed the Rhine, plunged into

Germany, gained the victories of Eckmühl and Essling, occupied

Vienna a second time on the 15th of May and overthrew this new

coalition by the battle of Wagram, after a campaign of four

mouths. ... The peace of Vienna, of the 11th of October, 1809,

deprived the house of Austria of several more provinces, and

compelled it again to adopt the continental system. ...

Napoleon, who seemed to follow a rash but inflexible policy,

deviated from his course about this time by a second marriage.

He divorced Josephine that he might give an heir to the

empire, and married, on the 1st of April, 1810, Marie-Louise,

arch-duchess of Austria. This was a decided error. He quitted

his position and his post as a parvenu and revolutionary

monarch, opposing in France the ancient courts as the republic

had opposed the ancient governments. He placed himself in a

false situation with respect to Austria, which he ought either

to have crushed after the victory of Wagram, or to have

reinstated in its possessions after his marriage with the

arch-duchess. ... The birth, on the 20th of March, 1811, of a

son, who received the title of king of Rome, seemed to

consolidate the power of Napoleon, by securing to him a

successor. The war in Spain was prosecuted with vigour during

the years 1810 and 1811. ... While the war was proceeding in

the peninsula with advantage, but without any decided success,

a new campaign was preparing in the north. Russia perceived

the empire of Napoleon approaching its territories. ... About

the close of 1810, it increased its armies, renewed its

commercial relations with Great Britain, and did not seem

indisposed to a rupture. The year 1811 was spent in

negotiations which led to nothing, and preparations for war

were made on both sides. ... On the 9th of March, Napoleon

left Paris. ... During several months he fixed his court at

Dresden, where the emperor of Austria, the king of Prussia,

and all the sovereigns of Germany, came to bow before his high

fortune.

{225}

On the 22nd of June, war was declared against Russia. ...

Napoleon, who, according to his custom, wished to finish all

in one campaign, advanced at once into the heart of Russia,

instead of prudently organizing the Polish barrier against it.

His army amounted to about 500,000 men. He passed the Niemen

on the 24th of June; took Wilna, and Witepsk, defeated the

Russians at Astrowno, Polotsk, Mohilow Smolensko, at the

Moskowa, and on the 14th of September, made his entry into

Moscow. ... Moscow was burned by its governor. ... The emperor

ought to have seen that this war would not terminate as the

others had done; yet, conqueror of the foe, and master of his

capital, he conceived hopes of peace which the Russians

skilfully encouraged. Winter was approaching, and Napoleon

prolonged his stay at Moscow for six weeks. He delayed his

movements on account of the deceptive negotiations of the

Russians; and did not decide on a retreat till the 19th of

October. This retreat was disastrous, and began the downfall

of the empire. ... The cabinet of Berlin began the defections.

On the 1st of March, 1813, it joined Russia and England, which

were forming the sixth coalition. Sweden acceded to it soon

after; yet the emperor, whom the confederate power thought

prostrated by the last disaster, opened the campaign with new

victories. The battle of Lutzen, won by conscripts, on the 2nd

of May, the occupation of Dresden; the victory of Bautzen, and

the war carried to the Elbe, astonished the coalition.

Austria, which, since 1810, had been on a footing of peace,

was resuming arms, and already meditating a change of

alliance. She now proposed herself as a mediatrix between the

emperor and the confederates. Her meditation was accepted; an

armistice was concluded at Plesswitz, on the 4th of June, and

a congress assembled at Prague to negotiate peace. It was

impossible to come to terms. ... Austria joined the coalition,

and war, the only means of settling this great contest, was

resumed. The emperor had only 280,000 men against 520,000.

.... Victory seemed, at first, to second him. At Dresden he

defeated the combined forces; but the defeats of his

lieutenants deranged his plans. ... The princes of the

confederation of the Rhine chose this moment to desert the

cause of the empire. A vast engagement having taken place at

Leipsic between the two armies, the Saxons and Wurtembergers

passed over to the enemy on the field of battle. This

defection to the strength of the coalesced powers, who had

learned a more compact and skilful mode of warfare, obliged

Napoleon to retreat, after a struggle of three days. ... The

empire was invaded in all directions. The Austrians entered

Italy; the English, having made themselves masters of the

peninsula during the last two years, had passed the Bidassoa,

under General Wellington, and appeared on the Pyrenees. Three

armies pressed on France to the east and north. ... Napoleon

was ... obliged to submit to the conditions of the allied

powers; their pretensions increased with their power. ... On

the 11th of April, 1814, he renounced for himself and children

the thrones of France and Italy, and received in exchange for

his vast sovereignty, the limits of which had extended from

Cadiz to the Baltic Sea, the little island of Elba."

F. A. Mignet, History of the French Revolution, chapter 15.

See

GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE), to 1813;

RUSSIA: A. D. 1812; and

FRANCE: A. D. 1810-1812 to 1814.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1814.

Restored rule in Northern Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1814-1815.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1814-1815.

Treaties of Paris and Congress of Vienna.

Readjustment of French boundaries.

Recovery of the Tyrol from Bavaria and Lombardy in Italy.

Acquisition of the Venetian states.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE),

and 1815 (JULY-NOVEMBER):

also VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1814-1820.

Formation of the Germanic Confederation.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815.

The Holy Alliance.

See HOLY ALLIANCE.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815.

Return of Napoleon from Elba.

The Quadruple Alliance.

The Waterloo Campaign and Its results.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1835.

Emperor Francis, Prince Metternich, and "the system."

"After the treaty of Vienna in 1809, and still more

conspicuously after the pacification of Europe, the political

wisdom of the rulers of Austria inclined them ever more and

more to the maintenance of that state of things which was

known to friends and foes as the System. But what was the

System? It was the organisation of do-nothing. It cannot even

be said to have been reactionary: it was simply reactionary.

... 'Mark time in place' was the word of command in every

government office. The bureaucracy was engaged from morning to

night in making work, but nothing ever came of it. Not even

were the liberal innovations which had lasted through the

reign of Leopold got rid of. Everything went on in the

confused, unfinished, and ineffective state in which the great

war had found it. Such was the famous System which was

venerated by the ultra-Tories of every land, and most

venerated where it was least understood. Two men dominate the

history of Austria during this unhappy time--men who, though

utterly unlike in character and intellect, were nevertheless

admirably fitted to work together, and whose names will be

long united in an unenviable notoriety. These were the Emperor

Francis and Prince Metternich. The first was the evil genius

of internal politics; the second exercised a hardly less

baneful influence over foreign affairs. ... For the external

policy of Prince Metternich, the first and most necessary

condition was, that Austria should give to Europe the

impression of fixed adherence to the most extreme Conservative

views. So for many years they worked together, Prince

Metternich always declaring that he was a mere tool in the

hands of his master, but in reality far more absolute in the

direction of his own department than the emperor was in his.

... Prince Metternich had the power of making the most of all

he knew, and constantly left upon persons of real merit the

impression that he was a man of lofty aspirations and liberal

views, who forced himself to repress such tendencies in others

because he thought that their repression was a sine quâ non for

Austria. The men of ability, who knew him intimately, thought

less well of him.

{226}

To them he appeared vain and superficial, with much that

recalled the French noblesse of the old régime in his way of

looking at things, and emphatically wanting in every element

of greatness. With the outbreak of the Greek insurrection in

1821, began a period of difficulty and complications for the

statesmen of Austria. There were two things of which they were

mortally afraid--Russia and the revolution. Now, if they

assisted the Greeks, they would be playing into the hands of

the second; and if they opposed the Greeks, they would be

likely to embroil themselves with the first. The whole art of

Prince Metternich was therefore exerted to keep things quiet

in the Eastern Peninsula, and to postpone the intolerable

'question d'Orient.' Many were the shifts he tried, and

sometimes, as just after the accession of Nicholas, his hopes

rose very high. All was, however, in vain. England and Russia

settled matters behind his back; and although the tone which

the publicists in his pay adopted towards the Greeks became

more favourable in 1826-7, the battle of Navarino was a sad

surprise and mortification to the wily chancellor. Not less

annoying was the commencement of hostilities on the Danube

between Russia and the Porte. The reverses with which the

great neighbour met in his first campaign cannot have been

otherwise than pleasing at Vienna. But the unfortunate success

which attended his arms in the second campaign soon turned

ill-dissembled joy into ill-concealed sorrow, and the treaty

of Adrianople at once lowered Austria's prestige in the East,

and deposed Metternich from the commanding position which he

had occupied in the councils of the Holy Allies. It became,

indeed, ever more and more evident in the next few years that

the age of Congress politics, during which he had been the

observed of all observers, was past and gone, that the

diplomatic period had vanished away, and that the military

period had begun. The very form in which the highest

international questions were debated was utterly changed. At

Vienna, in 1814, the diplomatists had been really the primary,

the sovereigns only secondary personages; while at the

interview of Münchengratz, between Nicholas and the Emperor

Francis, in 1833, the great autocrat appeared to look upon

Prince Metternich as hardly more than a confidential clerk.

The dull monotony of servitude which oppressed nearly the

whole of the empire was varied by the agitations of one of its

component parts. When the Hungarian Diet was dissolved in

1812, the emperor had solemnly promised that it should be

called together again within three years. Up to 1815,

accordingly, the nation went on giving extraordinary levies

and supplies without much opposition. When, however, the

appointed time was fulfilled, it began to murmur. ... Year by

year the agitation went on increasing, till at last the

breaking out of the Greek revolution, and the threatening

appearance of Eastern politics, induced Prince Metternich to

join his entreaties to those of many other counsellors, who

could not be suspected of the slightest leaning to

constitutional views. At length the emperor yielded, and in

1825 Presburg was once more filled with the best blood and

most active spirits of the land, assembled in parliament. Long

and stormy were the debates which ensued. Bitter was, from

time to time, the vexation of the emperor, and great was the

excitement throughout Hungary. In the end, however, the court

of Vienna triumphed. Hardly any grievances were redressed,

while its demands were fully conceded. The Diet of 1825 was,

however, not without fruit. The discussion which took place

advanced the political education of the people, who were

brought back to the point where they stood at the death of

Joseph II.--that is, before the long wars with France had

come to distract their attention from their own affairs. ...

The slumbers of Austria were not yet over. The System dragged

its slow length along. Little or nothing was done for the

improvement of the country. Klebelsberg administered the

finances in an easy and careless manner. Conspiracies and

risings in Italy were easily checked, and batches of prisoners

sent off from time to time to Mantua or Spielberg. Austrian

influence rose ever higher and higher in all the petty courts

of the Peninsula. ... In other regions Russia or England might

be willing to thwart him, but in Italy Prince Metternich might

proudly reflect that Austria was indeed a 'great power.' The

French Revolution of 1830 was at first alarming; but when it

resulted in the enthronement of a dynasty which called to its

aid a 'cabinet of repression,' all fears were stilled. The

Emperor Francis continued to say, when any change was

proposed, 'We must sleep upon it,' and died in 1835 in 'the

abundance of peace.'"

M. E. Grant Duff, Studies in European Politics,

pages 140-149.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1819-1847.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.

Gains of the Hapsburg monarchy.

Its aggressive absolutism.

Death of Francis I.

Accession of Ferdinand I.

Suppression of revolt in Galicia.

Extinction and annexation of the Republic of Cracow.

"In the new partition of Europe, arranged in the Congress of

Vienna [see VIENNA. THE CONGRESS OF], Austria received

Lombardy and Venice under the title of a Lombardo-Venetian

kingdom, the Illyrian provinces also as a kingdom, Venetian

Dalmatia, the Tirol, Vorarlberg, Salzburg, the Innviertel and

Hausrucksviertel, and the part of Galicia ceded by her at an

earlier period. Thus, after three and twenty years of war, the

monarchy had gained a considerable accession of strength,

having obtained, in lieu of its remote and unprofitable

possessions in the Netherlands, territories which consolidated

its power in Italy, and made it as great in extent as it had

been in the days of Charles VI., and far more compact and

defensible. The grand duchies of Modena, Parma, and Placentia,

were moreover restored to the collateral branches of the house

of Hapsburg. ... After the last fall of Napoleon ... the great

powers of the continent ... constituted themselves the

champions of the principle of absolute monarchy. The

maintenance of that principle ultimately became the chief

object of the so-called Holy Alliance established in 1816

between Russia, Austria and Prussia, and was pursued with

remarkable steadfastness by the Emperor Francis and his

minister, Prince Metternich [see HOLY ALLIANCE]. ...

Thenceforth it became the avowed policy of the chief

sovereigns of Germany to maintain the rights of dynasties in

an adverse sense to those of their subjects. The people, on

the other hand, deeply resented the breach of those promises

which had been so lavishly made to them on the general summons

to the war of liberation.

{227}

Disaffection took the place of that enthusiastic loyalty with

which they had bled and suffered for their native princes; the

secret societies, formed with the concurrence of their rulers,

for the purpose of throwing off the yoke of the foreigner,

became ready instruments of sedition. ... In the winter of

1819, a German federative congress assembled at Vienna. In May

of the following year it published an act containing closer

definitions of the Federative Act, having for their essential

objects the exclusion of the various provincial Diets from all

positive interference in the general affairs of Germany, and

an increase of the power of the princes over their respective

Diets, by a guarantee of aid on the part of the confederates"

(see GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820). During the next three years,

the powers of the Holy Alliance, under the lead of Austria,

and acting under a concert established at the successive

congresses of Troppau, Laybach and Verona (see VERONA,

CONGRESS OF), interfered to put down popular risings against

the tyranny of government in Italy and Spain, while they

discouraged the revolt of the Greeks.

See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821;

and SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

"The commotions that pervaded Europe after the French

Revolution of 1830 affected Austria only in her Italian

dominions, and there but indirectly, for the imperial

authority remained undisputed in the Lombardo-Venetian

kingdom. But the duke of Modena and the archduke of Parma were

obliged to quit those states, and a formidable insurrection

broke out in the territory of the Church. An Austrian army of

18,000 men quickly put down the insurgents, who rose again,

however, as soon as it was withdrawn: The pope again invoked

the aid of Austria, whose troops entered Bologna in January,

1832, and established themselves there in garrison. Upon this,

the French immediately sent a force to occupy Ancona, and for

a while a renewal of the oft-repeated conflict between Austria

and France on Italian ground seemed inevitable; but it soon

appeared that France was not prepared to support the

revolutionary party in the pope's dominions, and that danger

passed away. The French remained for some years in Ancona, and

the Austrians in Bologna and other towns of Romagna. This was

the last important incident in the foreign affairs of Austria

previous to the death of the Emperor Francis I. on the 2nd of

March, 1835, after a reign of 43 years. ... The Emperor

Francis was succeeded by his son, Ferdinand I., whose

accession occasioned no change in the political or

administrative system of the empire. Incapacitated, by

physical and mental infirmity, from labouring as his father

had done in the business of the state, the new monarch left to

Prince Metternich a much more unrestricted power than that

minister had wielded in the preceding reign. ... The province

of Galicia began early in the new reign to occasion uneasiness

to the government. The Congress of Vienna had constituted the

city of Cracow an independent republic--a futile

representative of that Polish nationality which had once

extended from the Baltic to the Black Sea. After the failure

of the Polish insurrection of 1831 against Russia, Cracow

became the focus of fresh conspiracies, to put an end to which

the city was occupied by a mixed force of Russians, Prussians,

and Austrians; the two former were soon withdrawn, but the

latter remained until 1840. When they also had retired, the

Polish propaganda was renewed with considerable effect. An

insurrection broke out in Galicia in 1846, when the scantiness

of the Austrian military force in the province seemed to

promise it success. It failed, however, as all previous

efforts of the Polish patriots had failed, because it rested

on no basis of popular sympathy. The nationality for which

they contended had ever been of an oligarchical pattern,

hostile to the freedom of the middle and lower classes. The

Galician peasants had no mind to exchange the yoke of Austria,

which pressed lightly upon them, for the feudal oppression of

the Polish nobles. They turned upon the insurgents and slew or

took them prisoners, the police inciting them to the work by

publicly offering a reward of five florins for every suspected

person delivered up by them, alive or dead. Thus the agents of

a civilized government became the avowed instigators of an

inhuman 'jacquerie.' The houses of the landed proprietors were

sacked by the peasants, their inmates were tortured and

murdered, and bloody anarchy raged throughout the land in the

prostituted name of loyalty. The Austrian troops at last

restored order; but Szela, the leader of the sanguinary

marauders, was thanked and highly rewarded in the name of his

sovereign. In the same year the three protecting powers,

Austria, Russia, and Prussia, took possession of Cracow, and,

ignoring the right of the other parties to the treaty of

Vienna to concern themselves about the fate of the republic,

they announced that its independence was annulled, and that

the city and territory of Cracow were annexed to, and forever

incorporated with, the Austrian monarchy. From this time forth

the political atmosphere of Europe became more and more loaded

with the presages of the storm that burst in 1848."

W. K. Kelly, Continuation of Coxe's History of the

House of Austria, chapter 5-6.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1849.

Arrangements in Italy of the Congress of Vienna.

Heaviness of the Austrian yoke.

The Italian risings.

"By the treaty of Vienna (1815), the ... entire kingdom of

Venetian-Lombardy was handed over to the Austrians; the

duchies of Modena, Reggio, with Massa and Carrara, given to

Austrian princes; Parma, Piacenza, and Guastalla to Napoleon's

queen, Maria Luisa, because she was an Austrian princess; the

grand-duchy of Tuscany to Ferdinand III. of Austria; the duchy

of Lucca to a Bourbon. Rome and the Roman states were restored

to the new Pope, Pius VII.; Sicily was united to Naples under

the Bourbons, and later deprived of her constitution, despite

the promised protection of England; the Canton Ticino, though

strictly Italian, annexed to the Swiss Confederation; the

little republic of St. Marino left intact, even as the

principality of Monaco. England retained Malta; Corsica was

left to France. Italy, so Metternich and Europe fondly hoped,

was reduced to a geographical expression. Unjust, brutal, and

treacherous as was that partition, at least it taught the

Italians that 'who would be free himself must strike the

blow.' It united them into one common hatred of Austria and

Austrian satellites. By substituting papal, Austrian, and

Bourbon despotism for the free institutions, codes, and

constitutions of the Napoleonic era, it taught them the

difference between rule and misrule.

{228}

Hence the demand of the Neapolitans during their first

revolution (1820) was for a constitution; that of the

Piedmontese and Lombards (1821) for a constitution and war

against Austria. The Bourbon swore and foreswore, and the

Austrians 'restored order' in Naples. The Piedmontese, who had

not concerted their movement until Naples was crushed--after

the abdication of Victor Emmanuel I., the granting of the

constitution by the regent Charles Albert, and its abrogation

by the new king Charles Felix--saw the Austrians enter

Piedmont, while the leaders of the revolution went out into

exile [see ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821]. But those revolutions and

those failures were the beginning of the end. The will to be

independent of all foreigners, the thirst for freedom, was

universal; the very name of empire or of emperor, was rendered

ridiculous, reduced to a parody--in the person of Ferdinand of

Austria. But one illusion remained--in the liberating virtues

of France and the French; this had to be dispelled by bitter

experience, and for it substituted the new idea of one Italy

for the Italians, a nation united, independent, free, governed

by a president or by a king chosen by the sovereign people.

The apostle of this idea, to which for fifty years victims and

martyrs were sacrificed by thousands, was Joseph Mazzini; its

champion, Joseph Garibaldi. By the genius of the former, the

prowess of the latter, the abnegation, the constancy, the

tenacity, the iron will of both, all the populations of Italy

were subjugated by that idea: philosophers demonstrated it,

poets sung it, pious Christian priests proclaimed it,

statesmen found it confronting their negotiations, baffling

their half-measures."

J. W. V. Mario, Introduction to Autobiography of

Garibaldi.-

See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832, and 1848-1849.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1835.

Accession of the Emperor Ferdinand I.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1839-1840.

The Turko-Egyptian question and its settlement.

Quadruple Alliance.

See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848.

The Germanic revolutionary rising.

National Assembly at Frankfort.

Archduke John elected Administrator of Germany.

"When the third French Revolution broke out, its influence was

immediately felt in Germany. The popular movement this time

was very different from any the Governments had hitherto had

to contend with. The people were evidently in earnest, and

resolved to obtain, at whatever cost, their chief demands. ...

The Revolution was most serious in the two great German

States, Prussia and Austria. ... It was generally hoped that

union as well as freedom was now to be achieved by Germany;

but, as Prussia and Austria were in too much disorder to do

anything, about 500 Germans from the various States met at

Frankfurt, and on March 21 constituted themselves a

provisional Parliament. An extreme party wished the assembly

to declare itself permanent; but to this the majority would

not agree. It was decided that a National Assembly should be

elected forthwith by the German people. The Confederate Diet,

knowing that the provisional Parliament was approved by the

nation, recognized its authority. Through the Diet the various

Governments were communicated with, and all of them agreed to

make arrangements for the elections. ... The National Assembly

was opened in Frankfurt on May 18, 1848. It elected the

Archduke John of Austria as the head of a new provisional

central Government. The choice was a happy one. The Archduke

was at once acknowledged by the different governments, and on

July 12 the President of the Confederate Diet formally made

over to him the authority which had hitherto belonged to the

Diet. The Diet then ceased to exist. The Archduke chose from

the Assembly seven members, who formed a responsible ministry.

The Assembly was divided into two parties, the Right and the

Left. These again were broken up into various sections. Much

time was lost in useless discussions, and it was soon

suspected that the Assembly would not in the end prove equal

to the great task it had undertaken."

J. Sime, History of Germany, chapter 19, sections. 8-11.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848 (December).

Accession of the Emperor Francis Joseph I.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

Revolutionary risings.

Bombardment of Prague and Vienna.

Abdication of the Emperor Ferdinand.

Accession of Francis Joseph.

The Hungarian struggle for independence.

"The rise of national feeling among the Hungarian, Slavonic,

and Italian subjects of the House of Hapsburg was not the only

difficulty of the Emperor Ferdinand I. Vienna was then the

gayest and the dearest centre of fashion and luxury in Europe,

but side by side with wealth there seethed a mass of wretched

poverty; and the protective trade system of Austria so

increased the price of the necessaries of life that

bread-riots were frequent. ... The university students were

foremost in the demand for a constitution and for the removal

of the rigid censorship of the press and of all books. So,

when the news came of the flight of Louis Philippe from Paris

[see FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848, and 1848] the students as well

as the artisans of Vienna rose in revolt (March 13, 1848), the

latter breaking machinery and attacking the houses of

unpopular employers. A deputation of citizens clamoured for

the resignation of the hated Metternich: his house was burnt

down, and he fled to England. A second outbreak of the excited

populace (May 15, 1848), sent the Emperor Ferdinand in

helpless flight to Innsprück in Tyrol; but he returned when

they avowed their loyalty to his person, though they detested

the old bureaucratic system. Far more complicated, however,

were the race jealousies of the Empire. The Slavs of Bohemia

... had demanded of Ferdinand the union of Bohemia, Moravia,

and Austrian Silesia in Estates for those provinces, and that

the Slavs should enjoy equal privileges with the Germans.

After an unsatisfactory answer had been received, they

convoked a Slavonic Congress at Prague. ... But while this

Babel of tongues was seeking for a means of fusion, Prince

Windischgrätz was assembling Austrian troops around the

Bohemian capital. Fights in the streets led to a bombardment

of the city, which Windischgrätz soon entered in triumph. This

has left a bitterness between the Tsechs or Bohemians and the

Germans which still divides Bohemia socially and politically.

... The exciting news of the spring of 1848 had made the hot

Asiatic blood of the Magyars boil; yet even Kossuth and the

democrats at first only demanded the abolition of Metternich's

system in favour of a representative government. ...

{229}

Unfortunately Kossuth claimed that the Magyar laws and

language must now be supreme, not only in Hungary proper, but

also in the Hungarian 'crown lands' of Dalmatia, Croatia, and

Slavonia, and the enthusiastic Magyars wished also to absorb

the ancient principality of Transylvania; but this again was

stoutly resisted by the Roumanians, Slavs, and Saxons of that

little known corner of Europe, and their discontent was fanned

by the court of Vienna. Jellachich, the Ban or Governor of

Croatia, headed this movement, which aimed at making Agram the

capital of the southern Slavs. Their revolt against the

Hungarian ministry of Batthyanyi was at first disavowed in

June, 1848, but in October was encouraged, by the perfidious

government of Vienna. A conference between Batthyanyi and

Jellachich ended with words of defiance: 'Then we must meet on

the Drave,' said the Hungarian. 'No, on the Danube,' retorted

the champion of the Slavs. The vacillating Ferdinand annulled

his acceptance of the new Hungarian constitution and declared

Jellachich dictator of Hungary. His tool was unfortunate.

After crossing the Drave, the Slavs were defeated by the brave

Hungarian 'honveds' (defenders); and as many as 9,000 were

made prisoners. Unable to subdue Hungary, Jellachich turned

aside towards Vienna to crush the popular party there. For the

democrats, exasperated by the perfidious policy of the

government, had, on October 6, 1848, risen a third time: the

war-minister, Latour, had been hanged on a lamp-post, and the

emperor again fled from his turbulent capital to the

ever-faithful Tyrolese. But now Jellachich and Windischgrätz

bombarded the rebellious capital. It was on the point of

surrendering when the Hungarians appeared to aid the city; but

the levies raised by the exertions of Kossuth were this time

outmanœuvred [and defeated] by the imperialists at Schwechat

(October 30, 1848), and on the next day Vienna surrendered.

Blum, a delegate from Saxony [to the German Parliament of

Frankfort, who had come on a mission of mediation to Vienna,

but who had taken a part in the fighting], and some other

democrats, were shot. By this clever but unscrupulous use of

race jealousy the Viennese Government seemed to have overcome

Bohemians, Italians, Hungarians, and the citizens of its own

capital in turn; while it had diverted the southern Slavonians

from hostility to actual service on its side. ... The weak

health and vacillating spirit of Ferdinand did not satisfy the

knot of courtiers of Vienna, who now, flushed by success,

sought to concentrate all power in the Viennese Cabinet. Worn

out by the excitements of the year and by the demands of these

men, Ferdinand, on December 2, 1848, yielded up the crown, not

to his rightful successor, his brother, but to his nephew,

Francis Joseph. He, a youth of eighteen, ascended the throne

so rudely shaken, and still, in spite of almost uniform

disaster in war, holds sway over an empire larger and more

powerful than he found it in 1848. The Hungarians refused to

recognise the young sovereign thus forced upon them; and the

fact that he was not crowned at Presburg with the sacred iron

crown of St. Stephen showed that he did not intend to

recognise the Hungarian constitution. Austrian troops under

Windischgrätz entered Buda-Pesth, but the Hungarian patriots

withdrew from their capital to organize a national resistance;

and when the Austrian Government proclaimed the Hungarian

constitution abolished and the complete absorption of Hungary

in the Austrian Empire, Kossuth and his colleagues retorted by

a Declaration of Independence (April 24, 1849). The House of

Hapsburg was declared banished from Hungary, which was to be a

republic. Kossuth, the first governor of the new republic, and

Görgei, its general, raised armies which soon showed their

prowess." The first important battle of the war had been

fought at Kapolna, on the right bank of the Theiss, on the

26th of February, 1849, Görgei and Dembinski commanding the

Hungarians and Windischgrätz leading the Austrians. The latter

won the victory, and the Hungarians retreated toward the

Theiss. About the middle of March, Görgei resumed the

offensive, advancing toward Pesth, and encountered the

Austrians at Isaszeg, where he defeated them in a hard-fought

battle,--or rather in two battles which are sometimes called

by different names: viz., that of Tapio Biscke fought April

4th, and that of Godolo, fought on the 5th. It was now the

turn of the Austrians to fall back, and they concentrated

behind the Rakos, to cover Pesth. The Hungarian general passed

round their left, carried Waitzen by storm, forced them to

evacuate Pesth and to retreat to Presburg, abandoning the

whole of Hungary with the exception of a few fortresses, which

they held. The most important of these fortresses, that of

Buda, the "twin-city," opposite Pesth on the Danube, was

besieged by the Hungarians and carried by storm on the 21st of

May. "In Transylvania, too, the Hungarians, under the talented

Polish general Bem, overcame the Austrians, Slavonians, and

Roumanians in many brilliant encounters. But the proclamation

of a republic had alienated those Hungarians who had only

striven for their old constitutional rights, so quarrels arose

between Görgei and the ardent democrat Kossuth. Worse still,

the Czar Nicholas, dreading the formation of a republic near

his Polish provinces sent the military aid which Francis

Joseph in May 1849 implored. Soon 80,000 Russians under

Paskiewitch poured over the northern Carpathians to help the

beaten Austrians, while others overpowered the gallant Bem in

Transylvania. Jellachich with his Croats again invaded South

Hungary, and Haynau, the scourge of Lombardy, marched on the

strongest Hungarian fortress, Komorn, on the Danube." The

Hungarians, overpowered by the combination of Austrians and

Russians against them, were defeated at Pered, June 21; at

Acz, July 3; at Komorn, July 11; at Waitzen, July 16; at

Tzombor, July 20; at Segesvar, July 31; at Debreczin, August

2; at Szegedin, August 4; at Temesvar, August 10. "In despair

Kossuth handed over his dictatorship to his rival Görgei, who

soon surrendered at Vilagos with all his forces to the

Russians (August 13, 1849). About 5,000 men with Kossuth, Bem,

and other leaders, escaped to Turkey. Even there Russia and

Austria sought to drive them forth; but the Porte, upheld by

the Western Powers, maintained its right to give sanctuary

according to the Koran. Kossuth and many of his fellow-exiles

finally sailed to England [and afterwards to America], where

his majestic eloquence aroused deep sympathy for the afflicted

country. Many Hungarian patriots suffered death. All rebels had

their property confiscated and the country was for years ruled

by armed force, and its old rights were abolished."

J. H. Rose, A Century of Continental History, chapter

31.

ALSO IN:

Sir A. Alison, History of Europe, 1815-1852, chapter 55.

A. Görgei, My Life and Acts in Hungary.

General Klapka, Memoirs of the War of Independence in

Hungary.

Count Hartig, Genesis of the Revolution in Austria.

W. H. Stiles, Austria in 1848-49.

{230}

AUSTRIA: A. D.1848-1849.

Revolt in Lombardy and Venetia.

War with Sardinia.

Victories of Radetzky.

Italy vanquished again.

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1850.

Failure of the movement for Germanic national unity.

End of the Frankfort Assembly.

"Frankfort had become the centre of the movement. The helpless

Diet had acknowledged the necessity of a German parliament,

and had summoned twelve men of confidence charged with drawing

up a new imperial constitution. But it was unable to supply

what was most wanted--a strong executive. ... Instead of

establishing before all a strong executive able to control and

to realise its resolutions, the Assembly lost months in

discussing the fundamental rights of the German people, and

thus was overhauled by the events. In June, Prince

Windischgraetz crushed the insurrection at Prague; and in

November the anarchy which had prevailed during the whole

summer at Berlin was put down, when Count Brandenburg became

first minister. ... Schwarzenberg [at Vienna] declared as soon

as he had taken the reins, that his programme was to maintain

the unity of the Austrian empire, and demanded that the whole

of it should enter into the Germanic confederation. This was

incompatible with the federal state as contemplated by the

National Assembly, and therefore Gagern, who had become

president of the imperial ministry [at Frankfort], answered

Schwarzenberg's programme by declaring that the entering of

the Austrian monarchy with a majority of non-German

nationalities into the German federal state was an

impossibility. Thus nothing was left but to place the king of

Prussia at the head of the German state. But in order to win a

majority for this plan Gagern found it necessary to make large

concessions to the democratic party, amongst others universal

suffrage. This was not calculated to make the offer of the

imperial crown acceptable to Frederic William IV., but his

principal reason for declining it was, that he would not

exercise any pressure on the other German sovereigns, and

that, notwithstanding Schwarzenberg's haughty demeanour, he

could not make up his mind to exclude Austria from Germany.

After the refusal of the crown by the king, the National

Assembly was doomed; it had certainly committed great faults,

but the decisive reason of its failure was the lack of a clear

and resolute will in Prussia. History, however, teaches that

great enterprises, such as it was to unify an empire

dismembered for centuries, rarely succeed at the first

attempt. The capital importance of the events of 1848 was that

they had made the German unionist movement an historical fact;

it could never be effaced from the annals, that all the German

governments had publicly acknowledged that tendency as

legitimate, the direction for the future was given, and even

at the time of failure it was certain, as Stockmar said, that

the necessity of circumstances would bring forward the man

who, profiting by the experiences of 1848, would fulfil the

national aspirations."

F. H. Geffcken, The Unity of Germany (English Historical

Revised, April, 1891).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1850.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1849-1859.

The Return to pure Absolutism.

Bureaucracy triumphant.

"The two great gains which the moral earthquake of 1848

brought to Austria were, that through wide provinces of the

Empire, and more especially in Hungary, it swept away the sort

of semi-vassalage in which the peasantry had been left by the

Urbarium of Maria Theresa [an edict which gave to the peasants

the right of moving from place to place, and the right of

bringing up their children as they wished, while it

established in certain courts the trial of all suits to which

they were parties], and other reforms akin to or founded upon

it, and introduced modern in the place of middle-age relations

between the two extremes of society. Secondly, it overthrew

the policy of do-nothing--a surer guarantee for the

continuance of abuses than even the determination, which soon

manifested itself at headquarters, to make the head of the

state more absolute than ever. After the taking of Vienna by

Windischgrätz, the National Assembly had, on the 15th of

November 1848, been removed from the capital to the small town

of Kremsier, in Moravia. Here it prolonged all ineffective

existence till March 1849, when the court camarilla felt

itself strong enough to put an end to an inconvenient censor,

and in March 1849 it ceased to exist. A constitution was at

the same time promulgated which contained many good

provisions, but which was never heartily approved by the

ruling powers, or vigorously carried into effect--the

proclamation of a state of siege in many cities, and other

expedients of authority in a revolutionary period, easily

enabling it to be set at naught. The successes of the reaction

in other parts of Europe, and, above all, the coup d'état in

Paris, emboldened Schwartzenberg to throw off the mask; and on

the last day of 1851 Austria became once more a pure

despotism. The young emperor had taken 'Viribus unitis' for

his motto; and his advisers interpreted those words to mean

that Austria was henceforward to be a state as highly

centralised as France--a state in which the minister at Vienna

was absolutely to govern everything from Salzburg to the Iron

Gate. The hand of authority had been severely felt in the

pre-revolutionary period, but now advantage was to be taken of

the revolution to make it felt far more than ever. In Hungary,

for example, ... it was fondly imagined that there would be no

more trouble. The old political division into counties was

swept away; the whole land was divided into five provinces;

and the courtiers might imagine that from henceforth the

Magyars would be as easily led as the inhabitants of Upper

Austria. These delusions soon became general, but they owed

their origin partly to the enthusiastic ignorance of those who

were at the head of the army, and partly to two men"--Prince

Schwartzenberg and Alexander Bach. Of the latter, the "two

leading ideas were to cover the whole empire with a German

bureaucracy, and to draw closer the ties which connected the

court of Vienna with that of Rome.

{231}

... If absolutism in Austria had a fair trial from the 31st of

December 1851 to the Italian war, it is to Bach that it was

owing; and if it utterly and ludicrously failed, it is he more

than any other man who must bear the blame. Already, in 1849,

the bureaucracy had been reorganised, but in 1852 new and

stricter regulations were introduced. Everything was

determined by precise rules--even the exact amount of hair

which the employee was permitted to wear upon his face. Hardly

any question was thought sufficiently insignificant to be

decided upon the spot. The smallest matters had to be referred

to Vienna. .... We can hardly be surprised that the great ruin

of the Italian war brought down with a crash the whole edifice of

the reaction."

M. E. G. Duff, Studies in European Politics, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, chapter 33.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1853.

Commercial Treaty with the German Zollverein.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (GERMANY): A. D. 1853-1892.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1853-1856.

Attitude in the Crimean War.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854, to 1854-1856.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1856-1859.

The war in Italy with Sardinia and France.

Reverses at Magenta and Solferino.

Peace of Villafranca.

Surrender of Lombardy.

"From the wars of 1848-9 the King of Sardinia was looked upon

by the moderate party as the champion of Italian freedom.

Charles Albert had failed: yet his son would not, and indeed

could not, go back, though, when he began his reign, there

were many things against him. ... Great efforts were made to

win him over to the Austrian party, but the King was neither

cast down by defeat and distrust nor won over by soft words.

He soon showed that, though he had been forced to make a

treaty with Austria, yet he would not cast in his lot with the

oppression of Italy. He made Massimo d'Azeglio his chief

Minister, and Camillo Benso di Cavour his Minister of

Commerce. With the help of these two men he honestly carried

out the reforms which had been granted by his father, and set

new ones on foot. ... The quick progress of reform frightened

Count Massimo d'Azeglio. He retired from office in 1853, and

his place was taken by Count Cavour, who made a coalition with

the democratic party in Piedmont headed by Urbano Rattazzi.

The new chief Minister began to work not only for the good of

Piedmont but for Italy at large. The Milanese still listened

to the hopes which Mazzini held out, and could not quietly

hear their subjection. Count Cavour indignantly remonstrated

with Radetzky for his harsh government. ... The division and

slavery of Italy had shut her out from European politics.

Cavour held that, if she was once looked upon as an useful

ally, then her deliverance might be hastened by foreign

interference. The Sardinian army had been brought into good

order by Alfonso della Marmora; and was ready for action. In

1855, Sardinia made alliance with England and France, who were

at war with Russia; for Cavour looked on that power as the

great support of the system of despotism on the Continent, and

held that it was necessary for Italian freedom that Russia

should be humbled. The Sardinian army was therefore sent to

the Crimea, under La Marmora, where it did good service in the

battle of Tchernaya. ... The next year the Congress of Paris

was held to arrange terms of peace between the allies and

Russia, and Cavour took the opportunity of laying before the

representatives of the European powers the unhappy state of

his countrymen. ... In December, 1851, Louis Napoleon

Buonaparte, the President of the French Republic, seized the

government, and the next year took the title of Emperor of the

French. He was anxious to weaken the power of Austria, and at

the beginning of 1859 it became evident that war would soon

break out. As a sign of the friendly feeling of the French

Emperor towards the Italian cause, his cousin, Napoleon

Joseph, married Clotilda, the daughter of Victor Emmanuel.

Count Cavour now declared that Sardinia would make war on

Austria, unless a separate and national government was granted

to Lombardy and Venetia, and unless Austria promised to meddle

no more with the rest of Italy. On the other hand, Austria

demanded the disarmament of Sardinia. The King would not

listen to this demand, and France and Sardinia declared war

against Austria. The Emperor Napoleon declared that he would

free Italy from the Alps to the Adriatic. ... The Austrian

army crossed the Ticino, but was defeated by the King and

General Cialdini. The French victory of Magenta, on June 4th

forced the Austrians to retreat from Lombardy. ... On June

24th the Austrians, who had crossed the Mincio, were defeated

at Solferino by the allied armies of France and Sardinia. It

seemed as though the French Emperor would keep his word. But

he found that if he went further, Prussia would take up the

cause of Austria, and that he would have to fight on the Rhine

as well as on the Adige. When, therefore, the French army came

before Verona, a meeting was arranged between the two

Emperors. This took place at Villafranca, and there

Buonaparte, without consulting his ally, agreed with Francis

Joseph to favour the establishment of an Italian

Confederation. ...Austria gave up to the King of Sardinia

Lombardy to the west of Mincio. But the Grand Duke of Tuscany

and the Duke of Modena were to return to their States. The

proposed Confederation was never made, for the people of

Tuscany, Modena, Parma, and Romagna sent to the King to pray

that they might be made part of his Kingdom, and Victor

Emmanuel refused to enter on the scheme of the French Emperor.

In return for allowing the Italians of Central Italy to shake

off the yoke, Buonaparte asked for Savoy and Nizza. ... The

King ... consented to give up the 'glorious cradle of his

Monarchy' in exchange for Central Italy."

W. A. Hunt, History of Italy, chapter 11.

ALSO IN:

J. W. Probyn, Italy from 1815 to 1890, chapter 9-10.

C. de Mazade, Life of Count Cavour, chapter 2-7.

See, also, ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859, and 1859-1861.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1862-1866.

The Schleswig-Holstein question.

Quarrel with Prussia.

The humiliating Seven Weeks War.

Conflict with Prussia grew out of the complicated

Schleswig-Holstein question, reopened in 1862 and

provisionally settled by a delusive arrangement between

Prussia and Austria, into which the latter was artfully drawn

by Prince Bismarck.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK): A. D. 1848-1862,

and GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.

{232}

No sooner was the war with Denmark over, than "Prussia showed

that it was her intention to annex the newly acquired duchies

to herself. This Austria could not endure, and accordingly, in

1866, war broke out between Austria and Prussia. Prussia

sought alliance with Italy, which she stirred up to attack

Austria in her Italian possessions. The Austrian army defeated

the Italian at Eustazza [or Custozza (see ITALY: A. D.

1862-1866)]; but the fortunes of war were against them in

Germany. Allied with the Austrians were the Saxons, the

Bavarians, the Würtembergers, Baden and Hesse, and Hanover.

The Prussians advanced with their chief army into Bohemia with

the utmost rapidity, dreading lest the Southern allies should

march north to Hanover, and cut the kingdom in half, and push

on to Berlin. The Prussians had three armies, which were to

enter Bohemia and effect a junction. The Elbe army under the

King, the first army under Prince Frederick Charles, and the

second army under the Crown Prince. The Elbe army advanced

across Saxony by Dresden. The first army was in Lusatia, at

Reichenberg, and the second army in Silesia at Heisse. They

were all to meet at Gitschin. The Austrian army under General

Benedek was at Königgrätz, in Eastern Bohemia. ... As in the

wars with Napoleon, so was it now; the Austrian generals ...

never did the right thing at the right moment. Benedek did

indeed march against the first army, but too late, and when he

found it was already through the mountain door, he retreated,

and so gave time for the three armies to concentrate upon him.

The Elbe army and the first met at Münchengratz, and defeated

an Austrian army there, pushed on, and drove them back out of

Gitschin on Königgrätz. ... The Prussians pushed on, and now

the Elbe army went to Smidar, and the first army to Horzitz,

whilst the second army, under the Crown Prince, was pushing

on, and had got to Gradlitz. The little river Bistritz is

crossed by the high road to Königgrätz. It runs through swampy

ground, and forms little marshy pools or lakes. To the north

of Königgrätz a little stream of much the same character

dribbles through bogs into the Elbe. ... But about Chlum,

Nedelist and Lippa is terraced high ground, and there Benedek

planted his cannon. The Prussians advanced from Smidar against

the left wing of the Austrians, from Horzitz against the

centre, and the Crown Prince was to attack the right wing. The

battle began on the 3d of July, at 7 o'clock in the morning,

by the simultaneous advance of the Elbe and the first army

upon the Bistritz. At Sadowa is a wood, and there the battle

raged most fiercely. ... Two things were against the

Austrians; first, the incompetence of their general, and,

secondly, the inferiority of their guns. The Prussians had

what are called needle-guns, breach-loaders, which are fired

by the prick of a needle, and for the rapidity with which they

can be fired far surpassed the old-fashioned muzzle-loaders

used by the Austrians. After this great battle, which is

called by the French and English the battle of Sadowa (Sadowa

(o Breve), not Sadowa (o Macron), as it is erroneously

pronounced), but which the Germans call the battle of

Königgrätz, the Prussians marched on Vienna, and reached the

Marchfeld before the Emperor Francis Joseph would come to

terms. At last, on the 23d of August, a peace which gave a

crushing preponderance in Germany to Prussia, was concluded at

Prague."

S. Baring-Gould, The Story of Germany, pages 390-394.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866.

The War in Italy.

Loss of Venetia.

See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.

Concession of nationality to Hungary.

Formation of the dual Austro-Hungarian Empire.

"For twelve years the name of Hungary, as a State, was erased

from the map of Europe. Bureaucratic Absolutism ruled supreme

in Austria, and did its best to obliterate all Hungarian

institutions. Germanisation was the order of the day, the

German tongue being declared the exclusive language of

official life as well as of the higher schools. Government was

carried on by means of foreign, German, and Czech officials.

No vestige was left, not only of the national independence,

but either of Home Rule or of self-government of any sort; the

country was divided into provinces without regard for

historical traditions; in short, an attempt was made to wipe

out every trace denoting the existence of a separate Hungary.

All ranks and classes opposed a sullen passive resistance to

these attacks against the existence of the nation; even the

sections of the nationalities which had rebelled against the

enactments of 1848, at the instigation of the reactionary

Camarilla, were equally disaffected in consequence of the

short-sighted policy of despotical centralisation. ...

Finally, after the collapse of the system of Absolutism in

consequence of financial disasters and of the misfortunes of

the Italian War of 1859, the Hungarian Parliament was again

convoked; and after protracted negotiations, broken off and

resumed again, the impracticability of a system of provincial

Federalism having been proved in the meantime, and the defeat

incurred in the Prussian War of 1866 having demonstrated the

futility of any reconstruction of the Empire of Austria in

which the national aspirations of Hungary were not taken into

due consideration--an arrangement was concluded under the

auspices of Francis Deák, Count Andrássy, and Count Beust, on

the basis of the full acknowledgment of the separate national

existence of Hungary, and of the continuity of its legal

rights. The idea of a centralised Austrian Empire had to give

way to the dual Austro-Hungarian monarchy, which is in fact an

indissoluble federation of two equal States, under the common

rule of a single sovereign, the Emperor of Austria and King of

Hungary, each of the States having a constitution, government,

and parliament of its own, Hungary especially retaining, with

slight modifications, its ancient institutions remodelled in

1848. The administration of the foreign policy, the management

of the army, and the disbursement of the expenditure necessary

for these purposes, were settled upon as common affairs of the

entire monarchy, for the management of which common ministers

were instituted, responsible to the two delegations, co-equal

committees of the parliaments of Hungary and of the

Cisleithanian (Austrian) provinces. Elaborate provisions were

framed for the smooth working of these common institutions,

for giving weight to the constitutional influence, even in

matters of common policy, of the separate Cisleithanian and

Hungarian ministries, and for rendering their responsibility

to the respective Parliaments an earnest and solid reality.

{233}

The financial questions pending in the two independent and

equal States were settled by a compromise; measures were taken

for the equitable arrangement of all matters which might arise

in relation to interests touching both States, such as

duties, commerce, and indirect taxation, all legislation on

these subjects taking place by means of identical laws

separately enacted by the Parliament of each State. ...

Simultaneously with these arrangements the political

differences between Hungary and Croatia were compromised by

granting provincial Home Rule to the latter. ... Thus the

organisation of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy on the basis of

dualism, and the compromise entered into between the two

halves composing it, whilst uniting for the purposes of

defence the forces of two States of a moderate size and extent

into those of a great empire, able to cope with the exigencies

of an adequate position amongst the first-class Powers of

Europe, restored also to Hungary its independence and its

unfettered sovereignty in all internal matters."

A. Pulszky, Hungary (National Life and Thought,

lecture 3).

"The Ausgleich, or agreement with Hungary, was arranged by a

committee of 67 members of the Hungarian diet, at the head of

whom was the Franklin of Hungary, Francis Deák, the true

patriot and inexorable legist, who had taken no part in the

revolutions, but who had never given up one of the smallest of

the rights of his country. ... On the 8th of June [1867], the

emperor Francis Joseph was crowned with great pomp at Pesth.

On the 28th of the following June, he approved the decisions

of the diet, which settled the position of Hungary with regard

to the other countries belonging to his majesty, and modified

some portions of the laws of 1848. ... Since the Ausgleich the

empire has consisted of two parts. ... For the sake of

clearness, political language has been increased by the

invention of two new terms, Cisleithania and Transleithania,

to describe the two groups, separated a little below Vienna by

a small affluent of the Danube, called the Leitha--a stream

which never expected to become so celebrated."

L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, chapter 35.

ALSO IN:

Francis Deák, A Memoir, chapter 26-31.

Count von Beust, Memoirs, volume 2, chapter 38.

L. Felbermann, Hungary and its People, chapter 5.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1887.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Its new national life.

Its difficulties and promises.

Its ambitions and aims in Southeastern Europe.

"Peace politicians may say that a war always does more harm

than good to the nations which engage in it. Perhaps it always

does, at any rate, morally speaking, to the victors: but that

it does not to the vanquished, Austria stands as a living

evidence. Finally excluded from Italy and Germany by the

campaign of 1866, she has cast aside her dreams of foreign

domination, and has set herself manfully to the task of making

a nation out of the various conflicting nationalities over

which she presides. It does not require much insight to

perceive that as long as she held her position in Germany this

fusion was hopeless. The overwhelming preponderance of the

German element made any approach to a reciprocity of interests

impossible. The Germans always were regarded as sovereigns,

the remaining nationalities as subjects; it was for these  to

command, for those to obey. In like manner, it was impossible

for the Austrian Government to establish a mutual

understanding with a population which felt itself

attracted--alike by the ties of race, language, and

geographical position--to another political union. Nay more,

as long as the occupation of the Italian provinces remained as

a blot on the Imperial escutcheon, it was impossible for the

Government to command any genuine sympathy from any of its

subjects. But with the close of the war with Prussia these two

difficulties--the relations with Germany and the relations

with Italy--were swept away. From this time forward Austria

could appear before the world as a Power binding together for

the interests of all, a number of petty nationalities, each of

which was too feeble to maintain a separate existence. In

short, from the year 1866 Austria had a raison d'être, whereas

before she had none. ... Baron Beust, on the 7th of February,

1867, took office under Franz Joseph. His programme may be

stated as follows. He saw that the day of centralism and

imperial unity was gone past recall, and that the most liberal

Constitution in the world would never reconcile the

nationalities to their present position, as provinces under

the always detested and now despised Empire. But then came the

question--Granted that a certain disintegration is inevitable,

how far is this disintegration to go? Beust proposed to disarm

the opposition of the leading nationality by the gift of an

almost complete independence, and, resting on the support thus

obtained, to gain time for conciliating the remaining

provinces by building up a new system of free government. It

would be out of place to give a detailed account of the

well-known measure which converted the 'Austrian empire' into

the 'Austro-Hungarian monarchy.' It will be necessary,

however, to describe the additions made to it by the political

machinery. The Hungarian Reichstag was constructed on the same

principle as the Austrian Reichsrath. It was to meet in Pesth,

as the Reichsrath at Vienna, and was to have its own

responsible ministers. From the members of the Reichsrath and

Reichstag respectively were to be chosen annually sixty

delegates to represent Cisleithanian and sixty to represent

Hungarian interests--twenty being taken in each case from the

Upper, forty from the Lower House. These two 'Delegations,'

whose votes were to be taken, when necessary, collectively,

though each Delegation sat in a distinct chamber, owing to the

difference of language, formed the Supreme Imperial Assembly,

and met alternate years at Vienna and Pesth. They were

competent in matters of foreign policy, in military

administration, and in Imperial finance. At their head stood

three Imperial ministers--the Reichskanzler, who presided at

the Foreign Office, and was ex officio Prime Minister, the

Minister of War, and the Minister of Finance. These three

ministers were independent of the Reichsrath and Reichstag,

and could only be dismissed by a vote of want of confidence on

the part of the Delegations. The 'Ausgleich' or scheme of

federation with Hungary is, no doubt, much open to criticism,

both as a whole and in its several parts. It must always be

borne in mind that administratively and politically it was a

retrogression.

{234}

At a time in which all other European nations--notably North

Germany--were simplifying and unifying their political

systems, Austria was found doing the very reverse. ... The

true answer to these objections is, that the measure of 1867

was constructed to meet a practical difficulty. Its end was

not the formation of a symmetrical system of government, but

the pacification of Hungary. ... The internal history of the

two halves of the empire flows in two different channels. Graf

Andrassy, the Hungarian Premier, had a comparatively easy task

before him. There were several reasons for this. In the first

place, the predominance of the Magyars in Hungary was more

assured than that of the Germans in Cisleithania. It is true

that they numbered only 5,000,000 out of the 16,000,000

inhabitants; but in these 5,000,000 were included almost all

the rank, wealth, and intelligence of the country. Hence they

formed in the Reichstag a compact and homogeneous majority,

under which the remaining Slovaks and Croatians soon learnt to

range themselves. In the second place, Hungary had the great

advantage of starting in a certain degree afresh. Her

government was not bound by the traditional policy of former

Vienna ministries, and ... it had managed to keep its

financial credit unimpaired. In the third place, as those who

are acquainted with Hungarian history well know, Parliamentary

institutions had for a long time flourished in Hungary. Indeed

the Magyars, who among their many virtues can hardly be

credited with the virtue of humility, assert that the world is

mistaken in ascribing to England the glory of having invented

representative government, and claim this glory for

themselves. Hence one of the main difficulties with which the

Cisleithanian Government had to deal was already solved for

Graf Andrassy and his colleagues."--Austria since Sadowa

(Quarterly Review, volume 131, pages 90-95).--"It is difficult

for anyone except an Austro-Hungarian statesman to realise the

difficulties of governing the Dual Monarchy. Cisleithania has,

as is well-known, a Reichsrath and seventeen Provincial Diets.

The two Austrias, Styria, Carinthia, and Salzburg present no

difficulties, but causes of trouble are abundant in the other

districts. The Emperor will probably end by getting himself

crowned King of Bohemia, although it will be difficult for him

to lend himself to a proscription of the German language by

the Tsechs, as he has been forced by the Magyars to lend

himself to the proscription in parts of Hungary of Rouman and

of various Slavonic languages. But how far is this process to

continue? The German Austrians are as unpopular in Istria and

Dalmatia as in Bohemia; and Dalmatia is also an ancient

kingdom. These territories were originally obtained by the

election of the King of Hungary to the crown of the tripartite

kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia. Is 'Ferencz

Jozsef' to be crowned King of Dalmatia? And is Dalmatia to

have its separate Ministry and its separate official language,

and its completely separate laws? And what then of Fiume, the

so-called Hungarian port? Then, again, Galicia is also an

ancient kingdom, although it has at other times formed part of

Poland; and the Emperor is King of Galicia, as he is King of

Bohemia and Dalmatia. Is he to be crowned King of Galicia? And

if so, is the separate existence of Galicia to be a Polish or

a Ruthenian existence, or, indeed, a Jewish? for the Jews are

not only extraordinarily powerful and numerous there, but are

gaining ground day by day. The Ruthenians complain as bitterly

of being bullied by the Poles in Galicia as the Croats

complain of the Magyars. Even here the difficulties are not

ended. The Margraviate of Moravia contains a large Tsech

population, and will have to be added to the Bohemian kingdom.

Bukowina may go with Galicia or Transylvania, Austrian Silesia

may be divided between the Tsechs of Bohemia and Moravia on

the one part, and the Poles or Ruthenians or Jews of Galicia

on the other. But what is to become of that which, with the

most obstinate disregard of pedants, I intend to continue to

call the Tyrol? Trieste must go with Austria and Salzburg, and

the Northern Tyrol and Styria and Carinthia no doubt; but it

is not difficult to show that Austria would actually be

strengthened by giving up the Southern Tyrol, where the

Italian people, or at least the Italian language, is gaining

ground day by day. There really seems very little left of the

integrity of the Austrian Empire at the conclusion of our

survey of its constituent parts. Matters do not look much

better if we turn to Trans-Leithania. Hungary has its

Reichstag (which is also known by some terrible Magyar name),

its House of Representatives, and its House of Magnates, and,

although there are not so many Provincial Diets as in Austria,

Slavonia and the Banat of Croatia possess a Common Diet with

which the Magyars are far from popular; and the Principality

of Transylvania also possessed separate local rights, for

trying completely to suppress which the Magyars are at present

highly unpopular. The Principality, although under Magyar

rule, is divided between 'Saxons' and Roumans, who equally

detest the Magyars, and the Croats and Slovenes who people the

Banat are Slavs who also execrate their Ugrian rulers,

inscriptions in whose language are defaced whenever seen.

Croatia is under-represented at Pest, and says that she goes

unheard, and the Croats, who have partial Home Rule without an

executive, ask for a local executive as well, and demand Fiume

and Dalmatia. If we look to the numbers of the various races,

there are in Austria of Germans and Jews about 9,000,000 to

about 13,000,000 Slavs and a few Italians and Roumans. There

are in the lands of the Crown of Hungary 2,000,000 of Germans

and Jews, of Roumans nearly 3,000,000, although the Magyars

only acknowledge 2,500,000, and of Magyars and Slavs between

five and six millions apiece. In the whole of the territories

of the Dual Monarchy it will be seen that there are 18,000,000

of Slavs and only 17,000,000 of the ruling races--Germans,

Jews, and Magyars--while between three and four millions of

Roumans and Italians count along with the Slav majority as

being hostile to the dominant nationalities. It is difficult

to exaggerate the gravity for Austria of the state of things

which these figures reveal."

The Present Position of European Polities (Fortnightly

Review, April, 1887).

{235}

"In past times, when Austria had held France tight bound

between Spain, Germany, and the Netherlands, she had aspired

to a dominant position in Western Europe; and, so long as her

eyes were turned in that direction, she naturally had every

interest in preserving the Ottoman Empire intact, for she was

thus guaranteed against all attacks from the south. But, after

the loss of her Italian possessions in 1805, and of part of

Croatia in 1809, after the disasters of 1849, 1859 and 1866,

she thought more and more seriously of indemnifying herself at

the expense of Turkey. It was moreover evident that, in order

to paralyse the damaging power of Hungary, it was essential

for her to assimilate the primitive and scattered peoples of

Turkey, accustomed to centuries of complete submission and

obedience, and form thus a kind of iron band which should

encircle Hungary and effectually prevent her from rising. If,

in fact, we glance back at the position of Austria in 1860,

and take the trouble carefully to study the change of ideas

and interests which had then taken place in the policy of

France and of Russia, the tendencies of the strongly

constituted nations who were repugnant to the authority and

influence of Austria, the basis of the power of that empire,

and, finally, the internal ruin with which she was then

threatened, we cannot but arrive at the conclusion that

Austria, by the very instinct of self-preservation, was forced

to turn eastwards and to consider how best she might devour

some, at least, of the European provinces of Turkey. Austrian

statesmen have been thoroughly convinced of this fact, and,

impelled by the instinct above-mentioned, have not ceased

carefully and consistently to prepare and follow out the

policy here indicated. Their objects have already been

partially attained by the practical annexation of Bosnia and

Herzegovina in 1878 [see TURKS: A. D. 1878]; and it was

striking to observe with what bitter feeling and resentment

this measure was looked upon at the time by the Hungarian

section of the empire. ... Russia has never made any secret of

her designs upon Turkey; she has, indeed, more than once

openly made war in order to carry them out. But Austria

remains a fatal obstacle in her path. Even as things at

present stand, Austria, by her geographical position, so

commands and dominates the Russian line of operations that,

once the Danube passed, the Russians are constantly menaced by

Austria on the flank and rear. ... And if this be true now,

how much more true would it be were Austria to continue her

march eastwards towards Salonica. That necessarily, at some

time or other, that march must be continued may be taken for

almost certain; but that Austria has it in her power to

commence it for the present, cannot, I think, be admitted. She

must further consolidate and make certain of what she has.

Movement now would bring upon her a struggle for life or

death--a struggle whose issue may fairly be said, in no

unfriendly spirit to Austria, to be doubtful. With at home a

bitterly discontented Croatia, strong Pan-slavistic tendencies

in Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Dalmatia, a Greek population

thoroughly disaffected, and a Hungary whose loyalty is

doubtful, she would have to deal beyond her frontiers with the

not contemptible armies, when combined, of Servia, Bulgaria,

and Greece, whose aspirations she would be asphyxiating for

ever, with a bitterly hostile population in Macedonia, with

the whole armed force of Turkey, and with the gigantic

military power of Russia; whilst it is not fantastic to

suppose that Germany would be hovering near ready to pounce on

her German provinces when the 'moment psychologique' should

occur. With such a prospect before her, it would be worse than

madness for Austria to move until the cards fell more favourably

for her."

V. Caillard, The Bulgarian Imbroglio (Fortnightly

Review, December, 1885).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1878.

The Treaty of Berlin.

Acquisition of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

See TURKS: A. D. 1878.

----------AUSTRIA: End----------

AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN EMPIRE.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.

AUTERI, The.

See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

AUTUN: Origin.

See GAULS.

AUTUN: A. D. 287.

Sacked by the Bagauds.

See BAGAUDS.

----------AUTUN: End----------

AUVERGNE, Ancient.

The country of the Arverni.

See ÆDUI;

also GAULS.

AUVERGNE, The Great Days of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1665.

AUXILIUM.

See TALLAGE.

AVA.

See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

AVALON.

See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1610-1655;

and MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.

AVARICUM.

See BOURGES, ORIGIN OF.

AVARS, The.

The true Avars are represented to have been a powerful

Turanian people who exercised in the sixth century a wide

dominion in Central Asia. Among the tribes subject to them was

one called the Ogors, or Ouigours, or Ouiars, or Ouar Khouni,

or Varchonites (these diverse names have been given to the

nation) which is supposed to have belonged to the national

family of the Huns. Some time in the early half of the sixth

century, the Turks, then a people who dwelt in the very center

of Asia, at the foot of the Altai mountains, making their

first appearance in history as conquerors, crushed and almost

annihilated the Avars, thereby becoming the lords of the

Ouigours, or Ouar Khouni. But the latter found an opportunity

to escape from the Turkish yoke. "Gathering together their

wives and their children, their flocks and their herds, they

turned their waggons towards the Setting Sun. This immense

exodus comprised upwards of 200,000 persons. The terror which

inspired their flight rendered them resistless in the onset;

for the avenging Turk was behind their track. They overturned

everything before them, even the Hunnic tribes of kindred

origin, who had long hovered on the north-east frontiers of

the Empire, and, driving out or enslaving the inhabitants,

established themselves in the wide plains which stretch

between·the Volga and the Don. In that age of imperfect

information they were naturally enough confounded with the

greatest and most formidable tribe of the Turanian stock known

to the nations of the West. The report that the Avars had

broken loose from Asia, and were coming in irresistible force

to overrun Europe, spread itself all along both banks of the

Danube and penetrated to the Byzantine court. With true

barbaric cunning, the Ouar Khouni availed themselves of the

mistake, and by calling themselves Avars largely increased the

terrors of their name and their chances of conquest." The

pretended Avars were taken into the pay of the Empire by

Justinian and employed against the Hun tribes north and east

of the Black Sea.

{236}

They presently acquired a firm footing on both banks of the

Danube, and turned their arms against the Empire. The

important city of Sirmium was taken by them after an obstinate

siege and its inhabitants put to the sword. Their ravages

extended over central Europe to the Elbe, where they were

beaten back by the warlike Franks, and, southwards, through

Moesia, Illyria, Thrace, Macedonia and Greece, even to the

Peloponnesus. Constantinople itself was threatened more than

once, and in the summer of 626, it was desperately attacked by

Avars and Persians in conjunction (see ROME: A. D. 565-628),

with disastrous results to the assailants. But the seat of

their Empire was the Dacian country--modern Roumania,

Transylvania and part of Hungary--in which the Avars had

helped the Lombards to crush and extinguish the Gepidæ. The

Slavic tribes which, by this time, had moved in great numbers

into central and south-eastern Europe, were largely in

subjection to the Avars and did their bidding in war and

peace. "These unfortunate creatures, of apparently an

imperfect, or, at any rate, imperfectly cultivated

intelligence, endured such frightful tyranny from their Avar

conquerors, that their very name has passed into a synonyme

for the most degraded servitude."

J. G. Sheppard, Fall of Rome, lecture 4.

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

Empire, chapter 42.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

AVARS: 7th Century.

The Slavic Revolt.

The Empire of the Avars was shaken and much diminished in the

Seventh Century by an extensive rising of their oppressed

Slavic subjects, roused and led, it is said, by a Frank

merchant, or adventurer, named Samo, who became their king.

The first to throw off the yoke were a tribe called the

Vendes, or Wendes, or Venedi, in Bohemia, who were reputed to

be half-castes, resulting from intercourse between the Avar

warriors and the women of their Slavic vassals. Under the lead

of Samo, the Wendes and Slovenes or Slavonians drove the Avars

to the east and north; and it seems to have been in connection

with this revolution that the Emperor Heraclius induced the

Serbs or Servians and Croats--Slavic tribes of the same race

and region--to settle in depopulated Dalmatia. "'From the year

630 A. D.' writes M. Thierry, 'the Avar people are no longer

mentioned in the annals of of the East; the successors of

Attila no longer figure beside the successors of Constantine.

It required new wars in the West to bring upon the stage of

history the khan and his people.' In these wars [of Pepin and

Charlemagne] they were finally swept off from the roll of

European nations."

J. G. Sheppard, Fall of Rome, lecture 4.

AVARS: A. D. 791-805.

Conquest by Charlemagne.

"Hungary, now so called, was possessed by the Avars, who,

joining with themselves a multitude of Hunnish tribes,

accumulated the immense spoils which both they themselves and

their equally barbarous predecessors had torn from the other

nations of Europe. ... They extended their limits towards

Lombardy, and touched upon the very verge of Bavaria. ... Much

of their eastern frontier was now lost, almost without a

struggle on their part, by the rise of other barbarous

nations, especially the various tribes of Bulgarians." This

was the position of the Avars at the time of Charlemagne, whom

they provoked by forming an alliance with the ambitious Duke

of Bavaria, Tassilo,--most obstinate of all who resisted the

Frank king's imperious and imperial rule. In a series of

vigorous campaigns, between 791 and 797 Charlemagne crushed

the power of the Avars and took possession of their country.

The royal "ring" or stronghold--believed to have been situated

in the neighborhood of Tatar, between the Danube and the

Theiss--was penetrated, and the vast treasure stored there was

seized. Charlemagne distributed it with a generous hand to

churches, to monasteries and to the poor, as well as to his

own nobles, servants and soldiers, who are said to have been

made rich. There were subsequent risings of the Avars and

wars, until 805, when the remnant of that almost annihilated

people obtained permission to settle on a tract of land

between Sarwar and Haimburg, on the right bank of the Danube,

where they would be protected from their Slavonian enemies.

This was the end of the Avar nation.

G. P. R. James, History of Charlemagne, books 9 and 11.

ALSO IN: J. I. Mombert, History of Charles the Great,

book 2, chapter 7.

----------AVARS: End----------

AVARS, The Rings of the.

The fortifications of the Avars were of a peculiar and

effective construction and were called Hrings, or Rings. "They

seem to have been a series of eight or nine gigantic ramparts,

constructed in concentric circles, the inner one of all being

called the royal circle or camp, where was deposited all the

valuable plunder which the warriors had collected in their

expeditions. The method of constructing these ramparts was

somewhat singular. Two parallel rows of gigantic piles were

driven into the ground, some twenty feet apart. The

intervening space was filled with stones, or a species of

chalk, so compacted as to become a solid mass. The sides and

summit were covered with soil, upon which were planted trees

and shrubs, whose interlacing branches formed an impenetrable

hedge."

J. G. Sheppard, Fall of Rome, lecture 9.

AVEBURY.

See ABURY.

AVEIN, Battle of (1635).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

AVENTINE, The.

See SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.

AVERNUS, Lake and Cavern.

A gloomy lake called Avernus, which filled the crater of an

extinct volcano, situated a little to the north of the Bay of

Naples, was the object of many superstitious imaginations

among the ancients. "There was a place near Lake Avernus

called the prophetic cavern. Persons were in attendance there

who called up ghosts. Anyone desiring it came thither, and,

having killed a victim and poured out libations, summoned

whatever ghost he wanted. The ghost came, very faint and

doubtful to the sight, but vocal and prophetic; and, having

answered the questions, went off."

Maximus Tyrius, quoted by C. C. Felton, in Greece,

Ancient and Modern, c. 2, lecture 9.

See, also, CUMÆ: AND BAIÆ.

AVERYSBORO, Battle of.

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

THE CAROLINAS).

AVIGNON: 10th Century.

In the Kingdom of Arles.

See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.

AVIGNON: A. D. 1226.

Siege by Louis VIII.

See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229.

{237}

AVIGNON: A. D. 1309-1348.

Made the seat of the Papacy.

Purchase of the city by Clement V.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

AVIGNON: A. D. 1367-1369.

Temporary return of Urban V. to Rome.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378.

AVIGNON: A. D. 1377-1417.

Return of Pope Gregory XI. to Rome.

Residence of the anti-popes of the great Schism.

See PAPACY: A. D.1377-1417.

AVIGNON: A. D. 1790-1791.

Revolution and Anarchy.

Atrocities committed.

Reunion with France decreed.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1790-1791.

AVIGNON: A. D. 1797.

Surrendered to France by the Pope.

See FRANCE: A. D: 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

AVIGNON: A. D. 1815.

Possession by France confirmed.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

----------AVIGNON: End----------

AVIONES, The.

"The Aviones were a Suevic clan. They are mentioned by

Tacitus in connexion with the Reudigni, Angli, Varini,

Eudoses, Suardones and Nuithones, all Suevic clans. These

tribes must have occupied Mecklenburg-Schwerin,

Mecklenburg-Strelitz and Sleswick-Holstein, the Elbe being

their Eastern boundary. It is, however, impossible to define

their precise localities."

A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb, Minor Works of

Tacitus, Geographical Notes to the Germany.

AVIS, The House of.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1383-1385.

AVIS, Knights of.

This is a Portuguese military-religions order which originated

about 1147 during the wars with the Moors, and which formerly

observed the monastic rule of St. Benedict. It became

connected with the order of Calatrava in Spain and received

from the latter its property in Portugal. Pope Paul III.

united the Grand Mastership to the Crown of Portugal.

F. C. Woodhouse, Military Religious Orders, part 4.

See, also, PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

AVITUS, Roman Emperor (Western), A. D. 455-456.

AVVIM, The.

The original inhabitants of the south-west corner of Canaan,

from which they were driven by the Philistines.

H. Ewald, History of Israel, book 1, section 4.

AYACUCHO, Battle of (1824).

See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

AYLESBURY ELECTION CASE.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1703.

AYLESFORD, Battle of (A. D. 455).

The first battle fought and won by the invading Jutes after

their landing in Britain under Hengest and Horsa. It was

fought at the lowest ford of the river Medway.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

AYMARAS, The.

See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

AYOUBITE OR AIYUBITE DYNASTY.

See SALADIN, THE EMPIRE OF.

AZINCOUR (AGINCOURT), Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1415.

AZOF OR AZOV: A. D. 1696.

Taken by the Russians.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

AZOF: A. D. 1711.

Restoration to the Turks.

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

AZOF: A. D. 1736-1739.

Captured by the Russians.

Secured to them by the Treaty of Belgrade.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

----------AZOF: End----------

AZTEC.

See MEXICO, ANCIENT; and A. D. 1325-1502;

also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS.

AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE-WRITING.

"No nation ever reduced it [pictography] more to a system. It

was in constant use in the daily transactions of life. They

[the Aztecs] manufactured for writing purposes a thick coarse

paper from the leaves of the agave plant by a process of

maceration and pressure. An Aztec book closely resembles one

of our quarto volumes. It is made of a single sheet, 12 to 15

inches wide, and often 60 or 70 feet long, and is not rolled,

but folded either in squares or zigzags in such a manner that

on opening there are two pages exposed to view. Thin wooden

boards are fastened to each of the outer leaves, so that the

whole presents as neat an appearance, remarks Peter Martyr, as

if it had come from the shop of a skilful book binder. They

also covered buildings, tapestries and scrolls of parchment

with these devices. ... What is still more astonishing, there

is reason to believe, in some instances, their figures were

not painted, but actually printed with movable blocks of wood

on which the symbols were carved in relief, though this was

probably confined to those intended for ornament only. In

these records we discern something higher than a mere symbolic

notation. They contain the germ of a phonetic alphabet, and

represent sounds of spoken language. The symbol is often not

connected with the idea, but with the word. The mode in which

this is done corresponds precisely to that of the rebus. It is

a simple method, readily suggesting itself. In the middle ages

it was much in vogue in Europe for the same purpose for which

it was chiefly employed in Mexico at the same time--the

writing of proper names. For example, the English family

Bolton was known in heraldry by a 'tun' transfixed by a

'bolt.' Precisely so the Mexican Emperor Ixcoatl is mentioned

in the Aztec manuscripts under the figure of a serpent,

coatl,' pierced by obsidian knives, 'ixtli.' ... As a syllable

could be expressed by any object whose name commenced with it,

as few words can be given the form of a rebus without some

change, as the figures sometimes represent their full phonetic

value, sometimes only that of their initial sound, and as

universally the attention of the artist was directed less to

the sound than to the idea, the didactic painting of the

Mexicans, whatever it might have been to them, is a sealed

book to us, and must remain so in great part. ... Immense

masses of such documents were stored in the imperial archives

of ancient Mexico. Torquemada asserts that five cities alone

yielded to the Spanish governor on one requisition no less

than 16,000 volumes or scrolls! Every leaf was destroyed.

Indeed, so thorough and wholesale was the destruction of these

memorials, now so precious in our eyes, that hardly enough

remain to whet the wits of antiquaries. In the libraries of

Paris, Dresden, Pesth, and the Vatican are, however, a

sufficient number to make us despair of deciphering them, had

we for comparison all which the Spaniards destroyed. Beyond

all others the Mayas, resident on the peninsula of Yucatan,

would seem to have approached nearest a true phonetic system.

They had a regular and well understood alphabet of 27

elementary sounds, the letters of which are totally different

from those of any other nation, and evidently originated with

themselves. But besides these they used a large number of

purely conventional symbols, and moreover were accustomed

constantly to employ the ancient pictographic method in

addition as a sort of commentary on the sound represented. ...

With the aid of this alphabet, which has fortunately been

preserved, we are enabled to spell out a few words on the

Yucatecan manuscripts and façades, but thus far with no

positive results. The loss of the ancient pronunciation is

especially in the way of such studies. In South America, also,

there is said to have been a nation who cultivated the art of

picture-writing, the Panos, on the river Ucayale."

D. G. Brinton, The Myths of the New World, chapter 1.

----------AZTEC: End----------

{238}

B.

BABAR,

King of Ferghana, A. D. 1494-;

King of Kabul, A. D. 1504-;

Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India, A. D. 1526-1530.

BABENBERGS, The.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.

BABYLON: The City.

"The city stands on a broad plain, and is an exact square, a

hundred and twenty furlongs in length each way, so that the

entire circuit is four hundred and eighty furlongs. While such

is its size, in magnificence there is no other city that

approaches it. It is surrounded, in the first place, by a

broad and deep moat, full of water, behind which rises a wall

fifty royal cubits in width and two hundred in height. ... And

here I may not omit to tell the use to which the mould dug out

of the great moat was turned, nor the manner wherein the wall

was wrought. As fast as they dug the moat the soil which they

got from the cutting was made into bricks, and when a

sufficient number were completed they baked the bricks in

kilns. Then they set to building, and began with bricking the

borders of the moat, after which they proceeded to construct

the wall itself, using throughout for their cement hot

bitumen, and interposing a layer of wattled reeds at every

thirtieth course of the brick. On the top, along the edges of

the wall, they constructed buildings of a single chamber

facing one another, leaving between them room for a four-horse

chariot to turn. In the circuit of the wall are a hundred

gates, all of brass, with brazen lintels and side posts. The

bitumen used in the work was brought to Babylon from the Is, a

small stream which flows into the Euphrates at the point where

the city of the same name stands, eight days' journey from

Babylon. Lumps of bitumen are found in great abundance in this

river. The city is divided into two portions by the river

which runs through the midst of it. This river is the

Euphrates. ... The city wall is brought down on both sides to

the edge of the stream; thence, from the corners of the wall,

there is carried along each bank of the river a fence of burnt

bricks. The houses are mostly three and four stories high; the

streets all run in straight lines; not only those parallel to

the river, but also the cross streets which lead down to the

water side. At the river end of these cross streets are low

gates in the fence that skirts the stream, which are, like the

great gates in the outer wall, of brass, and open on the

water. The outer wall is the main defence of the city. There

is, however, a second inner wall, of less thickness than the

first, but very little inferior to it in strength. The centre

of each division of the town was occupied by a fortress. In

the one stood the palace of the kings, surrounded by a wall of

great strength and size: in the other was the sacred precinct

of Jupiter Belus, a square enclosure, two furlongs each way,

with gates of solid brass; which was also remaining in my

time. In the middle of the precinct there was a tower of solid

masonry, a furlong in length and breadth, upon which was

raised a second tower, and on that a third, and so on up to

eight. The ascent to the top is on the outside, by a path

which winds round all the towers. . . . On the topmost tower

there is a spacious temple."

Herodotus, History, translated by G. Rawlinson,

book 1, chapters 178-181.

According to Ctesias, the circuit of the walls of Babylon was

but 360 furlongs. The historians of Alexander agreed nearly

with this. As regards the height of the walls, "Strabo and the

historians of Alexander substitute 50 for the 200 cubits of

Herodotus, and it may therefore be suspected that the latter

author referred to hands, four of which were equal to the

cubit. The measure, indeed, of 50 fathoms or 200 royal cubits

for the walls of a city in a plain is quite preposterous. ...

My own belief is that the height of the walls of Babylon did

not exceed 60 or 70 English feet."

H. C. Rawlinson, note to above.-

See, also, BABYLONIA: B. C. 625-539.

BABYLON OF THE CRUSADERS, The.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1248-1254.

BABYLONIA, Primitive.

(So much new knowledge of the ancient peoples in the East has

been and is being brought to light by recent search and study,

and the account of it in English historical literature is so

meagre as yet, that there seems to be good reason for

deferring the treatment of these subjects, for the most part,

to a later volume of this work. The reader is referred,

therefore, to the article "Semites," in the hope that, before

its publication is reached, in the fourth or fifth volume,

there will be later and better works to quote from on all the

subjects embraced. Terrien de Lacouperie's interesting theory,

which is introduced below, in this place, is questioned by

many scholars; and Professor Sayce, whose writings have done

much to popularize the new oriental studies, seems to go

sometimes in advance of the sure ground.)

The Sumirians, inhabitants of the Shinar of the Old Testament

narrative, and Accadians, who divided primitive Babylonia

between them, "were overrun and conquered by the Semitic

Babylonians of later history, Accad being apparently the first

half of the country to fall under the sway of the new comers.

It is possible that Casdim, the Hebrew word translated

Chaldees or Chaldeans in the authorized version, is the

Babylonian 'casidi' or conquerors, a title which continued to

cling to them in consequence of their conquest. The Accadiaus

had been the inventors of the pictorial hieroglyphics which

afterwards developed into the cuneiform or wedge-shaped

writing; they had founded the great cities of Chaldea, and had

attained to a high degree of culture and civilization. Their

cities possessed libraries, stocked with books, written partly

on papyrus, partly on clay, which was, while still soft,

impressed with characters by means of a metal stylus.

{239}

The books were numerous, and related to a variety of subjects.

... In course of time, however, the two dialects of Sumir and

Accad ceased to be spoken; but the necessity for learning them

still remained, and we find, accordingly, that down to the

latest days of both Assyria and Babylonia, the educated

classes were taught the old extinct Accadian, just as in

modern Europe they are taught Latin."

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

chapter 2.

"Since Sumir, the Shinar of the Bible, was the first part of

the country occupied by the invading Semites, while Accad long

continued to be regarded as the seat of an alien race, the

language and population of primitive Chaldea have been named

Accadian by the majority of Assyrian scholars. The part played

by these Accadians in the intellectual history of mankind is

highly important. They were the earliest civilizers of Western

Asia, and it is to them that we have to trace the arts and

sciences, the religious traditions and the philosophy not only

of the Assyrians, but also of the Phœnicians, the Aramæans,

and even the Hebrews themselves. It was, too, from Chaldea

that the germs of Greek art and of much of the Greek pantheon

and mythology originally came. Columnar architecture reached

its first and highest development in Babylonia; the lions that

still guard the main entrance of Mykenæ are distinctly

Assyrian in character; and the Greek Herakles with his twelve

labours finds his prototype in the hero of the great Chaldean

epic. It is difficult to say how much of our present culture

is not owed to the stunted, oblique-eyed people of ancient

Babylonia; Jerusalem and Athens are the sacred cities of our

modern life; and both Jerusalem and Athens were profoundly

influenced by the ideas which had their first starting-point

in primæval Accad. The Semite has ever been a trader and an

intermediary, and his earliest work was the precious trade in

spiritual and mental wares. Babylonia was the home and mother

of Semitic culture and Semitic inspiration; the Phœnicians

never forgot that they were a colony from the Persian Gulf,

while the Israelite recounted that his father Abraham had been

born in Ur of the Chaldees. Almost the whole of the Assyrian

literature was derived from Accad, and translated from the

dead language of primitive Chaldea."

A. H. Sayce, Babylonian Literature, pages 6-7.

A. H. Sayce, Ancient Empires of the East, appendix 2.

"The place of China in the past and future is not that which

it was long supposed to be. Recent researches have disclosed

that its civilization, like ours, was variously derived from

the same old focus of culture of south-western Asia. ... It

was my good fortune to be able to show, in an uninterrupted

series of a score or so of papers in periodicals, of

communications to the Royal Asiatic Society and elsewhere,

published and unpublished, and of contributions to several

works since April 1880, downwards, that the writing and some

knowledge of arts, science and government of the early

Chinese, more or less enumerated below, were derived from the

old civilization of Babylonia, through the secondary focus of

Susiana, and that this derivation was a social fact, resulting

not from scientific teaching but from practical intercourse of

some length between the Susian confederation and the future

civilizers of the Chinese, the Bak tribes, who, from their

neighbouring settlements in the N., moved eastwards at the

time of the great rising of the XXIII. century B. C. Coming

again in the field, Dr. J. Edkins has joined me on the same

line."

Terrien de Lacouperie, Babylonia and China

(Academy, Aug. 7, 1880).

"We could enumerate a long series of affinities between

Chaldean culture and Chinese civilization, although the last

was not borrowed directly. From what evidence we have, it

seems highly probable that a certain number of families or of

tribes, without any apparent generic name, but among which the

Kutta filled an important position, came to China about the

year 2500 B. C. These tribes, which came from the West, were

obliged to quit the neighbourhood, probably north of the

Susiana, and were comprised in the feudal agglomeration of

that region, where they must have been influenced by the

Akkado-Chaldean culture."

Terrien de Lacouperie, Early History of Chinese

Civilization, page 32.

See, also, CHINA: THE ORIGIN OF THE PEOPLE.

BABYLONIA: The early (Chaldean) monarchy.

"Our earliest glimpse of the political condition of Chaldea

shows us the country divided into numerous small states, each

headed by a great city, made famous and powerful by the

sanctuary or temple of some particular deity, and ruled by a

patesi, a title which is now thought to mean priest-king, i.

e., priest and king in one. There can be little doubt that the

beginning of the city was every where the temple, with its

college of ministering priests, and that the surrounding

settlement was gradually formed by pilgrims and worshippers.

That royalty developed out of the priesthood is also more than

probable. ... There comes a time when for the title of patesi

is substituted that of king. ... It is noticeable that the

distinction between the Semitic newcomers and the indigenous

Shumiro-Accadians continues long to be traceable in the names

of the royal temple-builders, even after the new Semitic

idiom, which we call the Assyrian, had entirely ousted the old

language. ... Furthermore, even superficial observation shows

that the old language and the old names survive longest in

Shumir,--the South. From this fact it is to be inferred with

little chance of mistake that the North,--the land of Accad,--

was earlier Semitized, that the Semitic immigrants established

their first headquarters in that part of the country, that

their power and influence thence spread to the South. Fully in

accordance with these indications, the first grand historical

figure that meets us at the threshold of Chaldean history, dim

with the mists of ages and fabulous traditions, yet

unmistakably real, is that of the Semite Sharrukin, king of

Accad, or Agade, as the great Northern city came to be

called--more generally known in history under the corrupt

modern reading of Sargon, and called Sargon I., 'the First,'

to distinguish him from a very famous Assyrian monarch of the

same name who reigned many centuries later. As to the city of

Agade, it is no other than the city of Accad mentioned in

Genesis x, 10. It was situated close to the Euphrates on a

wide canal just opposite Sippar, so that in time the two

cities came to be considered as one double city, and the

Hebrews always called it 'the two Sippars'--Sepharvaim, which

is often spoken of in the Bible. ... The tremendously ancient

date of 3800 B. C. is now generally accepted for Sargon of

Agade--perhaps the remotest authentic date yet arrived at in

history."

Z. A. Ragozin, Story of Chaldea, chapter 4.

{240}

"A horde of Cassites or Kossæans swept down from the mountains

of Northern Elam under their leader, Khammuragas; Accad was

conquered, a foreign dynasty established in the land, and the

capital transferred from Agade to Babylon. Babylon now became

a city of importance for the first time; the rank assigned to

it in the mythical age was but a reflection of the position it

held after the Cassite conquest. The Cassite dynasty is

probably the Arabian dynasty of Berosos. ... A newly-found

inscription of Nabonidos makes the date [of its advent] B. C.

3750 [foot-note]. ... The first care of Khammuragas,

after establishing himself in Accad, was to extend his sway

over the southern kingdom of Sumer as well. ... Khammuragas

became king of the whole of Babylonia. From this time onward

the country remained a united monarchy. The Cassite dynasty

must have lasted for several centuries, and probably included

more than one line of kings. ... It was under the Cassite

dynasty that the kingdom of Assyria first took its rise,--

partly, perhaps, in consequence of the Asiatic conquests of

the Egyptian monarchs of the eighteenth dynasty. ... In B. C.

1400 the Cassite king married an Assyrian princess. Her son,

Kara-Murdas, was murdered by the party opposed to Assyrian

influence, but the usurper, Nazi-bugas, was quickly overthrown

by the Assyrians, who placed a vassal-prince on the throne.

This event may be considered the turning-point in the history

of the kingdoms of the Tigris and Euphrates; Assyria

henceforth takes the place of the worn-out monarchy of

Babylonia, and plays the chief part in the affairs of Western

Asia until the day of its final fall. In little more than a

hundred years later the Assyrians were again in Babylonia, but

this time as avowed enemies to all parties alike; Babylon was

captured by the Assyrian monarch Tiglath-Adar in B. C. 1270,

and the rule of the Cassite dynasty came to an end."

A. H. Sayce, Ancient Empires of the East, appendix 2.

ALSO IN:

G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Chaldea, chapter 8.

See, also, ASSYRIA.

BABYLONIA: B. C. 625-539.

The later Empire.

For more than six centuries after the conquest of B. C. 1270,

Babylonia was obscured by Assyria. During most of that long

period, the Chaldean kingdom was subject to its northern

neighbor and governed by Assyrian viceroys. There were

frequent revolts and some intervals of independence; but they

were brief, and the political life of Babylonia as a distinct

power may be said to have been suspended from 1270 until 625

B. C., when Nabopolassar, who ruled first as the viceroy of

the Assyrian monarch, threw off his yoke, took the attributes

of sovereignty to himself, and joined the Medes in

extinguishing the glory of Nineveh. "The Assyrian Empire was

now shared between Media and Babylon. Nabucudur-utser, or

Nebuchadrezzar, Nabopolassar's eldest son, was the real

founder of the Babylonian empire. The attempt of Pharaoh Necho

to win for Egypt the inheritance of Assyria was overthrown at

the battle of Carchemish, and when Nebuchadrezzar succeeded

his father in B. C. 604, he found himself the undisputed lord

of Western Asia. Palestine was coerced in 602, and the

destruction of Jerusalem in 587 laid a way open for the

invasion of Egypt, which took place twenty years later. Tyre

also underwent a long siege of thirteen years, but it is

doubtful whether it was taken after all. Babylon was now

enriched with the spoils of foreign conquest. It owed as much

to Nebuchadrezzar as Rome owed to Augustus. The buildings and

walls with which it was adorned were worthy of the metropolis

of the world. The palace, now represented by the Kasr mound,

was built in fifteen days, and the outermost of its three

walls was seven miles in circuit. Hanging gardens were

constructed for Queen Amytis, the daughter of the Median

prince, and the great temple of Bel was roofed with cedar and

overlaid with gold. The temple of the Seven Lights, dedicated

to Nebo at Borsippa by an early king, who had raised it to a

height of forty-two cubits, was completed, and various other

temples were erected on a sumptuous scale, both in Babylon and

in the neighbouring cities, while new libraries were

established there. After a reign of forty-two years, six

months and twenty-one days, Nebuchadrezzar died (B. C. 562),

and left the crown to his son Evil-Merodach, who had a short

and inactive reign of three years and thirty-four days, when

he was murdered by his brother-in-law, Nergal-sharezer, the

Neriglissar of the Greeks. ... The chief event of his reign of

four years and four months was the construction of a new

palace. His son, who succeeded him, was a mere boy, and was

murdered after a brief reign of four months. The power now

passed from the house of Nabopolassar,--Nabu-nahid or

Nabonidos, who was raised to the throne, being of another

family. His reign lasted seventeen years and five months, and

witnessed the end of the Babylonian empire,"--which was

overthrown by Cyrus the Great (or Kyros), B. C. 539 [see

PERSIA: B. C. 543-521], and swallowed up in the Persian empire

which he founded.

A. H. Sayce, Ancient Empires of the East, appendix 2.

ALSO IN:

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 4, chapter 15.

G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: The Fourth

Monarchy, chapter 8.

BABYLONIAN JEWS.

See JEWS: B. C. 536-A. D. 50, and A. D. 200-400.

BABYLONIAN TALENT.

See TALENT.

BABYLONIAN TALMUD, The.

See TALMUD.

"BABYLONISH CAPTIVITY" OF THE POPES.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

BACCALAOS, OR BACALHAS, OR BACALHAO COUNTRY.

See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

BACCHIADÆ.

See CORINTH.

BACCHIC FESTIVALS.

See DIONYSIA.

BACENIS, Forest of.

See HERCYNIAN FOREST.

BACON'S REBELLION.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1660-1677.

{241}

BACTRIA.

"Where the edge [of the tableland of Iran] rises to the lofty

Hindu Kush, there lies on its northern slope a favored

district in the region of the Upper Oxus. ... On the banks of

the river, which flows in a north-westerly direction, extend

broad mountain pastures, where support is found in the fresh

mountain air for numerous herds of horses and sheep, and

beneath the wooded hills are blooming valleys. On these slopes

of the Hindu Kush, the middle stage between the table-land and

the deep plain of the Caspian Sea, lay the Bactrians--the Bakhtri

of the Achaemenids, the Bakhdhi of the Avesta. ... In ancient

times the Bactrians were hardly distinguished from nomads; but

their land was extensive and produced fruits of all kinds,

with the exception of the vine. The fertility of the land

enabled the Hellenic princes to make great conquests."

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 6. chapter 2.

The Bactrians were among the people subjugated by Cyrus the

Great and their country formed part of the Persian Empire

until the latter was overthrown by Alexander (see MACEDONIA,

&c.: B. C. 330-323). In the division of the Macedonian

conquests, after Alexander's death, Bactria, with all the

farther east, fell to the share of Seleucus Nicator and formed

part of what came to be called the kingdom of Syria. About 256

B. C. the Bactrian province, being then governed by an

ambitious Greek satrap named Diodotus, was led by him into

revolt against the Syrian monarchy, and easily gained its

independence, with Diodotus for its king (see SELEUCIDÆ: B. C.

281-224). "The authority of Diodotus was confirmed and riveted

on his subjects by an undisturbed reign of eighteen years

before a Syrian army even showed itself in his neighbourhood.

... The Bactrian Kingdom was, at any rate at its commencement,

as thoroughly Greek as that of the Seleucidæ." "From B. C. 206

to about B. C. 185 was the most flourishing period of the

Bactrian monarchy, which expanded during that space from a

small kingdom to a considerable empire"--extending over the

greater part of modern Afghanistan and across the Indus into

the Punjaub. But meantime the neighboring Parthians, who threw

off the Seleucid yoke soon after the Bactrians had done so,

were growing in power and they soon passed from rivalry to

mastery. The Bactrian kingdom was practically extinguished

about 150 B. C. by the conquests of the Parthian Mithridates

I., "although Greek monarchs of the Bactrian series continued

masters of Cabul and Western India till about B. C. 126."

G. Rawlinson, Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 3-5.

BADAJOS: The Geographical Congress (1524).

See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.

BADEN: Early Suevic population.

See SUEVI.

BADEN: A. D. 1801-1803.

Acquisition of territory under the Treaty of Luneville.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

BADEN: A. D. 1805-1806.

Aggrandized by Napoleon.

Created a Grand Duchy.

Joined to the Confederation of the Rhine.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806, and 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).

BADEN: A. D. 1813.

Abandonment of the Rhenish Confederacy and the French

Alliance.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

BADEN: A. D. 1849.

Revolution suppressed by Prussian troops.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1848-1850.

BADEN: A. D. 1866.

The Seven Weeks War.

Indemnity and territorial cession to Prussia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

BADEN: A. D. 1870-1871.

Treaty of Union with the Germanic Confederation, soon

transformed into the German Empire.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER), and 1871.

----------BADEN: End----------

BADEN, OR RASTADT, Treaty of (1714).

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

BADR, OR BEDR, Battle of.

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

BÆCULA, Battle of.

See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

BÆRSÆRK.

See BERSERKER.

BÆTICA.

The ancient name of the province in Spain which afterwards

took from the Vandals the name of Andalusia.

See SPAIN: B. C. 218-25, and A. D. 428;

also TURDETANI, and VANDALS: A. D. 428.

BÆTIS, The.

The ancient name of the Guadalquiver river in Spain.

BAGACUM.

See NERVII.

BAGAUDS, Insurrection of the (A. D. 287).

The peasants of Gaul, whose condition had become very wretched

during the distractions and misgovernment of the third

century, were provoked to an insurrection, A. D. 287, which

was general and alarming. It was a rising which seems to have

been much like those that occurred in France and England

eleven centuries later. The rebel peasants were called

Bagauds,--a name which some writers derive from the Celtic

word "bagad" or "bagat," signifying "tumultuous assemblage."

They sacked and ruined several cities,--taking Autun after a

siege of seven months,--and committed many terrible

atrocities. The Emperor Maximian--colleague of

Diocletian,--succeeded, at last, in suppressing the general

outbreak, but not in extinguishing it every where. There were

traces of it surviving long afterwards.

P. Godwin, History of France, volume 1: Ancient Gaul, book 2,

chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

W. T. Arnold, The Roman System of Provincial

Administration, chapter 4.

See, also, DEDITITIUS.

BAGDAD, A. D. 763.

The founding of the new capital of the Caliphs.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 763.

BAGDAD: A. D. 815-945.

Decline of the Caliphate.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 815-945.

BAGDAD: A. D. 1050.

In the hands of the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1004-1063.

BAGDAD: A. D. 1258.

The Fall of the Caliphate.

Destruction of the city by the Mongols.

In 1252, on the accession of Mangu Khan, grandson of Jingis

Khan, to the sovereignty of the Mongol Empire [see MONGOLS], a

great Kuriltai or council was held, at which it was decided to

send an expedition into the West, for two purposes: (1), to

exterminate the Ismaileans or Assassins, who still maintained

their power in northern Persia; (2), to reduce the Caliph of

Bagdad to submission to the Mongol supremacy. The command of

the expedition was given to Mangu's brother Khulagu, or

Houlagou, who performed his appointed tasks with thoroughness

and unmerciful resolution. In 1257 he made an end of the

Assassins, to the great relief of the whole eastern world,

Mahometan and Christian. In 1258 he passed on to Bagdad,

preceded by an embassy which summoned the Caliph to submit, to

raze the walls of Bagdad, to give up his vain pretensions to

the sovereignty of the Moslem world, and to acknowledge the

Great Khan for his lord. The feeble caliph and his treacherous

and incapable ministers neither submitted nor made vigorous

preparations for defence. As a consequence, Bagdad was taken

after a siege which only excited the ferocity of the Mongols.

They fired the city and slaughtered its people, excepting some

Christians, who are said to have been spared through the

influence of one of Khulagu's wives, who was a Nestorian. The

sack of Bagdad lasted seven days. The number of the dead, we

are told by Raschid, was 800,000. The caliph, Mostassem, with

all his family, was put to death.

H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols,

volume 1, pages 193-201.

----------BAGDAD: End----------

[Image]

I.

Asia Minor

And The

Balkan Peninsula

Near The Close Of The Twelfth Century.

Byzantine Empire.

Selj. Turks.

Servia.

Bulgaria.

Cilician Armenia.

Venetian Possessions.

States Under Latin Rule.

County Palatinate Of Cephalonia.

II

ASIA MINOR

AND THE

BALKAN PENINSULA

IN 1265

(SHOWING RESTORED BYZANTINE

EMPIRE AND SURROUNDING STATES)

III

ASIA MINOR.

IV

TURKISH EMPIRE.

----------End----------

{242}

BAGDAD: A. D. 1258. (Continued)

For a considerable period before this final catastrophe, in

the decline of the Seljuk Empire, the Caliphate at Bagdad had

become once more "an independent temporal state, though,

instead of ruling in the three quarters of the globe, the

caliphs ruled only over the province of Irak Arabi. Their

position was not unlike that of the Popes in recent times,

whom they also resembled in assuming a new name, of a pious

character, at their inauguration. Both the Christian and the

Moslem pontiff was the real temporal sovereign of a small

state; each claimed to be spiritual sovereign over the whole

of the Faithful; each was recognized as such by a large body,

but rejected by others. But in truth the spiritual recognition

of the Abbaside caliphs was more nearly universal in their

last age than it had ever been before." With the fall of

Bagdad fell the caliphate as a temporal sovereignty; but it

survived, or was resurrected, in its spiritual functions, to

become merged, a little later, in the supremacy of the sultan

of the Ottoman Turks. "A certain Ahmed, a real or pretended

Abbasside, fled [from Bagdad] to Egypt, where he was

proclaimed caliph by the title of Al Mostanser Billah, under

the protection of the then Sultan Bibars. He and his

successors were deemed, in spiritual things, Commanders of the

Faithful, and they were found to be a convenient instrument

both by the Mameluke sultans and by other Mahometan princes.

From one of them, Bajazet the Thunderbolt received the title

of Sultan; from another, Selim the Inflexible procured the

cession of his claims, and obtained the right to deem himself

the shadow of God upon earth. Since then, the Ottoman Padishah

has been held to inherit the rights of Omar and of Haroun,

rights which if strictly pressed, might be terrible alike to

enemies, neutrals, and allies."

E. A. Freeman, History and Conquest of the Saracens,

lecture 4.

BAGDAD: A. D. 1393.

Timour's pyramid of heads.

See TIMOUR.

BAGDAD: A. D. 1623-1638.

Taken by the Persians and retaken by the Turks.

Fearful slaughter of the inhabitants.

See TURKS: A. D. 1623-1640.

----------BAGDAD: End----------

BAGISTANA.

See BEHISTUN, ROCK OF.

BAGLIONI, The.

"The Baglioni first came into notice during the wars they

carried on with the Oddi of Perugia in the 14th and 15th

centuries. This was one of those duels to the death, like that

of the Visconti with the Torrensi of Milan, on which the fate

of so many Italian cities of the middle ages hung. The nobles

fought; the townsfolk assisted like a Greek chorus, sharing

the passions of the actors, but contributing little to the

catastrophe. The piazza was the theatre on which the tragedy

was played. In this contest the Baglioni proved the stronger,

and began to sway the state of Perugia after the irregular

fashion of Italian despots. They had no legal right over the

city, no hereditary magistracy, no title of princely

authority. The Church was reckoned the supreme administrator

of the Perugian commonwealth. But in reality no man could set

foot on the Umbrian plain without permission from the

Baglioni. They elected the officers of state. The lives and

goods of the citizens were at their discretion. When a Papal

legate showed his face, they made the town too hot to hold

him. ... It was in vain that from time to time the people rose

against them, massacring Pandolfo Baglioni on the public

square in 1393, and joining with Ridolfo and Braccio of the

dominant house to assassinate another Pandolfo with his son

Niccolo in 1460. The more they were cut down, the more they

flourished. The wealth they derived from their lordships in

the duchy of Spoleto and the Umbrian hill-cities, and the

treasures they accumulated in the service of the Italian

republics, made them omnipotent in their native town. ... From

father to son they were warriors, and we have records of few

Italian houses, except perhaps the Malatesti of Rimini, who

equalled them in hardihood and fierceness. Especially were

they noted for the remorseless vendette which they carried on

among themselves, cousin tracking cousin to death with the

ferocity and and craft of sleuth-hounds. Had they restrained

these fratricidal passions, they might, perhaps, by following

some common policy, like that of the Medici in Florence or the

Bentivogli in Bologna, have successfully resisted the Papal

authority, and secured dynastic sovereignty. It is not until

1495 that the history of the Baglioni becomes dramatic,

possibly because till then they lacked the pen of Matarazzo.

But from this year forward to their final extinction, every

detail of their doings has a picturesque and awful interest.

Domestic furies, like the revel descried by Cassandra above

the palace of Mycenae, seem to take possession of the fated

house; and the doom which has fallen on them is worked out

with pitiless exactitude to the last generation."

J. A. Symonds, Sketches in Italy and Greece,

pages 70-72.

BAGRATIDAE, The.

See ARMENIA: 12th-14th CENTURIES.

BAHAMA ISLANDS: A. D. 1492.

Discovery by Columbus.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1492.

BAHRITE SULTANS.

See EGYPT: A. D. 1250-1517.

BAIÆ.

Baiæ, in Campania, opposite Puteoli on a small bay near

Naples, was the favorite watering place of the ancient Romans.

"As soon as the reviving heats of April gave token of

advancing summer, the noble and the rich hurried from Rome to

this choice retreat; and here, till the raging dogstar forbade

the toils even of amusement, they disported themselves on

shore or on sea, in the thick groves or on the placid lakes,

in litters and chariots, in gilded boats with painted sails,

lulled by day and night with the sweetest symphonies of song

and music, or gazing indolently on the wanton measures of male

and female dancers. The bath, elsewhere their relaxation, was

here the business of the day; ... they turned the pools of

Avernus and Lucrinus into tanks for swimming; and in these

pleasant waters both sexes met familiarly together, and

conversed amidst the roses sprinkled lavishly on their

surface."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 40.

BAINBRIDGE, Commodore William, in the War of 1812.

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

{243}

BAIREUTH, Creation of the Principality of.

See GERMANY: THIRTEENTH CENTURY.

Separation from the Electorate of Brandenburg.

See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1417-1640.

----------BAIREUTH: End----------

BAJAZET I.--Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1389-1402.

Bajazet II., A. D. 1481-1512.

BAKAIRI, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS.

BAKER, Colonel Edward D., Killed at Ball's Bluff.

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

BAKSAR, OR BAXAR, OR BUXAR, Battle of (1764).

See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

BALACLAVA, Battle of.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

BALANCE OF POWER.

In European diplomacy, a phrase signifying the policy which

aimed at keeping an approximate equilibrium of power among the

greater nations.

T. J. Lawrence, International Law, page 126.

BALBINUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 238.

BALBOA'S DISCOVERY OF THE PACIFIC.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1513-1517.

BALCHITAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

BALDWIN OF FLANDERS, The Crusade of.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203.

Baldwin I., Latin Emperor at Constantinople

(Romania), A. D. 1204-1205.

Baldwin II., A. D. 1237-1261.

BALEARIC ISLANDS:

Origin of the Name.

"The name 'Baleares' was derived by the Greeks from 'ballein,'

to throw; but the art was taught them by the Phœnicians, and

the name is no doubt Phœnician."

J. Kenrick, Phœnicia, chapter 4.

For the chief incidents in the history of these islands,

See MINORCA and MAJORCA.

BALIA OF FLORENCE, The.

The chief instrument employed by the Medici to establish their

power in Florence was "the pernicious system of the Parlamento

and Balia, by means of which the people, assembled from time

to time in the public square, and intimidated by the reigning

faction, entrusted full powers to a select committee nominated

in private by the chiefs of the great house. ... Segni says:

'The Parlamento is a meeting of the Florentine people on the

Piazza of the Signory. When the Signory has taken its place to

address the meeting, the piazza is guarded by armed men, and

then the people are asked whether they wish to give absolute

power (Balia) and authority to the citizens named, for their

good. When the answer, yes, prompted partly by inclination and

partly by compulsion, is returned, the Signory immediately

retires into the palace. This is all that is meant by this

parlamento, which thus gives away the full power of effecting

a change in the state."

J. A. Symonds, Renaissance in Italy: Age of the Despots,

page 164, and foot-note.

See, also, FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427, and 1458-1469.

----------BALIA OF FLORENCE: End----------

BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

BALKAN: Ancient History.

The States of southeastern Europe, lately emancipated, for the

most part, from the rule of the Turks, are so associated by a

common history, although remarkably diverse in race, that it

seems expedient to bring them for discussion together. They

occupy mainly the regions known in Roman times as MOESIA,

DACIA and ILLYRICUM, to which names the reader is referred for

some account of the scanty incidents of their early history.

See, also, AVARS.

----------BALKAN: End----------

{244}

Danubian And Balkan States

Showing Changes During

The Present Century

The political condition in 1815 is shown by ROMAN

LETTERS and this style of boundary:

All subsequent change, are shown by ITALIC

LETTERS and this style of boundary:

The Bulgarian boundary according to the Treaty

of San Stefano 1878 is shown thus:

----------Danubian And Balkan States: End----------

BALKAN:

Races existing.

"In no part of Western Europe do we find districts inhabited

by men differing in speech and national feeling, lying in

distinct patches here and there over a large country. A

district like one of our larger counties in which one parish,

perhaps one hundred, spoke Welsh, another Latin, another

English, another Danish, another Old French, another the

tongue of more modern settlers, Flemings, Huguenots or

Palatines, is something which we find hard to conceive, and

which, as applied to our own land or to any other Western

land, sounds absurd on the face of it. When we pass into

South-eastern Europe, this state of things, the very idea of

which seems absurd in the West, is found to be perfectly real.

All the races which we find dwelling there at the beginning of

recorded history, together with several races which have come

in since, all remain, not as mere fragments or survivals, but

as nations, each with its national language and national

feelings, and each having its greater or less share of

practical importance in the politics of the present moment.

Setting aside races which have simply passed through the

country without occupying it, we may say that all the races

which have ever settled in the country are there still as

distinct races. And, though each race has its own particular

region where it forms the whole people or the great majority

of the people, still there are large districts where different

races really live side by side in the very way which seems so

absurd when we try to conceive it in any Western country. We

cannot conceive a Welsh, an English, and a Norman village side

by side; but a Greek, a Bulgarian, and a Turkish village side

by side is a thing which may be seen in many parts of Thrace.

The oldest races in those lands, those which answer to Basques

and Bretons in Western Europe, hold quite another position

from that of Basques and Bretons in Western Europe. They form

three living and vigorous nations, Greek, Albanian, and

Rouman. They stand as nations alongside of the Slaves who came

in later, and who answer roughly to the Teutons in the West,

while all alike are under the rule of the Turk, who has

nothing answering to him in the West. ... When the Romans

conquered the South-eastern lands, they found there three

great races, the Greek, the Illyrian, and the Thracian. Those

three races are all there still. The Greeks speak for

themselves. The Illyrians are represented by the modern

Albanians. The Thracians are represented, there seems every

reason to believe, by the modern Roumans. Now had the whole of

the South-eastern lands been inhabited by Illyrians and

Thracians, those lands would doubtless have become as

thoroughly Roman as the Western lands became. ... But the

position of the Greek nation, its long history and its high

civilization, hindered this.

{245}

The Greeks could not become Romans in any but the most purely

political sense. Like other subjects of the Roman Empire, they

gradually took the Roman name; but they kept their own

language, literature, and civilization. In short we may say

that the Roman Empire in the East became Greek, and that the

Greek nation became Roman. The Eastern Empire and the

Greek-speaking lands became nearly coextensive. Greek became

the one language of the Eastern Roman Empire, while those that

spoke it still called themselves Romans. Till quite lately,

that is till the modern ideas of nationality began to spread,

the Greek-speaking subjects of the Turk called themselves by

no name but that of Romans. ... While the Greeks thus took the

Roman name without adopting the Latin language, another people

in the Eastern peninsula adopted both name and language,

exactly as the nations of the West did. If, as there is good

reason to believe, the modern Roumans represent the old

Thracians, that nation came under the general law, exactly

like the Western nations. The Thracians became thoroughly

Roman in speech, as they have ever since kept the Roman name.

They form in fact one of the Romance nations, just as much as

the people of Gaul or Spain. ... In short, the existence of a

highly civilized people like the Greeks hindered in every way

the influence of Rome from being so thorough in the East as it

was in the West. The Greek nation lived on, and alongside of

itself, it preserved the other two ancient nations of the

peninsula. Thus all three have lived on to the present as

distinct nations. Two of them, the Greeks and the Illyrians,

still keep their own languages, while the third, the old

Thracians, speak a Romance language and call themselves

Roumans. ... The Slavonic nations hold in the East a place

answering to that which is held by the Teutonic nations in the

West. ... But though the Slaves in the East thus answer in

many ways to the Teutons in the West, their position with

regard to the Eastern Empire was not quite the same as that of

the Teutons towards the Western Empire. ... They learned much

from the half Roman, half Greek power with which they had to

do; but they did not themselves become either Greek or Roman,

in the way in which the Teutonic conquerors in the Western

Empire became Roman. ... Thus, while in the West everything

except a few survivals of earlier nations, is either Roman or

Teutonic, in the East, Greeks, Illyrians, Thracians or

Roumans, and Slaves, all stood side by side as distinct

nations when the next set of invaders came, and they remain as

distinct nations still. ... There came among them, in the form

of the Ottoman Turk, a people with whom union was not only

hard but impossible, a people who were kept distinct, not by

special circumstances, but by the inherent nature of the case.

Had the Turk been other than what he really was, he might

simply have become a new nation alongside of the other

South-eastern nations. Being what he was the Turk could not do

this. ... The original Turks did not belong to the Aryan

branch of mankind, and their original speech is not an Aryan

speech. The Turks and their speech belong to altogether

another class of nations and languages. ... Long before the

Turks came into Europe, the Magyars or Hungarians had come;

and, before the Magyars came, the Bulgarians had come. Both

the Magyars and the Bulgarians were in their origin Turanian

nations, nations as foreign to the Aryan people of Europe as

the Ottoman Turks themselves. But their history shows that a

Turanian nation settling in Europe may either be assimilated

with an existing European nation or may sit down as an

European nation alongside of others. The Bulgarians have done

one of these things; the Magyars have done the other; the

Ottoman Turks have done neither. So much has been heard lately

of the Bulgarians as being in our times the special victims of

the Turk that some people may find it strange to hear who the

original Bulgarians were. They were a people more or less

nearly akin to the Turks, and they came into Europe as

barbarian conquerors who were as much dreaded by the nations

of South-eastern Europe as the Turks themselves were

afterwards. The old Bulgarians were a Turanian people, who

settled in a large part of the South-eastern peninsula, in

lands which had been already occupied by Slaves. They came in

as barbarian conquerors; but, exactly as happened to so many

conquerors in Western Europe, they were presently assimilated

by their Slavonic subjects and neighbours. They learned the

Slavonic speech; they gradually lost all traces of their

foreign origin. Those whom we now call Bulgarians are a

Slavonic people speaking a Slavonic tongue, and they have

nothing Turanian about them except the name which they

borrowed from their Turanian masters. ... The Bulgarians

entered the Empire in the seventh century, and embraced

Christianity in the ninth. They rose to great power in the

South-eastern lands, and played a great part in their history.

But all their later history, from a comparatively short time

after the first Bulgarian conquest, has been that of a

Slavonic and not that of a Turanian people. The history of the

Bulgarians therefore shows that it is quite possible, if

circumstances are favourable, for a Turanian people to settle

among the Aryans of Europe and to be thoroughly assimilated by

the Aryan nation among whom they settled."

E. A. Freeman, The Ottoman Power in Europe, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: R. G. Latham, The Nationalities of Europe.

BALKAN: 7th Century.

(Servia, Croatia, Bosnia, Dalmatia and Montenegro.)

The Slavonic settlement.

"No country on the face of our unfortunate planet has been

oftener ravaged, no land so often soaked with the blood of its

inhabitants. At the dawn of history Bosnia formed part of

Illyria. It was said to have been already peopled by Slav

tribes. Rome conquered all this region as far as the Danube,

and annexed it to Dalmatia. Two provinces were formed,

'Dalmatia maritima,' and 'Dalmatia interna,' or 'Illyris

barbara.' Order reigned, and as the interior communicated with

the coast, the whole country flourished. Important ports grew

upon the littoral. ... At the fall of the Empire came the

Goths, then the Avars, who, for two centuries, burned and

massacred, and turned the whole country into a desert. ... In

630 the Croats began to occupy the present Croatia, Slavonia,

and the north of Bosnia, and in 640 the Servians, of the same

race and language, exterminated the Avars and peopled Servia,

Southern Bosnia, Montenegro and Dalmatia. The ethnic situation

which exists to-day dates from this epoch."

E. de Laveleye, The Balkan Peninsula, chapter 3.

{246}

"Heraclius [who occupied the throne of the Eastern Empire at

Constantinople from 610 to 642] appears to have formed the

plan of establishing a permanent barrier in Europe against the

encroachments of the Avars and Sclavonians. ... To accomplish

this object, Heraclius induced the Serbs, or Western

Sclavonians, who occupied the country about the Carpathian

mountains, and who had successfully opposed the extension of

the Avar empire in that direction, to abandon their ancient

seats, and move down to the South into the provinces between

the Adriatic and the Danube. The Roman and Greek population of

these provinces had been driven towards the seacoast by the

continual incursions of the northern tribes, and the desolate

plains of the interior had been occupied by a few Sclavonian

subjects and vassals of the Avars. The most important of the

western Sclavonian tribes who moved southward at the

invitation of Heraclius were the Servians and Croatians, who

settled in the countries still peopled by their descendants.

Their original settlements were formed in consequence of

friendly arrangements, and, doubtless, under the sanction of

an express treaty; for the Sclavonian people of Illyria and

Dalmatia long regarded themselves as bound to pay a certain

degree of territorial allegiance to the Eastern Empire. ...

These colonies, unlike the earlier invaders of the Empire,

were composed of agricultural communities. ... Unlike the

military races of Goths, Huns, and Avars, who had preceded

them, the Servian nations increased and flourished in the

lands which they had colonized; and by the absorption of every

relic of the ancient population, they formed political

communities and independent states, which offered a firm

barrier to the Avars and other hostile nations. ... The states

which they constituted were of considerable weight in the

history of Europe; and the kingdoms or bannats of Croatia,

Servia, Bosnia, Rascia and Dalmatia, occupied for some

centuries a political position very similar to that now held

by the secondary monarchical states of the present day."

G. Finlay, Greece under the Romans, chapter 4, section 6.

See, also, AVARS: THE BREAKING OF THEIR DOMINION;

and SLAVONIC NATIONS: 6TH AND 7TH CENTURIES.

BALKAN: 7th-8th Centuries (Bulgaria).

Vassalage to the Khazars.

See KHAZARS.

BALKAN: 9th Century (Servia).

Rise of the Kingdom.

"At the period alluded to [the latter part of the ninth

century] the Servians did not, like the rest of the

Sclavonians, constitute a distinct state, but acknowledged the

supremacy of the Eastern Roman Emperor: in fact the country

they inhabited had, from ancient times, formed part of the

Roman territory; and it still remained part of the Eastern

Empire when the Western Empire was re-established, at the time

of Charlemagne. The Servians, at the same period, embraced the

Christian faith; but in doing so they did not subject

themselves entirely, either to the empire or church of the

Greeks. .... The Emperor ... permitted the Servians to be

ruled by native chiefs, solely of their own election, who

preserved a patriarchal form of government. ... In the

eleventh century, the Greeks, despite of the stipulations they

had entered into, attempted to take Servia under their

immediate control, and to subject it to their financial

system." The attempt met with a defeat which was decisive.

"Not only did it put a speedy termination to the encroachment

of the Court of Constantinople in imposing a direct

government, but it also firmly established the princely power

of the Grand Shupanes; whose existence depended on the

preservation of the national independence. ... Pope Gregory

VII. was the first who saluted a Grand Shupane as King."

L. Von Ranke, History of Servia, chapter 1.

BALKAN: 9th-16th Centuries (Bosnia, Servia, Croatia, Dalmatia.)

Conversion to Christianity.

The Bogomiles.

Hungarian crusades.

Turkish conquest.

After the Slavonic settlement of Servia, Bosnia, Croatia and

Dalmatia, for a time "the sovereignty of Byzantium was

acknowledged. But the conversion of these tribes, of identical

race, to two different Christian rites, created an antagonism

which still exists. The Croats were converted first by

missionaries from Rome; they thus adopted Latin letters and

Latin ritual; the Servians, on the contrary, and consequently

part of the inhabitants of Bosnia, were brought to

Christianity by Cyril and Methodius, who, coming from

Thessalonica, brought the characters and rites of the Eastern

Church. About 860 Cyril translated the Bible into Slav,

inventing an alphabet which bears his name, and which is still

in use. ... In 874 Budimir, the first Christian King of

Bosnia, Croatia and Dalmatia, called a diet upon the plain of

Dalminium, where he tried to establish a regular organization.

It was about this time that the name Bosnia appeared for the

first time. It is said to be derived from a Slav tribe coming

originally from Thrace. In 905 Brisimir, King of Servia,

annexed Croatia and Bosnia; but this union did not last long.

The sovereignty of Byzantium ceased in these parts after the

year 1000. It was gained by Ladislaus, King of Hungary, about

1091. In 1103 Coloman, King of Hungary, added the titles of

'Rex Ramæ' (Herzegovina), then of 'Rex Bosniæ.' Since then

Bosnia has always been a dependence of the crown of Saint

Stephen. ... About this time some Albigenses came to Bosnia.

who converted to their beliefs a large number of the people

who were called Catare, in German Patarener. In Bosnia they

received and adopted the name of Bogomile, which means 'loving

God.' Nothing is more tragic than the history of this heresy.

... They [the Bogomiles] became in Bosnia a chief factor, both

of its history and its present situation. ... The Hungarian

Kings, in obedience to the Pope, ceaselessly endeavoured to

extirpate them, and their frequent wars of extermination

provoked the hatred of the Bosnians. ... In 1238 the first

great crusade was organized by Bela IV. of Hungary, in

obedience to Pope Gregory VII. The whole country was

devastated, and the Bogomiles nearly all massacred, except a

number who escaped to the forests and mountains. In 1245 the

Hungarian Bishop of Kalocsa himself led a second crusade. In

1280 a third crusade was undertaken by Ladislaus IV., King of

Hungary, in order to regain the Pope's favour. ... About the

year 1300 Paul of Brebir,  'Banus Croatorum et Bosniæ

dominus,' finally added Herzegovina to Bosnia. Under the Ban

Stephen IV., the Emperor of Servia, the great Dushan, occupied

Bosnia, but it soon regained its independence (1355), and

under Stephen Tvartko, who took the title of king, the country

enjoyed a last period of peace and prosperity. ...

{247}

Before his death the Turks appeared on the

frontiers. At the memorable and decisive battle of Kossovo

[see TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389], which gave them Servia, 30,000

Bosnians were engaged, and, though retreating stopped the

conqueror. Under Tvartko II., the second king, who was a

Bogomile, Bosnia enjoyed some years' peace (1326-1443). Then

followed [see TURKS: A. D. 1402-1451] a bloody interlude of

civil war," which invited the Turks and prepared the way for

them. "Mohammed II., who had just taken Constantinople (1453),

advanced with a formidable army of 150,000 men, which nothing

could resist. The country was laid waste: 30,000 young men

were circumcised and enrolled amongst the janissaries; 200,000

prisoners were made slaves; the towns which resisted were

burned; the churches turned into mosques, and the land

confiscated by the conquerors (1463). ... A period of struggle

lasted from 1463 till the definite conquest in 1527 [see

TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481]. ... When the battle of Mohacz (August

29, 1526) gave Hungary to the Ottomans [see HUNGARY: A. D.

1487-1526] Jaitche, the last rampart of Bosnia, whose defence

had inspired acts of legendary courage, fell in its turn in

1527. A strange circumstance facilitated the Mussulman

conquest. To save their wealth, the greater number of

magnates, and almost all the Bogomiles, who were exasperated

by the cruel persecutions directed against them, went over to

Islamism. From that time they became the most ardent followers

of Mohammedanism, whilst keeping the language and names of

their ancestors. They fought everywhere in the forefront of

the battles which gained Hungary for the Turks." Within the

present century the Bosnian Mussulmans have risen in arms

"against all the reforms that Europe, in the name of modern

principles, wrested from the Porte."

E. de Laveleye, The Balkan Peninsula, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: L. von Ranke, History of Servia, &c.

BALKAN: 10th-11th Centuries (Bulgaria).

The First Bulgarian Kingdom and its overthrow by Basil II.

"The glory of the Bulgarians was confined to a narrow scope

both of time and place. In the 9th and 10th centuries they

reigned to the south of the Danube, but the more powerful

nations that had followed their emigration repelled all return

to the north and all progress to the west. ... In the

beginning of the 11th century, the Second Basil [Byzantine or

Greek Emperor, A. D. 976-1025] who was born in the purple,

deserved the appellation of conqueror of the Bulgarians

[subdued by his predecessor, John Zimisces, but still

rebellious]. His avarice was in some measure gratified by a

treasure of 400,000 pounds sterling (10,000 pounds' weight of

gold) which he found in the palace of Lychnidus. His cruelty

inflicted a cool and exquisite vengeance on 15,000 captives

who had been guilty of the defence of their country. They were

deprived of sight, but to one of each hundred a single eye was

left, that he might conduct his blind century to the presence

of their king. Their king is said to have expired of grief and

horror; the nation was awed by this terrible example; the

Bulgarians were swept away from their settlements, and

circumscribed within a narrow province; the surviving chiefs

bequeathed to their children the advice of patience and the

duty of revenge."

E. Gibbon, Decline and fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 55.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

ALSO IN:

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to

1007, book 2, chapter 2.

See, also, CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 907-1043,

and ACHRIDA, THE KINGDOM OF.

BALKAN: A. D. 1096 (Bulgaria).

Hostilities with the First Crusaders.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

BALKAN: 12th Century (Bulgaria).

The Second Bulgarian or Wallachian Kingdom.

"The reign of Isaac II. [Byzantine or Greek Emperor, A. D.

1185-1195] is filled with a series of revolts, caused by his

incapable administration and financial rapacity. The most

important of these was the great rebellion of the Vallachian

and Bulgarian population which occupied the country between

Mount Hæmus and the Danube. The immense population of this

extensive country now separated itself finally from the

government of the Eastern Empire, and its political destinies

ceased to be united with those of the Greeks. A new European

monarchy, called the Vallachian, or Second Bulgarian kingdom,

was formed, which for some time acted an important part in the

affairs of the Byzantine Empire, and contributed powerfully to

the depression of the Greek race. The sudden importance

assumed by the Vallachian population in this revolution, and

the great extent of country then occupied by a people who had

previously acted no prominent part in the political events of

the East, render it necessary to give some account of their

previous history. Four different countries are spoken of under

the name of Vallachia by the Byzantine writers: Great

Vallachia, which was the country round the plain of Thessaly,

particularly the southern and south-western part. White

Vallachia, or the modern Bulgaria, which formed the

Vallachio-Bulgarian kingdom that revolted from Isaac II.;

Black Vallachia, Mavro-Vallachia, or Karabogdon, which is

Moldavia; and Hungarovallachia, or the Vallachia of the

present day, comprising a part of Transylvania. ... The

question remains undecided whether these Vallachians are the

lineal descendants of the Thracian race, who, Strabo tells us,

extended as far south as Thessaly, and as far north as to the

borders of Pannonia; for of the Thracian language we know

nothing."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,

from 716 to 1453, book 3, chapter 3, section 1.

"Whether they were of Slavic origin or of Gaelic or Welsh

origin, whether they were the aboriginal inhabitants of the

country who had come under the influence of the elder Rome,

and had acquired so many Latin words as to overlay their

language and to retain little more than the grammatical forms

and mould of their own language, or whether they were the

descendants of the Latin colonists of Dacia [see DACIA:

TRAJAN'S CONQUEST] with a large mixture of other peoples, are

all questions which have been much controverted. It is

remarkable that while no people living on the south of the

Balkans appear to be mentioned as Wallachs until the tenth

century, when Anna Comnena mentions a village called Ezeban,

near Mount Kissavo, occupied by them, almost suddenly we hear

of them as a great nation to the south of the Balkans. They

spoke a language which differed little from Latin. Thessaly,

during the twelfth century is usually called Great Wallachia.

... Besides the Wallachs in Thessaly, whose descendants are

now called Kutzo-Wallachs, there were the Wallachs in Dacia,

the ancestors of the present Roumanians, and Mavro-Wallachs in

Dalmatia. Indeed, according to the Hungarian and Byzantine

writers, there were during the twelfth century a series of

Wallachian peoples, extending from the Theiss to the Dniester.

... The word Wallach is used by the Byzantine writers as

equivalent to shepherd, and it may be that the common use of a

dialect of Latin by all the Wallachs is the only bond of union

among the peoples bearing that name. They were all

occasionally spoken of by the Byzantine writers as descendants

of the Romans."

E. Pears, The Fall of Constantinople, chapter 3.

{248}

"The classical type of feature, so often met with among

Roumanian peasants, pleads strongly for the theory of Roman

extraction, and if just now I compared the Saxon peasants to

Noah's ark figures rudely carved out of the coarsest wood, the

Roumanians as often remind me of a type of face chiefly to be

seen on cameo ornaments, or ancient signet rings. Take at

random a score of individuals from any Roumanian village, and,

like a handful of antique gems which have been strewn

broadcast over the land, you will there surely find a good

choice of classical profiles worthy to be immortalized on

agate, onyx, or jasper. An air of plaintive melancholy

generally characterizes the Roumanian peasant: it is the

melancholy of a long-subjected and oppressed race. ... Perhaps

no other race possesses in such marked degree the blind and

immovable sense of nationality which characterizes the

Roumanians. They hardly ever mingle with the surrounding

races, far less adopt manners and customs foreign to their

own. This singular tenacity of the Roumanians to their own

dress, manners and customs is probably due to the influence of

their religion [the Greek church], which teaches that any

divergence from their own established rules is sinful."

E. Gérard, Transylvanian Peoples

(Contemporary Review, March, 1887).

BALKAN: A. D. 1341-1356 (Servia).

The Empire of Stephan Dushan.

"In 1341, when John Cantacuzenus assumed the purple [at

Constantinople], important prospects were opened to the

Servians. Cantacuzenus ... went up the mountains and prevailed

upon Stephan Dushan, the powerful king of the Servians, whom

he found in a country palace at Pristina, to join his cause."

As the result of this connection, and by favor of the

opportunities which the civil war and general decline in the

Greek Empire afforded him, Stephan Dushan extended his

dominions over Epirus, Thessaly, Macedonia, and a part of

Thrace. "The Shkypetares in Albania followed his standard;

Arta and Joannina were in his possession. From these points

his Voivodes [Palatines], whose districts may easily be

traced, spread themselves over the whole of the Roumelian

territory on the Vardar and the Marizza, as far as Bulgaria,

which he also regarded as a province of his kingdom. Being in

the possession of so extensive a dominion, he now ventured to

assume a title which was still in dispute between the Eastern

and Western Empires, and could not rightly be claimed by

either. As a Servian Krale, he could neither ask nor expect

the obedience of the Greeks: therefore he called himself

Emperor of the Roumelians--the Macedonian Christ-loving

Czar--and began to wear the tiara. ... Stephan Dushan died

[Dec. 2, 1356] before he had completed the Empire of which he

had laid the foundation, and ere he had strengthened his power

by the bulwark of national institutions."

L. Von Ranke, History of Servia, chapter 1-2.

ALSO IN: M'me E. L. Mijatovich, Kossovo, Int.

BALKAN: A. D. 1389 (Bulgaria).

Conquest by the Turks.

See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1360-1389.

BALKAN: 14th Century (Bulgaria).

Subjection to Hungary.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.

BALKAN: 14th-18th Centuries (Roumania, or Wallachia, and Moldavia).

Four Centuries of Conflict with Hungarians and Turks.

"The Wallacho-Bulgarian monarchy, whatever may have been its

limits, was annihilated by a horde of Tartars about A. D.

1250. The same race committed great havoc in Hungary,

conquered the Kumani, overran Moldavia, Transylvania, &c., and

held their ground there until about the middle of the 14th

century, when they were driven northward by the Hungarian,

Saxon, and other settlers in Transylvania; and with their exit

we have done with the barbarians. ... Until recently the

historians of Roumania have had little to guide them

concerning the events of the period beyond traditions which,

though very interesting, are now gradually giving place to

recorded and authenticated facts. .... It is admitted that the

plains and slopes of the Carpathians were inhabited by

communities ruled over by chieftains of varying power and

influence. Some were banates, as that of Craiova, which long

remained a semi-independent State; then there were petty

voivodes or princes . ... and besides these there were

Khanates, ... some of which were petty principalities, whilst

others were merely the governorships of villages or groups of

them. ... Mircea, one of the heroes of Roumanian history, not

only secured the independent sovereignty, and called himself

Voivode of Wallachia 'by the grace of God,' but in 1389 he

formed an alliance with Poland, and assumed other titles by

the right of conquest. This alliance ... had for its objects

the extension of his dominions, as well as protection against

Hungary on the one hand, and the Ottoman power on the other;

for the ... Turkish armies had overrun Bulgaria, and about the

year 1391 they first made their appearance north of the

Danube. At first the bravery of Mircea was successful in

stemming the tide of invasion;" but after a year or two,

"finding himself between two powerful enemies, the King of

Hungary and the Sultan, Mircea elected to form an alliance

with the latter, and concluded a treaty with him at Nicopolis

(1393), known as the First Capitulation, by which Wallachia

retained its autonomy, but agreed to pay an annual tribute and

to acknowledge the suzerainty of the Sultan. ... According to

several historians Mircea did not adhere to it long, for he is

said to have been in command of a contingent in the army of

the crusaders, and to have been present at the battle of

Nicopolis (1396), in which the flower of the French nobility

fell, and, when he found their cause to be hopeless, once more

to have deserted them and joined the victorious arms of

Bajazet. Of the continued wars and dissensions in Wallachia

during the reign of Mircea it is unnecessary to speak. He

ruled with varying fortunes until 1418 A. D." A Second

Capitulation was concluded, at Adrianople, with the Turks, in

1460, by a later Wallachian voivode, named Vlad.

{249}

It increased the tribute to the Porte, but made no other

important change in the terms of suzerainty. Meantime, in the

neighbouring Moldavian principality, events were beginning to

shape themselves into some historical distinctness. "For a

century after the foundation of Moldavia, or, as it was at

first called, Bogdania, by Bogdan Dragosch [a legendary hero],

the history of the country is shrouded in darkness. Kings or

princes are named, one or more of whom were Lithuanians. ...

At length a prince more powerful than the rest ascended the

throne. ... This was Stephen, sometimes called the 'Great' or

'Good.' ... He came to the throne about 1456 or 1458, and

reigned until 1504, and his whole life was spent in wars

against Transylvania, Wallachia, ... the Turks, and Tartars.

... In 1475 he was at war with the Turks, whom he defeated on

the river Birlad. ... In that year also Stephen ... completely

overran Wallachia. Having reduced it to submission, he placed

a native boyard on the throne as his viceroy, who showed his

gratitude to Stephen by rebelling and liberating the country

from his rule; but he was in his turn murdered by his

Wallachian subjects. In 1476 Stephen sustained a terrible

defeat at the hands of the Ottomans at Valea Alba (the White

Valley), but eight years afterwards, allied with the Poles, he

again encountered [and defeated] this terrible enemy. ...

After the battle of Mohacs [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526] the

Turks began to encroach more openly upon Roumanian

(Moldo-Wallachian) territory. They occupied and fortified

Braila, Giurgevo, and Galatz; interfered in the election of

the princes ... adding to their own influence, and rendering

the princes more and more subservient to their will. This

state of things lasted until the end of the 16th century, when

another hero, Michael the Brave of Wallachia, restored

tranquility and independence to the Principalities, and raised

them for a season in the esteem of surrounding nations."

Michael, who mounted the throne in 1593, formed an alliance

with the Prince of Siebenbürgen (Transylvania) and the voivode

of Moldavia, against the Turks. He began his warfare,

November, 1591, by a wholesale massacre of the Turks in

Bucharest and Jassy. He then took Giurgevo by storm and

defeated the Ottoman forces in a battle at Rustchuk. In 1595,

Giurgevo was the scene of two bloody battles, in both of which

Michael came off victor, with famous laurels. The Turks were

effectually driven from the country. The ambition of the

victorious Michael was now excited, and he invaded

Transylvania (1599) desiring to add it to his dominions. In a

battle "which is called by some the battle of Schellenberg,

and by others of Hermanstadt," he defeated the reigning

prince, Cardinal Andreas, and Transylvania was at his feet. He

subdued Moldavia with equal ease, and the whole of ancient

Dacia became subject to his rule. The Emperor Rudolph, as

suzerain of Transylvania, recognized his authority. But his

reign was brief. Before the close of the year 1600 a rising

occurred in Transylvania, and Michael was defeated in a battle

fought at Miriszlo. He escaped to the mountains and became a

fugitive for some months, while even his Wallachian throne was

occupied by a brother of the Moldavian voivode. At length he

made terms with the Emperor Rudolph, whose authority had been

slighted by the Transylvanian insurgents, and procured men and

money with which he returned in force, crushed his opponents

at Goroszlo, and reigned again as viceroy. But he quarreled

soon with the commander of the imperial troops, General Basta,

and the latter caused him to be assassinated, some time in

August, 1601. ... The History of Moldo-Wallachia during the

17th century ... possesses little interest for English

readers." At the end of the 17th century "another great Power

[Russia] was drawing nearer and nearer to Roumania, which was

eventually to exercise a grave influence upon her destiny. ...

In the beginning of the 18th century there ruled two voivodes,

Constantine Brancovano, in Wallachia, and Demetrius Cantemir

in Moldavia, both of whom had been appointed in the usual

manner under the suzerainty of the Porte; but these princes,

independently of each other, had entered into negotiations

with Peter the Great after the defeat of Charles XII. at

Pultawa (1709), to assist them against the Sultan, their

suzerain, stipulating for their own independence under the

protection of the Czar." Peter was induced to enter the

country with a considerable army [1711], but soon found

himself in a position from which there appeared little chance

of escape. He was extricated only by the cleverness of the

Czarina, who bribed the Turkish commander with her jewels.

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

The Moldavian Voivode escaped with the Russians. The

Wallachian, Brancovano, was seized, taken to Constantinople,

and put to death, along with his four sons. "Stephen

Cantacuzene, the son of his accusers, was made Voivode of

Wallachia, but like his predecessors he only enjoyed the

honour for a brief term, and two years afterwards he was

deposed, ordered to Constantinople, imprisoned, and

decapitated; and with him terminated the rule of the native

princes, who were followed, both in Wallachia and Moldavia, by

the so-called Phanariote governors [see PHANARIOTES] or

farmers-general of the Porte."

J. Samuelson, Roumania, Past and Present,

part 2, chapter 11-13.

BALKAN: 14th-19th Centuries:

(Montenegro) The new Servia.

"The people that inhabit the two territories known on the map

as Servia and Montenegro are one and the same. If you ask a

Montenegrin what language he speaks, he replies 'Serb.' The

last of the Serb Czars fell gloriously fighting at Kossovo in

1389 [see TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389]. To this day the Montenegrin

wears a strip of black silk upon his headgear in memory of

that fatal day. ... The brave Serbs who escaped from Kossovo

found a sanctuary in the mountains that overlook the Bay of

Cattaro. Their leader, Ivo, surnamed Tsernoi (Black), gave the

name of Tzrnogora (Montenegro) to these desert rocks. ...

Servia having become a Turkish province, her colonists created

in Montenegro a new and independent Servia [see TURKS: A. D.

1451-1481]. The memory of Ivo the Black is still green in the

country. Springs, ruins, and caverns are called after him,

and the people look forward to the day when he will reappear

as a political Messiah. But Ivo's descendants proved unworthy

of him; they committed the unpardonable sin of marrying

aliens, and early in the 16th century the last descendant of

Ivo the Black retired to Venice.

{250}

From 1516 to 1697 Montenegro

was ruled by elective Vladikas or Bishops; from 1697 to 1851

by hereditary Vladikas. For the Montenegrins the 16th, 17th

and 18th centuries formed a period of incessant warfare. ...

Up till 1703 the Serbs of the mountain were no more absolutely

independent of the Sultan than their enslaved kinsmen of the

plain. The Havatch or Sultan's slipper tax was levied on the

mountaineers. In 1703 Danilo Petrovitch celebrated his

consecration as a Christian Bishop by ordering the slaughter

of every Mussulman who refused to be baptised. This massacre

took place on Christmas Eve 1703. ... The 17th and 18th

centuries were for Montenegro a struggle for existence. In the

19th century began their struggle for an outlet to the sea.

The fall of Venice would naturally have given the mountaineers

the bay of Cattaro, had not the French stepped in and annexed

Dalmatia." In 1813, the Vladika, Peter I., "with the aid of

the British fleet ... took Cattaro from the French, but

(pursuant to an arrangement between Russia and Austria) was

compelled subsequently to relinquish it to the latter power.

... Peter I. of Montenegro ... died in 1830, at the age of 80.

... His nephew Peter II. was a wise ruler. ... On the death of

Peter II., Prince Danilo, the uncle of the present Prince,

went to Russia to be consecrated Bishop of Montenegro. The

czar seems to have laughed him out of this ancient practice;

and the late Prince instead of converting himself into monk

and bishop returned to his own country and married [1851]. ...

Prince Danilo was assassinated at Cattaro (1860). ... He was

succeeded by his nephew Nicholas."

J. G. C. Minchin, Servia and Montenegro (National Life

and Thought, lecture 19).

"The present form of government in Montenegro is at once the

most despotic and the most popular in Europe--despotic,

because the will of the Prince is the law of the land; and

popular, because the personal rule of the Prince meets all the

wants and wishes of the people. No Sovereign in Europe sits so

firmly on his throne as the Prince of this little State, and

no Sovereign is so absolute. The Montenegrins have no army;

they are themselves a standing army."

J. G. C. Minchin, The Growth of Freedom in the Balkan

Peninsula, chapter 1.

A. A. Paton, Researches on the Danube and the Adriatic,

book 2, chapter 7 (volume 1).

L. Von Ranke, History of Servia, &c.: Slave Provinces of

Turkey, chapter 2-6.

"Montenegro is an extremely curious instance of the way in

which favourable geographical conditions may aid a small

people to achieve a fame and a place in the world quite out of

proportion to their numbers. The Black Mountain is the one

place where a South Sclavonic community maintained themselves

in independence, sometimes seeing their territory overrun by

the Turks, but never acknowledging Turkish authority de jure

from the time of the Turkish Conquest of the 15th century down

to the Treaty of Berlin. Montenegro could not have done that

but for her geographical structure. She is a high mass of

limestone; you cannot call it a plateau, because it is seamed

by many valleys, and rises into many sharp mountain-peaks.

Still, it is a mountain mass, the average height of which is

rather more than 2,000 feet above the sea, with summits

reaching 5,000. It is bare limestone, so that there is hardly

anything grown on it, only grass--and very good grass--in

spots, with little patches of corn and potatoes, and it has

scarcely any water. Its upland is covered with snow in winter,

while in summer the invaders have to carry their water with

them, a serious difficulty when there were no roads, and

active mountaineers fired from behind every rock, a difficulty

which becomes more serious the larger the invading force.

Consequently it is one of the most impracticable regions

imaginable for an invading army. It is owing to those

circumstances that this handful of people--because the

Montenegrins of the 17th century did not number more than

40,000 or 50,000--have maintained their independence. That

they did maintain it is a fact most important in the history

of the Balkan Peninsula, and may have great consequences yet

to come."

J. Bryce, Relations of History and Geography

(Contemporary Review, March, 1886).

BALKAN: 14th-19th Centuries.--(Servia):

The long oppression of the Turk.

Struggle for freedom under Kara Georg and Milosch.

Independence achieved.

The Obrenovitch dynasty.

"The brilliant victories of Stephan Dushan were a misfortune

to Christendom. They shattered the Greek empire, the last

feeble bulwark of Europe, and paved the way for those ultimate

successes of the Asiatic conquerors which a timely union of

strength might have prevented. Stephan Dushan conquered, but

did not consolidate: and his scourging wars were

insufficiently balanced by the advantage of the code of laws

to which he gave his·name. His son Urosh, being a weak and

incapable prince, was murdered by one of the generals of the

army, and thus ended the Neman dynasty, after having subsisted

212 years, and produced eight kings and two emperors. The

crown now devolved on Knes, or Prince Lasar; a connexion of

the house of Neman. ... Of all the ancient rulers of the

country, his memory is held the dearest by the Servians of the

present day." Knes Lasar perished in the fatal battle of

Kossovo, and with him fell the Servian monarchy.

See TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389, 1402-1451, and 1459;

also MONTENEGRO.

"The Turkish conquest was followed by the gradual dispersion

or disappearance of the native nobility of Servia, the last of

whom, the Brankovitch, lived as despots' in the castle of

Semendria up to the beginning of the 18th century. ... The

period preceding the second siege of Vienna was the

spring-tide of Islam conquest. After this event, in 1684,

began the ebb. Hungary was lost to the Porte, and six years

afterwards 37,000 Servian families emigrated into that

kingdom; this first led the way to contact with the

civilization of Germany. ... Servia Proper, for a short time

wrested from the Porte by the victories of Prince Eugene,

again became a part of the dominions of the Sultan."

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1739.

{251}

"But a turbulent militia overawed the government and tyrannized

over the Rayahs. Pasvan Oglou and his bands at Widdin were, at

the end of the last century, in open revolt against the Porte.

Other chiefs had followed his example; and for the first time

the Divan thought of associating Christian Rayahs with the

spahis, to put down these rebels. The Dahis, as these

brigand-chiefs were called, resolved to anticipate the

approaching struggle by a massacre of the most influential

Christians. This atrocious massacre was carried out with

indescribable horrors. ... Kara Georg [Black George], a

peasant, born at Topola about the year 1767, getting timely

information that his name was in the list of the doomed, fled

into the woods, and gradually organized a formidable force. In

the name of the Porte he combated the Dahis, who had usurped

local authority in defiance of the Pasha of Belgrade. The

Divan, little anticipating the ultimate issue of the struggle

in Servia, was at first delighted at the success of Kara

Georg; but soon saw with consternation that the rising of the

Servian peasants grew into a formidable rebellion, and ordered

the Pashas of Bosnia and Scodra to assemble all their

disposable forces and invade Servia. Between 40,000 and 50,000

Bosniacs burst into Servia on the west, in the spring of 1806,

cutting to pieces all who refused to receive Turkish

authority. Kara Georg undauntedly met the storm," defeating

the Turkish forces near Tchoupria, September, 1804, and more

severely two years later (August, 1806) at Shabatz. In

December of the same year he surprised and took Belgrade. "The

succeeding years were passed in the vicissitudes of a guerilla

warfare, neither party obtaining any marked success; and an

auxiliary corps of Russians assisted in preventing the Turks

from making the re-conquest of Servia. ... Kara Georg was now

a Russian lieutenant-general, and exercised an almost

unlimited power in Servia; the revolution, after a struggle of

eight years, appeared to be successful, but the momentous

events then passing in Europe completely altered the aspect of

affairs. Russia, in 1812, on the approach of the countless

legions of Napoleon, precipitately concluded the treaty of

Bucharest, the eighth article of which formally assured a

separate administration to the Servians. Next year, however,

was fatal to Kara Georg. In 1813, the vigour of the Ottoman

empire ... was now concentrated on the resubjugation of

Servia. A general panic seemed to seize the nation; and Kara

Georg and his companions in arms sought a retreat on the

Austrian territory, and thence passed into Wallachia. In 1814,

300 Christians were impaled at Belgrade by the Pasha, and

every valley in Servia presented the spectacle of infuriated

Turkish spahis avenging on the Servians the blood, exile and

confiscation of the ten preceding years. At this period,

Milosh Obrenovitch appears prominently on the political tapis.

He spent his youth in herding the famed swine of Servia; and

during the revolution was employed by Kara Georg to watch the

passes of the Balkans. ... He now saw that a favourable

conjuncture had come for his advancement from the position of

chieftain to that of chief; he therefore lost no time in

making terms with the Turks, offering to collect the tribute,

to serve them faithfully, and to aid them in the resubjugation

of the people. ... He now displayed singular activity in the

extirpation of all the other popular chiefs," until he found

reason to suspect that the Turks were only using him to

destroy him in the end. Then, in 1815, he turned upon them and

raised the standard of revolt. The movement which he headed

was so formidable that the Porte made haste to treat, and

Milosch made favourable terms for himself, being reinstated as

tribute-collector. "Many of the chiefs, impatient at the

speedy submission of Milosh, wished to fight the matter out,

and Kara Georg, in order to give effect to their plans, landed

in Servia. Milosh pretended to be friendly to his designs, but

secretly betrayed his place of concealment to the governor,

whose men broke into the cottage where he slept, and put him

to death."

A. A. Paton, Researches on the Danube and the Adriatic,

book 1, chapter 3.

"In 1817 Milosch was proclaimed hereditary Prince of Servia by

the National Assembly. ... In 1830 the autonomy of Servia was

at length solemnly recognized by the Porte, and Milosch

proclaimed 'the father of the Fatherland.' ... If asked why

the descendants of Milosch still rule over Servia, and not the

descendants of Kara George, my answer is that every step in

Servian progress is connected with the Obrenovitch dynasty.

The liberation of the country, the creation of a peasant

proprietary, the final withdrawal of the Turkish troops from

Belgrade in 1862, the independence of the country, the

extension of its territory, and the making of its

railways,--all of these are among the results of Obrenovitch

rule. The founder of the dynasty had in 1830 a great

opportunity of making his people free as well as independent.

But Milosch had lived too long with Turks to be a lover of

freedom. ... In 1839 Milosch abdicated. The reason for this

step was that he refused to accept a constitution which Russia

and Turkey concocted for him. This charter vested the actual

government of the country in a Senate composed of Milosch's

rivals, and entirely independent of that Prince. ... It was

anti-democratic, no less than anti-dynastic. Milosch was

succeeded first by his son Milan, and on Milan's death by

Michael. Michael was too gentle for the troubled times in

which he lived, and after a two years's reign he too started

upon his travels. ... When Michael crossed the Save, Alexander

Kara Georgevitch was elected Prince of Servia. From 1842 to

1858 the son of Black George lived--he can scarcely be said to

have reigned--in Belgrade. During these 17 years this feeble

son of a strong man did absolutely nothing for his country.

... Late in 1858 he fled from Servia, and Milosch ruled in his

stead. Milosch is the Grand Old Man of Serb history. His mere

presence in Servia checked the intrigues of foreign powers. He

died peacefully in his bed. ... Michael succeeded his father.

... Prince Michael was murdered by convicts in the park at

Topschidera near Belgrade." He "was succeeded (1868) by Milan,

the grandson of Zephrem, the brother of Milosch. As Milan was

barely fourteen years of age, a Regency of three was

appointed."

J. G. C. Minchin, Servia and Montenegro (National Life

and Thought, lecture 19).

ALSO IN: E. de Laveleye, The Balkan Peninsula, chapter 6.

BALKAN: A. D. 1718 (Bosnia).

A part ceded to Austria by the Turks.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.

BALKAN: A. D. 1739 (Bosnia and Roumania).

Entire restoration of Bosnia to the Turks, and Cession of

Austrian Wallachia.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

{252}

BALKAN: 19th Century (Roumania and Servia).

Awakening of a National Spirit.

The effect of historical teaching.

"No political fact is of more importance and interest in

modern continental history than the tenacity with which the

smaller nations of Europe preserve their pride of nationality

in the face of the growing tendency towards the formation of

large, strongly concentrated empires, supported by powerful

armies. Why should Portugal utterly refuse to unite with

Spain? Why do Holland and Belgium cling to their existence as

separate States, in spite of all the efforts of statesmen to

join them? Why do the people of Bohemia and Croatia, of

Finland, and of Poland, refuse to coalesce with the rest of

the population of the empires of which they form but small

sections? Why, finally, do the new kingdoms of Roumania and

Servia show such astonishing vitality? The arguments as to

distinctive race or' distinctive language fail to answer all

these questions. ... This rekindling of the national spirit is

the result chiefly of the development of the new historical

school all over the Continent. Instead of remaining in

ignorance of their past history, or, at best, regarding a mass

of legends as containing the true tale of their countries'

achievements, these small nations have now learnt from the

works of their great historians what the story of their

fatherlands really is, and what title they have to be proud of

their ancestors. These great historians--Herculano, Palacky,

Széchenyi, and the rest--who made it their aim to tell the

truth and not to show off the beauties of a fine literary

style, all belonged to the generation which had its interest

aroused in the history of the past by the novels of Sir Walter

Scott and the productions of the Romantic School, and they all

learnt how history was to be studied, and then written, from

Niebuhr, Von Ranke and their disciples and followers. From

these masters they learnt that their histories were not to be

made interesting at the expense of truth. ... The vitality of

the new historical school in Roumania is particularly

remarkable, for in the Danubian provinces, which form that

kingdom, even more strenuous efforts had been made to stamp

out the national spirit than in Bohemia. The extraordinary

rapidity with which the Roumanian people has reasserted itself

in recent years, is one of the most remarkable facts in modern

European history, and it is largely due to the labours of its

historians. Up till 1822 the Roumanian language was vigorously

proscribed; the rulers of the Danubian provinces permitted

instruction to the upper classes in the language of the rulers

only, and while Slavonic, and in the days of the Phanariots

Greek, was the official and fashionable language, used in

educating the nobility and bourgeois, the peasants were left

in ignorance. Four men, whose names deserve record, first

endeavoured to raise the Roumanian language to a literary

level, and not only studied Roumanian history, but tried to

teach the Roumanian people something of their own early

history. Of these four, George Schinkaï was by far the most

remarkable. He was an inhabitant of Transylvania, a Roumanian

province which still remains subject to Hungary, and he first

thought of trying to revive the Roumanian nationality by

teaching the people their history. He arranged the annals of

his country from A. D. 86 to A. D. 1739 with indefatigable

labour, during the last half of the 18th century, and,

according to Edgar Quinet, in such a truly modern manner,

after such careful weighing of original authorities, and with

such critical power, that he deserves to be ranked with the

creators of the modern historical school. It need hardly be

said that Schinkaï's History was not allowed to be printed by

the Hungarian authorities, who had no desire to see the

Roumanian nationality re-assert itself, and the censor marked

on it 'opus igne, auctor patibulo dignus.' It was not

published until 1853, more than forty years after its

completion, and then only at Jassy, for the Hungarians still

proscribed it in Transylvania. Schinkaï's friend, Peter Major,

was more fortunate in his work, a 'History of the Origin of

the Roumanians in Dacia,' which, as it did not touch on modern

society, was passed by the Hungarian censorship, and printed

at Buda Pesth in 1813. The two men who first taught Roumanian

history in the provinces which now form the kingdom of

Roumania were not such learned men as Schinkaï and Peter

Major, but their work was of more practical importance. In

1813 George Asaky got leave to open a Roumanian class at the

Greek Academy of Jassy, under the pretext that it was

necessary to teach surveying in the Roumanian tongue, because

of the questions which constantly arose in that profession, in

which it would be necessary to speak to the peasants in their

own language, and in his lectures he carefully inserted

lessons in Roumanian history, and tried to arouse the spirit

of the people. George Lazarus imitated him at Bucharest in

1816, and the fruit of this instruction was seen when the

Roumanians partially regained their freedom. The

Moldo-Wallachian princes encouraged the teaching of Roumanian

history, as they encouraged the growth of the spirit of

Roumanian independence, and when the Roumanian Academy was

founded, an historical section was formed with the special

mission of studying and publishing documents connected with

Roumanian history. The modern scientific spirit has spread

widely throughout the kingdom."

H. Morse Stephens, Modern Historians and Small

Nationalities (Contemporary Review, July, 1887).

BALKAN: A. D. 1829 (Roumania, or Wallachia and Moldavia).

Important provisions of the Treaty of Adrianople.

Life Election of the Hospodars.

Substantial independence of the Turk.

See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

BALKAN: A. D. 1856 (Roumania, or Wallachia and Moldavia).

Privileges guaranteed by the Treaty of Paris.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856.

BALKAN: A. D. 1858-1866.

(Roumania or Wallachia and Moldavia).

Union of the two provinces under one Crown.

Accession of Prince Charles of Hohenzollern.

See TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877.

{253}

BALKAN: A. D. 1875-1878.

The Breaking of the Turkish yoke.

Bulgarian atrocities.

Russo-Turkish War.

In 1875, a revolt broke out in Herzegovina. "The efforts made

to suppress the growing revolt strained the already weakened

resources of the Porte, until they could bear up against it no

longer, and the Herzegovinese rebellion proved the last straw

which broke the back of Turkish solvency. ... The hopes of the

insurgents were of course quickened by this catastrophe,

which, as they saw, would alienate much sympathy from the

Turks. The advisers of the Sultan, therefore, thought it

necessary to be conciliatory, and ... they induced him to

issue an Iradé, or circular note, promising the remission of

taxes, and economical and social reforms. ... Europe, however,

had grown tired of the Porte's promises of amendment, and for

some time the Imperial Powers had been laying their heads

together, and the result of their consultations was the

Andrassy Note. The date of this document was December 30th,

1875, and it was sent to those of the Western Powers who had

signed the treaties of 1856. It declared that although the

spirit of the suggested reforms was good, there was some doubt

whether the Porte had the strength to carry them out; Count

Andrassy, therefore, proposed that the execution of the

necessary measures should be placed under the care of a

special commission, half the members of which should be

Mussulmans and half Christians. ... It concluded with a

serious warning, that if the war was not gone with the snow,

'the Governments of Servia and Montenegro, which have had

great difficulty in keeping aloof from the movement, will be

unable to resist the current.' ... It was evident, however,

that this note would have but little or no effect; it

contained no coercive precautions, and accordingly the Porte

quietly allowed the question to drop, and contented himself

with profuse promises. ... So affairs drifted on; the little

war continued to sputter on the frontier; reinforced by

Servians and Montenegrins, the Herzegovinese succeeded in

keeping their enemy at bay, and, instigated, it is said, by

Russian emissaries, put forward demands which the Porte was

unable to accept. ... The Powers, in no wise disconcerted by

the failure of their first attempt to settle the difficulties

between the Sultan and his rebellious subjects, had published

a sequel to the Andrassy Note. There was an informal

conference of the three Imperial Chancellors, Prince Bismarck,

Prince Gortschakoff, and Count Andrassy, at Berlin, in May.

... Then on May 18th the Ambassadors of England, France, and

Italy were invited to Prince Bismarck's house, and the text of

the famous Berlin Memorandum was laid before them. ... While

the three Chancellors were forging their diplomatic

thunderbolt, a catastrophe of such a terrible nature had

occurred in the interior of Turkey that all talk of armistices

and mixed commissions had become stale and unprofitable. The

Berlin Memorandum was not even presented to the Porte; for a

rumour, though carefully suppressed by Turkish officials, was

beginning to leak out that there had been an insurrection of

the Christian population of Bulgaria, and that the most

horrible atrocities had been committed by the Turkish

irregular troops in its suppression. It was communicated to

Lord Derby by Sir Henry Elliot on the 4th of May. ... On June

16th a letter was received from him at the Foreign Office,

saying, 'The Bulgarian insurrection appears to be

unquestionably put down, although I regret to say, with

cruelty, and, in some places, with brutality.' ... A week

afterwards the Constantinople correspondent of the Daily News

... gave the estimates of Bulgarians slain as varying from

18,000 to 30,000, and the number of villages destroyed at

about a hundred. ... That there was much truth in the

statements of the newspaper correspondents was ...

demonstrated beyond possibility of denial as soon as Sir Henry

Elliot's despatches were made public. ... 'I am satisfied,'

wrote Sir Henry Elliot, 'that, while great atrocities have

been committed, both by Turks upon Christians and Christians

upon Turks, the former have been by far the greatest, although

the Christians were undoubtedly the first to commence them.'

... Meanwhile, the Daily News had resolved on sending out a

special commissioner to make an investigation independent of

official reports. Mr. J. A. MacGahan, an American, who had

been one of that journal's correspondents during the

Franco-German War, was the person selected. He started in

company with Mr. Eugene Schuyler, the great authority on the

Central Asian question, who, in the capacity of

Consul-General, was about to prepare a similar statement for

the Honorable Horace Maynard, the United States Minister at

Constantinople. They arrived at Philippopolis on the 25th of

July; where Mr. Walter Baring, one of the Secretaries of the

British Legation at Constantinople, was already engaged in

collecting information. The first of Mr. MacGahan's letters

was dated July the 28th, and its publication in this country

revived in a moment the half-extinct excitement of the

populace. ... Perhaps the passage which was most frequently in

men's mouths at the time was that in which he described the

appearance of the mountain village of Batak. 'We entered the

town. On every side were skulls and skeletons charred among

the ruins, or lying entire where they fell in their clothing.

There were skeletons of girls and women, with long brown hair

hanging to their skulls. We approached the church. There these

remains were more frequent, until the ground was literally

covered by skeletons, skulls, and putrefying bodies in

clothing. Between the church and school there were heaps. The

stench was fearful. We entered the churchyard. The sight was

more dreadful. The whole churchyard, for three feet deep, was

festering with dead bodies, partly covered; hands, legs, arms,

and heads projecting in ghastly confusion. I saw many little

hands, heads, and feet of children three years of age, and

girls with heads covered with beautiful hair. The church was

still worse. The floor was covered with rotting bodies quite

uncovered. I never imagined anything so fearful. ... The town

had 9,000 inhabitants. There now remain 1,200. Many who had

escaped had returned recently, weeping and moaning over their

ruined homes. Their sorrowful wailing could be heard half a

mile off. Some were digging out the skeletons of loved ones. A

woman was sitting moaning over three small skulls, with hair

clinging to them, which she had in her lap. The man who did

this, Achmed Agra, has been promoted, and is still governor of

the district.' An exceeding bitter cry of horror and disgust

arose throughout the country on the receipt of this terrible

news. Mr. Anderson at once asked for information on the

subject, and Mr. Bourke was entrusted with the difficult duty

of replying. He could only read a letter from Mr. Baring, in

which he said that, as far as he had been able to discover,

the proportion of the numbers of the slain was about 12,000

Bulgarians to 500 Turks, and that 60 villages had been wholly

or partially burnt. ... Mr. Schuyler's opinions were, as might

be expected from the circumstance that his investigations had

been shorter than those of Mr. Baring, and that he was

ignorant of the Turkish language--which is that chiefly spoken

in Bulgaria--and was therefore at the mercy of his

interpreter, the more highly coloured. He totally rejected

Lord Beaconsfield's idea that there had been a civil war, and

that cruelties had been committed on both sides. On the

contrary he asserted that 'the insurgent villages made little

or no resistance.

{254}

In many cases they surrendered their arms on the first demand.

... No Turkish women or children were killed in cold blood. No

Mussulman women were, violated. No Mussulmans were tortured.

No purely Turkish village was attacked or burnt. No Mosque was

desecrated or destroyed. The Bashi-Bazouks, on the other hand,

had burnt about 65 villages, and killed at least 15,000

Bulgarians.' The terrible story of the destruction of Batak

was told in language of precisely similar import to that of

Mr. MacGahan, whose narrative the American Consul had never

seen, though there was a slight difference in the numbers of

the massacred. 'Of the 8,000 inhabitants,' he said, 'not 2,000

are known to survive'. ... Abdul Aziz had let loose the hordes

of Bashi-Bazouks on defenceless Bulgaria, but Murad seemed

utterly unable to rectify the fatal error; the province fell

into a state of complete anarchy. ... As Lord Derby remarked,

it was impossible to effect much with an imbecile monarch and

bankrupt treasury. One thing, at any rate, the Turks were

strong enough to do, and that was to defeat the Servians, who

declared war on Turkey on July 1st. ... Up to the last Prince

Milan declared that his intentions were purely pacific; but

the increasing troubles of the Porte enabled him, with some

small chance of success, to avail himself of the anti-Turkish

spirit of his people and to declare war. His example was

followed by Prince Nikita of Montenegro, who set out with his

brave little army from Cettigne on July 2nd. At first if

appeared as if the principalities would have the better of the

struggle. The Turkish generals showed their usual dilatoriness

in attacking Servia, and Tchernaieff, who was a man of

considerable military talent, gave them the good-bye, and cut

them off from their base of operations. This success was,

however, transitory; Abdul Kerim, the Turkish

Commander-in·Chief, drove back the enemy by mere force of

numbers, and by the end of the month he was over the border.

Meanwhile, the hardy Montenegrins had been considerably more

fortunate; but their victories over Mukhtar Pasha were not

sufficiently important to effect a diversion. The Servians

fell back from all their positions of defence, and on

September 1st received a most disastrous beating before the

walls of Alexinatz. ... On September 16th the Porte agreed to

a suspension of hostilities until the 25th. It must be

acknowledged that the Servians used this period of grace

exceedingly ill. Prince Milan was proclaimed by General

Tchernaieff, in his absence and against his will, King of

Servia and Bosnia; and though, on the remonstrance of the

Powers, he readily consented to waive the obnoxious title, the

evil effect of the declaration remained. Lord Derby's

proposals for peace, which were made on September 21st, were

nevertheless accepted by the Sultan when he saw that unanimity

prevailed among the Powers, and he offered in addition to

prolong the formal suspension of hostilities to October 2nd.

This offer the Servians, relying on the Russian volunteers who

were flocking to join Tchernaieff, rejected with some

contempt, and hostilities were resumed. They paid dearly for

their temerity. Tchernaieff's position before Alexinatz was

forced by the Turks after three days' severe fighting;

position after position yielded to them; on October 31st

Alexinatz was taken, and Deligrad was occupied on November

1st. Nothing remained between the outpost of the crescent and

Belgrade, and it seemed as if the new Kingdom of Servia must

perish in the throes of its birth." Russia now invoked the

intervention of the powers, and brought about a conference at

Constantinople, which effected nothing, the Porte rejecting

all the proposals submitted. On the 24th of April, 1877,

Russia declared war and entered upon a conflict with the

Turks, which had for its result the readjustment of affairs in

South-eastern Europe by the Congress and Treaty of Berlin.

Cassell's Illustrated History of England,

volume 10, chapter 22-23.

See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878, and 1878.

BALKAN: A. D. 1878.

Treaty of Berlin.

Transfer of Bosnia to Austria.

Independence of Servia, Montenegro and Roumania.

Division and semi-independence of Bulgaria.

"(1) Bosnia, including Herzegovina, was assigned to Austria

for permanent occupation. Thus Turkey lost a great province of

nearly 1,250,000 inhabitants. Of these about 500,000 were

Christians of the Greek Church, 450,000 were Mohammedans,

mainly in the towns, who offered a stout resistance to the

Austrian troops, and 200,000 Roman Catholics. By the

occupation of the Novi-Bazar district Austria wedged in her

forces between Montenegro and Servia, and was also able to

keep watch over the turbulent province of Macedonia. (2)

Montenegro received less than the San Stefano terms had

promised her, but secured the seaports of Antivari and

Dulcigno. It needed a demonstration of the European fleets off

the latter port, and a threat to seize Smyrna, to make the

Turks yield Dulcigno to the Montenegrians (who alone of all

the Christian races of the peninsula had never been conquered

by the Turks). (3) Servia was proclaimed an independent

Principality, and received the district of Old Servia on the

upper valley of the Morava. (4) Roumania also gained her

independence and ceased to pay any tribute to the Porte, but

had to give up to her Russian benefactors the slice acquired

from Russia in 1856 between the Pruth and the northern mouth

of the Danube. In return for this sacrifice she gained the

large but marshy Dobrudscha district from Bulgaria, and so

acquired the port of Kustendje on the Black Sea. (5) Bulgaria,

which, according to the San Stefano terms, would have been an

independent State as large as Roumania, was by the Berlin

Treaty subjected to the suzerainty of the sultan, divided into

two parts, and confined within much narrower limits. Besides

the Dobrudscha, it lost the northern or Bulgarian part of

Macedonia, and the Bulgarians who dwelt between the Balkans

and Adrianople were separated from their kinsfolk on the north

of the Balkans, in a province called Eastern Roumelia, with

Philippopolis as capital. The latter province was to remain

Turkish, under a Christian governor nominated by the Porte

with the consent of the Powers. Turkey was allowed to occupy

the passes of the Balkans in time of war."

J. H. Rose, A Century of Continental History, chapter 42.

See TURKS: A. D. 1878.

ALSO IN: E. Hertslet, The Map of Europe by Treaty,

volume 4, nos. 518, 524-532.

{255}

BALKAN: A. D. 1878-1891.

Proposed Balkan Confederation and its aims.

"During the reaction against Russia which followed the great

war of 1878, negotiations were actually set on foot with a

view to forming a combination of the Balkan States for the

purpose of resisting Russian aggression. ... Prince Alexander

always favoured the idea of a Balkan Confederation which was

to include Turkey; and even listened to proposals on the part

of Greece, defining the Bulgarian and Greek spheres of

influence in Macedonia. But the revolt of Eastern Roumelia,

followed by the Servo-Bulgarian war and the chastisement of

Greece by the Powers, provoked so much bitterness of feeling

among the rival races that for many years nothing more was

heard of a Balkan Confederation. The idea has lately been

revived under different auspices and with somewhat different

aims. During the past six years the Triple Alliance, with

England, has, despite the indifference of Prince Bismarck,

protected the Balkan States in general, and Bulgaria in

particular from the armed intervention of Russia. It has also

acted the part of policeman in preserving the peace throughout

the Peninsula, and in deterring the young nations from any

dangerous indulgence in their angry passions. The most

remarkable feature in the history of this period has been the

extraordinary progress made by Bulgaria. Since the revolt of

Eastern Roumelia, Bulgaria has been treated by Dame Europa as

a naughty child. But the Bulgarians have been shrewd enough to

see that the Central Powers and England have an interest in

their national independence and consolidation; they have

recognised the truth that fortune favours those who help

themselves, and they have boldly taken their own course, while

carefully avoiding any breach of the proprieties such as might

again bring them under the censure of the European Areopagus.

They ventured, indeed, to elect a Prince of their own choosing

without the sanction of that august conclave; the wiseacres

shook their heads, and prophesied that Prince Ferdinand's days

in Bulgaria might, perhaps, be as many as Prince Alexander's

years. Yet Prince Ferdinand remains on the throne, and is now

engaged in celebrating the fourth anniversary of his

accession; the internal development of the country proceeds

apace, and the progress of the Bulgarian sentiment outside the

country--in other words, the Macedonian propaganda—is not a

whit behind. The Bulgarians have made their greatest strides

in Macedonia since the fall of Prince Bismarck, who was always

ready to humour Russia at the expense of Bulgaria. … What

happened after the great war of 1878? A portion of the

Bulgarian race was given a nominal freedom which was never

expected to be a reality; Russia pounced on Bessarabia,

England on Cyprus, Austria on Bosnia and Herzegovina. France

got something elsewhere, but that is another matter. The

Bulgarians have never forgiven Lord Beaconsfield for the

division of their race, and I have seen some bitter poems upon

the great Israelite in the Bulgarian tongue which many

Englishmen would not care to hear translated. The Greeks have

hated us since our occupation of Cyprus, and firmly believe

that we mean to take Crete as well. The Servians have not

forgotten how Russia, after instigating them to two disastrous

wars, dealt with their claims at San Stefano; they cannot

forgive Austria for her occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina,

and every Servian peasant, as he pays his heavy taxes, or

reluctantly gives a big price for some worthless imported

article, feels the galling yoke of her fiscal and commercial

tyranny. Need it be said how outraged Bulgaria scowls at

Russia, or how Roumania, who won Plevna for her heartless

ally, weeps for her Bessarabian children, and will not be

comforted? It is evident that the Balkan peoples have no

reason to expect much benefit from the next great war, from

the European Conference which will follow it, or from the

sympathy of the Christian Powers. ... What, then, do the

authors of the proposed Confederation suggest as its ultimate

aim and object? The Balkan States are to act independently of

the foreign Powers, and in concert with one another. The Sick

Man's inheritance lies before them, and they are to take it

when an opportunity presents itself. They must not wait for

the great Armageddon, for then all may be lost. If the Central

Powers come victorious out of the conflict, Austria, it is

believed, will go to Salonika; if Russia conquers, she will

plant her standard at Stamboul, and practically annex the

Peninsula. In either ease the hopes of the young nations will

be destroyed forever. It is, therefore, sought to extricate a

portion at least of the Eastern Question from the tangled web

of European politics, to isolate it, to deal with it as a

matter which solely concerns the Sick Man and his immediate

successors. It is hoped that the Sick Man may be induced by

the determined attitude of his expectant heirs to make over to

them their several portions in his lifetime; should he refuse,

they must act in concert, and provide euthanasia for the

moribund owner of Macedonia, Crete, and Thrace. In other

words, it is believed that the Balkan States, if once they

could come to an understanding as regards their claims to what

is left of the Ottoman Empire in Europe, might conjointly, and

without the aid of any foreign Power, bring such pressure to

bear upon Turkey as to induce her to surrender peaceably her

European possessions, and to content herself henceforth with

the position of an Asiatic Power."

J. D. Bourchier, A Balkan Confederation (Fortnightly

Review, Sept., 1891).

BALKAN: A. D. 1878-1886 (Bulgaria):

Reunion of the two Bulgarias.

Hostility of Russia.

Victorious war with Servia.

Abduction and abdication of Prince Alexander.

"The Berlin Treaty, by cutting Bulgaria into three pieces,

contrary to the desire of her inhabitants, and with utter

disregard of both geographical and ethnical fitness, had

prepared the ground from which a crop of never-ending

agitation was inevitably bound to spring--a crop which the

Treaty of San Stefano would have ended in preventing. On

either side of the Balkans, both in Bulgaria and in Roumelia,

the same desire for union existed. Both parties were agreed as

to this, and only differed as to the means by which the end

should be attained. The Liberals were of opinion that the

course of events ought to be awaited; the unionists, on the

other hand, maintained that they should be challenged. It was

a few individuals belonging to the latter party and acting

with M. Karaveloff, the head of the Bulgarian Cabinet, who

prepared and successfully carried out the revolution of

September 18, 1885. So unanimously was this movement supported

by the whole population, including even the Mussulmans, that

it was accomplished and the union proclaimed without the least

resistance being encountered, and without the shedding of one

drop of blood!

{256}

Prince Alexander was in no way made aware of what was in

preparation; but he knew very well that it would be his duty

to place himself at the head of any national movement, and in

a proclamation dated the 19th of September, and addressed from

Tirnova, the ancient capital, he recommended union and assumed

the title of Prince of North and South Bulgaria. The Porte

protested in a circular, dated the 23rd of September, and

called upon the Powers who had signed the Treaty of Berlin, to

enforce the observance of its stipulations. On the 13th of

October, the Powers collectively declare 'that they condemn

this violation of the Treaty, and are sure that the Sultan

will do all that he can, consistently with his sovereign

rights, before resorting to the force which he has at his

disposal.' From the moment when there was opposition to the

use of force, which even the Porte did not seem in a hurry to

employ, the union of the two Bulgarias necessarily became an

accomplished fact. ... Whilst England and Austria both

accepted the union of the two Bulgarias as being rendered

necessary by the position of affairs, whilst even the Porte

(although protesting) was resigned, the Emperor of Russia

displayed a passionate hostility to it, not at all in accord

with the feelings of the Russian nation. ... In Russia they

had reckoned upon all the liberties guaranteed by the

Constitution of Tirnova becoming so many causes of disorder

and anarchy, instead of which the Bulgarians were growing

accustomed to freedom. Schools were being endowed, the country

was progressing in every way, and thus the Bulgarians were

becoming less and less fitted for transformation into Russian

subjects. Their lot was a preferable one, by far, to that of

the people of Russia--henceforth they would refuse to accept

the Russian yoke! ... If, then, Russia wanted to maintain her

high-handed policy in Bulgaria, she must oppose the union and

hinder the consolidation of Bulgarian nationality by every

means in her power; this she has done without scruple of any

sort or kind, as will be shown by a brief epitome of what has

happened recently. Servia, hoping to extend her territory in

the direction of Tru and Widdin, and, pleading regard for the

Treaty of Berlin and the theory of the balance of power,

attacks Bulgaria. On November 14th [17th to 19th?] 1885,

Prince Alexander defends the Slivnitza positions [in a three

days' battle] with admirable courage and strategic skill. The

Roumelian militia, coming in by forced marches of unheard-of

length, perform prodigies of valour in the field. Within eight

days, i. e., from the 20th to the 28th of November, the

Servian army, far greater in numbers, is driven back into its

own territory; the Dragoman Pass is crossed; Pirot is taken by

assault; and Prince Alexander is marching on Nisch, when his

victorious progress is arrested by the Austrian Minister,

under threats of an armed intervention on the part of that

country! On December 21st, an armistice is concluded,

afterwards made into a treaty of pence, and signed at

Bucharest on March 3rd by M. Miyatovitch on behalf of Servia,

by M. Guechoff on behalf of Bulgaria, and by Madgid Pascha for

the Sultan. Prince Alexander did all he could to bring about a

reconciliation with the Czar and even went so far as to

attribute to Russian instructors all the merit of the

victories he had just won. The Czar would not yield. Then the

Prince turned to the Sultan, and with him succeeded in coming

to a direct understanding. The Prince was to be nominated

Governor-General of Roumelia; a mixed Commission was to meet

and modify the Roumelian statutes; more than this, the Porte

was bound to place troops at his disposal in the event of his

being attacked, ... From that date the Czar swore that he

would cause Prince Alexander's downfall. It was said that

Prince Alexander of Battenberg had changed into a sword the

sceptre which Russia had given him and was going to turn it

against his benefactor. Nothing could be more untrue. Up to

the very last moment, he did everything he could to disarm the

anger of the Czar, but what was wanted from him was this--that

he should make Bulgaria an obedient satellite of Russia, and

rather than consent to do so he left Sofia. The story of the

Prince's dethronement by Russian influence, or, as Lord

Salisbury said, by Russian gold, is well known. A handful of

malcontent officers, a few cadets of the École Militaire, and

some of Zankoff's adherents, banding themselves together,

broke into the palace during the night of the 21st of August,

seized the Prince, and had him carried off, without escort, to

Rahova on the Danube, from thence to Reni in Bessarabia, where

he was handed over to the Russians! The conspirators

endeavoured to form a government, but the whole country rose

against them, in spite of the support openly given them by M.

Bogdanoff the Russian diplomatic agent. On the 3rd of

September, a few days after these occurrences, Prince

Alexander returned to his capital, welcomed home by the

acclamations of the whole people; but in answer to a

respectful, not to say too humble, telegram in which he

offered to replace his Crown in the hands of the Czar, that

potentate replied that he ceased to have any relations with

Bulgaria as long as Prince Alexander remained there. Owing to

advice which came, no doubt, from Berlin, Prince Alexander

decided to abdicate; he did so because of the demands of the

Czar and in the interests of Bulgaria."

E. de Laveleye, The Balkan Peninsula, Introduction.

ALSO IN:

A. Von Huhn, The Struggle of the Bulgarians.

J. G. C. Minchin, Growth of Freedom in the Balkan

Peninsula.

A. Koch, Prince Alexander of Battenberg.

BALKAN: A. D. 1879-1889 (Servia).

Quarrels and divorce of King Milan and Queen Natalia.

Abdication of the King.

"In October, 1875. ... Milan, then but twenty-one years old,

married Natalia Kechko, herself but sixteen. The present Queen

was the daughter of a Russian officer and of the Princess

Pulckerie Stourdza. She, as little as her husband, had been

born with a likelihood to sit upon the throne, and a quiet

burgher education had been hers at Odessa. But even here her

great beauty attracted notice, as also her abilities, her

ambition and her wealth. ... At first all went well, to

outward appearance at least, for Milan was deeply enamoured of

his beautiful wife, who soon became the idol of the Servians,

on account of her beauty and her amiability. This affection

was but increased when, a year after her marriage, she

presented her subjects with an heir. But from that hour the

domestic discord began. The Queen had been ill long and

seriously after her boy's birth; Milan had sought distractions

elsewhere. Scenes of jealousy and recrimination grew frequent.

{257}

Further, Servia was then passing through a

difficult political crisis: the Turkish war was in full swing.

Milan, little beloved ever since he began to reign, brought

home no wreaths from this conflict, although his subjects

distinguished themselves by their valour. Then followed in

1882 the raising of the principality into a kingdom--a fact

which left the Servians very indifferent, and in which they

merely beheld the prospect of increased taxes, a prevision

that was realized. As time went on, and troubles increased,

King Milan became somewhat of a despot, who was sustained

solely by the army, itself undermined by factious intrigues.

Meantime the Queen, now grown somewhat callous to her

husband's infidelities, aspired to comfort herself by assuming

a political role, for which she believed herself to have great

aptitude. ... As she could not influence the decisions of the

Prince, the lady entered into opposition to him, and made it

her aim to oppose all his projects. The quarrel spread

throughout the entire Palace, and two inimical factions were

formed, that of the King and that of the Queen. ... Meantime

Milan got deeper and deeper into debt, so that after a time he

had almost mortgaged his territory. ... While the husband and

wife were thus quarrelling and going their own ways, grave

events were maturing in neighbouring Bulgaria. The coup d'état

of Fillippopoli, which annexed Eastern Roumelia to the

principality, enlarged it in such wise that Servia henceforth

had to cut a sorry figure in the Balkans. Milan roused

himself, or pretended to rouse himself, and war was declared

against Bulgaria. ... There followed the crushing defeat of

Slivnitza, in which Prince Alexander of Battenberg carried off

such laurels, and the Servians had to beat a disgraceful and

precipitate retreat. Far from proving himself the hero

Nathalie had dreamed, Milan ... telegraphed to the Queen,

busied with tending the wounded, that he intended to abdicate

forthwith. This cowardly conduct gave the death blow to any

feeling the Queen might have retained for the King. Henceforth

she despised him, and took no pains to hide the fact. ... In

1887 the pair parted without outward scandals, the Queen

taking with her the Crown Prince. ... Florence was the goal of

the Queen's wanderings, and here she spent a quiet winter. ...

The winter ended, Nathalie desired to return to Belgrade.

Milan would not hear of it. ... The Queen went to Wiesbaden in

consequence. While residing there Milan professed to be

suddenly taken with a paternal craving to see his son. ... And

to the shame of the German Government, be it said, they lent

their hand to abducting an only child from his mother. ...

Before ever the excitement about this act could subside in

Europe, Milan ... petitioned the Servian Synod for a divorce,

on the ground of 'irreconcilable mutual antipathy.' Neither by

canonical or civil law was this possible, and the Queen

refused her consent. ... Nor could the divorce have been

obtained but for the servile complaisance of the Servian

Metropolitan Theodore. ... Quick vengeance, however, was in

store for Milan. The international affairs of Servia had grown

more and more disturbed. ... The King, perplexed, afraid,

storm-tossed between divided counsels, highly irritable, and

deeply impressed by Rudolph of Hapsburg's recent suicide,

suddenly announced his intention to abdicate in favour of his

son. ... Without regret his people saw depart from among them

a man who at thirty-five years of age was already decrepit,

and who had not the pluck or ambition to try and overcome a

difficult political crisis. ... After kneeling down before his

son and swearing fidelity to him as a subject (March, 1889),

Milan betook himself off to tour through Europe ... leaving

the little boy and his guardians to extricate themselves. ...

'Now I can see mamma again,' were the first words of the boy

King on hearing of his elevation. ... Three Regents are

appointed to aid the King during his minority."

"Politikos," The Sovereigns, pages 353-363.

----------BALKAN: End----------

BALKH.

Destruction by Jingis Khan (A. D. 1221).

From his conquest of the region beyond the Oxus, Jingis Khan

moved southward with his vast horde of Mongols, in pursuit of

the fugitive Khahrezmian prince, in 1220 or 1221, and invested

the great city of Balkh,--which is thought in the east to be

the oldest city of the world, and which may not impossibly

have been one of the capitals of the primitive Aryan race.

"Some idea of its extent and riches [at that time] may

possibly be formed from the statement that it contained 1,200

large mosques, without including chapels, and 200 public baths

for the use of foreign merchants and travellers--though it has

been suggested that the more correct reading would be 200

mosques and 1,200 baths. Anxious to avert the horrors of storm

and pillage, the citizens at once offered to capitulate; but

Chinghiz, distrusting the sincerity of their submission so

long as Sultan Mohammed Shah was yet alive, preferred to carry

the place by force of arms--an achievement of no great

difficulty. A horrible butchery ensued, and the 'Tabernacle of

Islam'--as the pious town was called--was razed to the ground.

In the words of the Persian poet, quoted by Major Price, 'The

noble city he laid as smooth as the palm of his hand--its

spacious and lofty structures he levelled in the dust.'"

J. Hutton, Central Asia, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols,

volume 1, chapter 3.

BALL'S BLUFF, The Battle of.

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

BALMACEDA'S DICTATORSHIP.

See CHILE: A. D. 1885-1891.

BALNEÆ.

SEE THERMÆ.

BALTHI, OR BALTHINGS.

"The rulers of the Visigoths, though they, like the Amal kings

of the Ostrogoths, had a great house, the Balthi, sprung from

the seed of gods, did not at this time [when driven across the

Danube by the Huns] bear the title of King, but contented

themselves with some humbler designation, which the Latin

historians translated into Judex (Judge)."

T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders,

introduction, chapter 3.

See BAUX, LORDS OF.

BALTIMORE, Lord, and the Colonization of Maryland.

See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632, to 1688-1757.

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1729-1730.

Founding of the city.

See MARYLAND: A. D. 1729-1730.

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1812.

Rioting of the War Party.

The mob and the Federalists.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

{258}

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1814.

British attempt against the city.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814

(AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1860.

The Douglas Democratic and Constitutional Union Conventions.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1861 (April).

The city controlled by the Secessionists.

The Attack on the Sixth Massachusetts Regiment.

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

BALTIMORE: A. D. 1861 (May).

Disloyalty put down.

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

----------BALTIMORE: End----------

BALUCHISTAN.

See Supplement in volume 5.

BAN.--BANAT.

"Ban is Duke (Dux), and Banat is Duchy. The territory

[Hungarian] east of the Carpathians is the Banat of Severin,

and that of the west the Banat of Temesvar. ... The Banat is

the cornucopia, not only of Hungary, but of the whole Austrian

Empire."

A. A. Paton, Researches on the Danube and the Adriatic,

volume 2, page 28.

Among the Croats, "after the king, the most important officers

of the state were the bans. At first there was but one ban,

who was a kind of lieutenant-general; but later on there were

seven of them, each known by the name of the province he

governed, as the ban of Sirmia, ban of Dalmatia, etc. To this

day the royal lieutenant of Croatia (or 'governor-general,' if

that title be preferred) is called the ban."

L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, page 55.

BAN, The Imperial.

See SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.

BANBURY, Battle of.

Sometimes called the "Battle of Edgecote"; fought July

26,1469, and with success, by a body of Lancastrian

insurgents, in the English "Wars of the Roses," against the

forces of the Yorkist King, Edward IV. The latter were routed

and most of their leaders' taken and beheaded.

Mrs. Hookham, Life and Times of Margaret of Anjou,

volume 2, chapter 5.

BANDA ORIENTAL, The.

Signifying the "Eastern Border"; a name applied originally by

the Spaniards to the country on the eastern side of Rio de La

Plata which afterwards took the name of Uruguay.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

BANGALORE, Capture of (1790).

See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

BANK OF ST. GEORGE.

See GENOA: A. D. 1407-1448.

BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1833-1836.

BANKS, General Nathaniel P.

Command in the Shenandoah.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

Siege and Capture of Port Hudson.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (MAY-JULY:

ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

Red River Expedition.

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

BANKS OF AMSTERDAM, ENGLAND AND FRANCE.

The Bank of Amsterdam was founded in 1609, and replaced, after

1814. by the Netherland Bank. The Bank of England was founded

in 1694 by William Patterson, a Scotchman; and that of France

by John Law, in 1716. The latter collapsed with the

Mississippi scheme and was revived in 1776.

J. J. Lalor, editor. Cyclopædia of Political Science.

ALSO IN: J. W. Gilbart, History and Principles of

Banking, section 1 and 3.

BANKS, Wildcat.

See WILDCAT BANKS.

BANNACKS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

BANNERETS, Knights.

See KNIGHTS BANNERETS.

BANNOCKBURN, Battle of (A. D. 1314).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1314; and 1314-1328.

BANT, The.

See GAU.

BANTU TRIBES, The.

See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS;

and AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

BAPTISTS.

See article in the Supplement, volume 5.

BAR, A. D. 1659-1735.

The Duchy ceded to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661, and 1733-1735.

BAR: The Confederation of.

See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.

BARATHRUM, The.

"The barathrum, or 'pit of punishment' at Athens, was a deep

hole like a well into which criminals were precipitated. Iron

hooks were inserted in the sides; which tore the body in

pieces as it fell. It corresponded to the Ceadas of the

Lacedæmonians."

G. Rawlinson, History of Herodotus,

book 7, section 133, note.

BARBADOES: A. D. 1649-1660.

Royalist attitude towards the English Commonwealth.

See NAVIGATION LAWS: A. D. 1651.

BARBADOES: A. D. 1656.

Cromwell's colony of disorderly women.

See JAMAICA: A. D. 1655.

BARBARIANS.

See ARYANS.

BARBAROSSAS, Piracies and dominion of.

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1516-1535.

----------BARBAROSSAS: End----------

BARBARY STATES.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 647-709.

Mahometan conquest of North Africa.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 908-1171.

The Fatimite Caliphs.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 908-1171.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1415.

Siege and capture of Ceuta by the Portuguese.

See PORTUGAL: A. D.1415-1460.

{259}

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1505-1510.

Spanish conquests on the coast.

Oran.

Bugia.

Algiers.

Tripoli.

In 1505, a Spanish expedition planned and urged by Cardinal

Ximenes, captured Mazarquiver, an "important port, and

formidable nest of pirates, on the Barbary coast, nearly

opposite Carthagena." In 1509, the same energetic prelate led

personally an expedition of 4,000 horse and 10,000 foot, with

a fleet of 10 galleys and 80 smaller vessels, for the conquest

of Oran. "This place, situated about a league from the former,

was one of the most considerable of the Moslem possessions in

the Mediterranean, being a principal mart for the trade of the

Levant," and maintained a swarm of cruisers, which swept the

Mediterranean "and made fearful depredations on its populous

borders." Oran was taken by storm. "No mercy was shown; no

respect for age or sex; and the soldiery abandoned themselves

to all the brutal license and ferocity which seem to stain

religious wars above every other. ... No less than 4,000 Moors

were said to have fallen in the battle, and from 5,000 to

8,000 were made prisoners. The loss of the Christians was

inconsiderable." Recalled to Spain by King Ferdinand, Ximenes

left the army in Africa under the command of Count Pedro

Navarro. Navarro's "first enterprise was against Bugia (January

13th, 1510), whose king, at the head of a powerful army, he

routed in two pitched battles, and got possession of his

flourishing capital (January 31st). Algiers, Teunis, Tremecin,

and other cities on the Barbary coast, submitted one after

another to the Spanish arms. The inhabitants were received as

vassals of the Catholic king. ... They guaranteed, moreover,

the liberation of all Christian captives in their dominions;

for which the Algerines, however, took care to indemnify

themselves, by extorting the full ransom from their Jewish

residents. ...On the 26th of July, 1510, the ancient city of

Tripoli, after a most bloody and desperate defence,

surrendered to the arms of the victorious general, whose name

had now become terrible along the whole northern borders of

Africa. In the following month, however (Aug. 28th), he met

with a serious discomfiture in the island of Gelves, where

4,000 of his men were slain or made prisoners. This check in

the brilliant career of Count Navarro put a final stop to the

progress of the Castilian arms in Africa under Ferdinand. The

results obtained, however, were of great importance. ... Most

of the new conquests escaped from the Spanish crown in later

times, through the imbecility or indolence of Ferdinand's

successors. The conquests of Ximenes, however, were placed in

so strong a posture of defence as to resist every attempt for

their recovery by the enemy, and to remain permanently

incorporated with the Spanish empire."

W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Ferdinand and

Isabella, chapter 21 (volume 3).

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1516-1535.

Piratical dominion of the Barbarossas in Algiers.

Establishment of Turkish sovereignty.

Seizure of Tunis by the Corsairs and its conquest by Charles V.

"About the beginning of the 16th century, a sudden revolution

happened, which, by rendering the states of Barbary formidable

to the Europeans, hath made their history worthy of more

attention. This revolution was brought about by persons born

in a rank of life which entitled them to act no such

illustrious part. Hornc and Hayradin, the sons of a potter in

the isle of Lisbos, prompted by a restless and enterprising

spirit, forsook their father's trade, ran to sea, and joined a

crew of pirates. They soon distinguished themselves by their

valor and activity, and, becoming masters of a small

brigantine, carried on their infamous trade with such conduct

and success that they assembled a fleet of 12 galleys, besides

many vessels of smaller force. Of this fleet Hornc, the elder

brother, called Barbarossa from the red color of his beard,

was admiral, and Hayradin second in command, but with almost

equal authority. They called themselves the friends of the

sea, and the enemies of all who sail upon it; and their names

soon became terrible from the Straits of the Dardanelles to

those of Gibraltar. ... They often carried the prizes which

they took on the coasts of Spain and Italy into the ports of

Barbary, and, enriching the inhabitants by the sale of their

booty, and the thoughtless prodigality of their crews, were

welcome guests in every place at which they touched. The

convenient situation of these harbours, lying so near the

greatest commercial states at that time in Christendom, made

the brothers wish for an establishment in that country. An

opportunity of accomplishing this quickly presented itself

[1516], which they did not suffer to pass unimproved." Invited

by Entemi, king of Algiers, to assist him in taking a Spanish

fort which had been built in his neighbourhood, Barbarossa was

able to murder his too confiding employer, master the Algerine

kingdom and usurp its crown. "Not satisfied with the throne

which he had acquired, he attacked the neighbouring king of

Tremecen, and, having vanquished him in battle, added his

dominions to those of Algiers. At the same time, he continued

to infest the coasts of Spain and Italy with fleets which

resembled the armaments of a great monarch, rather than the

light squadrons of a corsair. Their frequent cruel

devastations obliged Charles [the Fifth--the great Emperor and

King of Spain: 1519-1555], about the beginning of his reign,

to furnish the Marquis de Comares, governor of Oran, with

troops sufficient to attack him." Barbarossa was defeated in

the ensuing war, driven from Tremecen, and slain [1518]. "His

brother Hayradin, known likewise by the name of Barbarossa,

assumed the sceptre of Algiers with the same ambition and

abilities, but with better fortune. His reign being

undisturbed by the arms of the Spaniards, which had full

occupation in the wars among the European powers, he regulated

with admirable prudence the interior police of his kingdom,

carried on his naval operations with great vigour, and

extended his conquests on the continent of Africa. But

perceiving that the Moors and Arabs submitted to his

government with reluctance, and being afraid that his

continual depredations would one day draw upon him the arms of

the Christians, he put his dominions under the protection of

the Grand Seignior [1519], and received from him [with the

title of Bey, or Beylerbey] a body of Turkish soldiers

sufficient for his domestic as well as foreign enemies. At

last, the fame of his exploits daily increasing, Solyman

offered him the command of the Turkish fleet. ... Barbarossa

repaired to Constantinople, and ... gained the entire

confidence both of the sultan and his vizier. To them he

communicated a scheme which he had formed of making himself

master of Tunis, the most flourishing kingdom at that time on

the coast of Africa; and this being approved of by them, he

obtained whatever he demanded for carrying it into execution.

His hopes of success in this undertaking were founded on the

intestine divisions in the kingdom of Tunis." The last king of

that country, having 34 sons by different wives, had

established one of the younger sons on the throne as his

successor. This young king attempted to put all of his

brothers to death; but Alraschid, who was one of the eldest,

escaped and fled to Algiers. Barbarossa now proposed to the

Turkish sultan to attack Tunis on the pretence of vindicating

the rights of Alraschid. His proposal was adopted and carried

out; but even before the Turkish expedition sailed.

{260}

Alraschid himself disappeared--a prisoner, shut up in the

Seraglio--and was never heard of again. The use of his name,

however, enabled Barbarossa to enter Tunis in triumph, and the

betrayed inhabitants discovered too late that he came as a

viceroy, to make them the subjects of the sultan. "Being now

possessed of such extensive territories, he carried on his

depredations against the Christian states to a greater extent

and with more destructive violence than ever. Daily complaints

of the outrages committed by his cruisers were brought to the

emperor by his subjects, both in Spain and Italy. All

Christendom seemed to expect from him, as its greatest and

most fortunate prince, that he would put an end to this new

and odious species of oppression. At the same time

Muley-Hascen, the exiled king of Tunis, ... applied to Charles

as the only person who could assert his rights in opposition

to such a formidable usurper." The Emperor, accordingly, in

1535, prepared a great expedition against Tunis, drawing men

and ships from every part of his wide dominions--from Spain,

Italy, Germany and the Netherlands. "On the 16th of July the

fleet, consisting of near 500 vessels, having on board above

30,000 regular troops, set sail from Cagliari, and, after a

prosperous navigation, landed within sight of Tunis." The fort

of Goletta, commanding the bay, was invested and taken; the

corsair's fleet surrendered, and Barbarossa, advancing boldly

from Tunis to attack the invaders, was overwhelmingly beaten,

and fled, abandoning his capital. Charles's soldiers rushed

into the unfortunate town, escaping all restraint, and making

it a scene of indescribable horrors. "Above 30,000 of the

innocent inhabitants perished on that unhappy day, and 10,000

were carried away as slaves. Muley-Hascen took possession of a

throne surrounded with carnage, abhorred by his subjects, on

whom he had brought such calamities." Before quitting the

country, Charles concluded a treaty with Muley-Hascen, under

which the latter acknowledged that he held his kingdom in fee

of the crown of Spain, doing homage to the Emperor as his

liege, and maintaining a Spanish garrison in the Goletta. He

also released, without ransom, all the Christian slaves in his

dominions, 20,000 in number, and promised to detain in

servitude no subject of the Emperor thereafter. He opened his

kingdom to the Christian religion, and to free trade, and

pledged himself to exclude Turkish corsairs from his ports.

W. Robertson, History of the Reign of Charles V.,

book 5 (volume 2).

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1541.

The disastrous expedition of Charles V. against Algiers.

Encouraged, and deceived, by his easy success at Tunis, the

emperor, Charles V., determined, in 1541, to undertake the

reduction of Algiers, and to wholly exterminate the

freebooters of the north African coast. Before his

preparations were completed, "the season unfortunately was far

advanced, on which account the Pope entreated, and Doria

conjured him not to expose his whole armament to a destruction

almost unavoidable on a wild shore during the violence of the

autumnal gales. Adhering, however, to his plan with determined

obstinacy, he embarked at Porto Venere. ... The force ...

which he had collected ... consisted of 20,000 foot and 2,000

horse, mostly veterans, together with 3,000 volunteers. ...

Besides these there had joined his standard 1,000 soldiers

sent by the Order of St. John, and led by 100 of its most

valiant knights. Landing near Algiers without opposition,

Charles immediately advanced towards the town. To oppose the

invaders, Hassan had only 800 Turks, and 5,000 Moors, partly

natives of Africa, and partly refugees from Spain. When

summoned to surrender he, nevertheless, returned a fierce and

haughty answer. But with such a handful of troops, neither his

desperate courage nor consummate skill in war could have long

resisted forces superior to those which had formerly defeated

Barbarossa at the head of 60,000 men." He was speedily

relieved from danger, however, by an opportune storm, which

burst upon the region during the second day after Charles's

debarkation. The Spanish camp was flooded; the soldiers

drenched, chilled, sleepless and dispirited. In this condition

they were attacked by the Moors at dawn, and narrowly escaped

a rout. "But all feeling of this disaster was soon obliterated

by a more affecting spectacle. As the tempest continued with

unabated violence, the full light of day showed the ships, on

which alone their safety depended, driving from their anchors,

dashing against one another, and many of them forced on the

rocks, or sinking in the waters. In less than an hour, 15

ships of war and 140 transports, with 8,000 men, perished

before their eyes; and such of the unhappy sailors as escaped

the fury of the sea, were murdered by the Arabs as soon as

they reached land." With such ships as he could save, Doria

sought shelter behind Cape Matafuz, sending a message to the

emperor, advising that he follow with the army to that point.

Charles could not do otherwise than act according to the

suggestion; but his army suffered horribly in the retreat,

which occupied three days. "Many perished by famine, as the

whole army subsisted chiefly on roots and berries, or on the

flesh of horses, killed for that purpose by the emperor's

orders; numbers were drowned in the swollen brooks; and not a

few were slain by the enemy." Even after the army had regained

the fleet, and was reembarked, it was scattered by a second

storm, and several weeks passed before the emperor reached his

Spanish dominions, a wiser and a sadder man.

M. Russell, History of the Barbary States, chapter 8.

ALSO IN: W. Robertson, History of the Reign of Charles V.,

book 6 (volume 2.)

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.

The pirate Dragut and his exploits.

Turkish capture of Tripoli.

Disastrous Christian attempt to recover the place.

Dragut, or Torghūd, a native of the Caramanian coast, opposite

the island of Rhodes, began his career as a Mediterranean

corsair some time before the last of the Barbarossas quitted

the scene and was advanced by the favor of the Algerine. In

1540 he fell into the hands of one of the Dorias and was bound

to the oar as a galley-slave for three years,--which did not

sweeten his temper toward the Christian world. In 1543 he was

ransomed, and resumed his piracies, with more energy than

before. "Dragut's lair was at the island of Jerba [called

Gelves, by the Spaniards]. ... Not content with the rich

spoils of Europe, Dragut took the Spanish outposts in Africa,

one by one--Susa, Sfax, Monastir; and finally set forth to

conquer 'Africa.'

{261}

It is not uncommon in Arabic to call a country and its capital

by the same name. ... 'Africa' meant to the Arabs the province

of Carthage or Tunis and its capital, which was not at first

Tunis but successively Kayrawan and Mahdiya. Throughout the

later middle ages the name 'Africa' is applied by Christian

writers to the latter city. ... This was the city which Dragut

took without a blow in the spring of 1550. Mahdiya was then in

an anarchic state, ruled by a council of chiefs, each ready to

betray the other, and none owing the smallest allegiance to

any king, least of all the despised king of Tunis, Hamid, who

had deposed and blinded his father, Hasan, Charles V. 's

protégé. One of these chiefs let Dragut and his merry men into

the city by night. ... So easy a triumph roused the emulation

of Christendom. ... Don Garcia de Toledo dreamed of outshining

the Corsair's glory. His father, the Viceroy of Naples, the

Pope, and others, promised their aid, and old Andrea Doria

took the command. After much delay and consultation a large

body of troops was conveyed to Mahdiya and disembarked on June

28, 1550. Dragut, though aware of the project, was at sea,

devastating the Gulf of Genoa, and paying himself in advance

for any loss the Christians might inflict in Africa: his

nephew Hisar Reis commanded in the city. When Dragut returned,

the siege had gone on for a month," but he failed in

attempting to raise it and retired to Jerba. Mahdiya was

carried by assault on the 8th of September. "Next year, 1551,

Dragut's place was with the Ottoman navy, then commanded by

Sinan Pasha. ... With nearly 150 galleys or galleots, 10,000

soldiers, and numerous siege-guns, Sinan and Dragut sailed out

of the Dardanelles--whither bound no Christian could tell.

They ravaged, as usual, the Straits of Messina, and then

revealed the point of attack by making direct for Malta." But

the demonstration made against the strong fortifications of

the Knights of St. John was ill-planned and feebly executed;

it was easily repelled. To wipe out his defeat, Sinan "sailed

straight for Tripoli, some 64 leagues away. Tripoli was the

natural antidote to Malta: for Tripoli, too, belonged to the

Knights of St. John--much against their will--inasmuch as the

Emperor had made their defence of this easternmost Barbary

state a condition of their tenure of Malta." But the

fortifications of Tripoli were not strong enough to resist the

Turkish bombardment, and Gaspard de Villiers, the commandant,

was forced to surrender (August 15th), "on terms, as he

believed, identical with those which Suleyman granted to the

Knights of Rhodes. But Sinan was no Suleyman; moreover, he was

in a furious rage with the whole Order. He put the

garrison--all save a few--in chains and carried them off to

grace his triumph at Stambol. Thus did Tripoli fall once more

into the hands of the Moslems. ... The misfortunes of the

Christians did not end here. Year after year the Ottoman fleet

appeared in Italian waters. ... Unable as they felt themselves

to cope with the Turks at sea, the powers of Southern Europe

resolved to strike one more blow on land, and recover Tripoli.

A fleet of nearly 100 galleys and ships, gathered from Spain,

Genoa, 'the Religion,' the Pope, from all quarters, with the

Duke de Medina-Celi at their head, assembled at Messina. ...

Five times the expedition put to sea; five times was it driven

back by contrary winds. At last, on February 10, 1560, it was

fairly away for the African coast. Here fresh troubles awaited

it. Long delays in crowded vessels had produced their

disastrous effects: fevers and scurvy and dysentery were

working their terrible ravages among the crews, and 2,000

corpses were flung into the sea. It was impossible to lay

siege to Tripoli with a diseased army, and when actually in

sight of their object the admirals gave orders to return to

Jerba. A sudden descent quickly gave them the command of the

beautiful island. ... In two months a strong castle was built,

with all scientific earthworks, and the admiral prepared to

carry home such troops as were not needed for its defence.

Unhappily for him, he had lingered too long. ... He was about

to prepare for departure when news came that the Turkish fleet

had been seen at Goza. Instantly all was panic. Valiant

gentlemen forgot their valour, forgot their coolness. ...

Before they could make out of the strait ... the dread Corsair

[Dragut] himself, and Ochiali, and Piali Pasha were upon them.

Then ensued a scene of confusion that baffles description.

Despairing of weathering the north side of Jerba the

panic-stricken Christians ran their ships ashore and deserted

them, never stopping even to set them on fire. ... On rowed

the Turks; galleys and galleons to the number of 56 fell into

their hands; 18,000 Christians bowed down before their

scimitars; the beach on that memorable 11th of May, 1560, was

a confused medley of stranded ships, helpless prisoners, Turks

busy in looting men and galleys--and a hideous heap of mangled

bodies. The fleet and the army which had sailed from Messina

... were absolutely lost."

S. Lane-Poole, Story of the Barbary Corsairs.

ALSO IN: W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Philip II.,

book 4, chapter 1.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1563-1565.

Repulse of the Moors from Oran and Mazarquiver.

Capture of Penon de Velez.

In the spring of 1563 a most determined and formidable attempt

was made by Hassem, the dey of Algiers, to drive the Spaniards

from Oran and Mazarquiver, which they had held since the

African conquests of Cardinal Ximenes. The siege was fierce

and desperate; the defence most heroic. The beleaguered

garrisons held their ground until a relieving expedition from

Spain came in sight, on the 8th of June, when the Moors

retreated hastily. In the summer of the next year the

Spaniards took the strong island fortress of Penon de Velez,

breaking up one more nest of piracy and strengthening their

footing on the Barbary coast. In the course of the year

following they blocked the mouth of the river Tetuan, which

was a place of refuge for the marauders.

W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Philip II.,

book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2).

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1565.

Participation in the Turkish Siege of Malta.

Death of Dragut.

See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1,130-1565.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1570-1571.

War with the Holy League of Spain, Venice and the Pope.

The Battle of Lepanto.

See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1572-1573.

Capture of Tunis by Don John of Austria.

Its recovery, with Goletta, by the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1572-1573.

{262}

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1579.

Invasion of Morocco by Sebastian of Portugal.

His defeat and death.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1579-1580.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1664-1684.

Wars of France against the piratical powers.

Destructive bombardments of Algiers.

"The ancient alliance of the crown of France with the Ottoman

Porte, always unpopular, and less necessary since France had

become so strong, was at this moment [early in the reign of

Louis XIV.] well-nigh broken, to the great satisfaction both

of the Christian nations of the South and of the Austrian

empire. ... Divers plans were proposed in the King's council

for attacking the Ottoman power on the Moorish coasts, and for

repressing the pirates, who were the terror of the

merchant-shipping and maritime provinces. Colbert induced the

king to attempt a military settlement among the Moors as the

best means of holding them in check. A squadron commanded by

the Duke de Beaufort ... landed 5,000 picked soldiers before

Jijeli (or Djigelli), a small Algerine port between Bougiah

and Bona. They took possession of Jijeli without difficulty

(July 22, 1664); but discord arose between Beaufort and his

officers; they did not work actively enough to fortify

themselves," and before the end of September they were obliged

to evacuate the place precipitately. "The success of

Beaufort's squadron, commanded under the duke by the

celebrated Chevalier Paul, ere long effaced the impression of

this reverse: two Algerine flotillas were destroyed in the

course of 1665." The Dey of Algiers sent one of his French

captives, an officer named Du Babinais, to France with

proposals of peace, making him swear to return if his mission

failed. The proposals were rejected; Du Babinais was loyal to

his oath and returned--to suffer death, as he expected, at the

hands of the furious barbarian. "The devotion of this Breton

Regulus was not lost: despondency soon took the place of anger

in the heart of the Moorish chiefs. Tunis yielded first to the

guns of the French squadron, brought to bear on it from the

Bay of Goletta. The Pacha and the Divan of Tunis obligated

themselves to restore all the French slaves they possessed, to

respect French ships, and thenceforth to release all Frenchmen

whom they should capture on foreign ships. .... Rights of

aubaine, and of admiralty and shipwreck, were suppressed as

regarded Frenchmen (November 25, 1665). The station at Cape

Negro was restored to France. ... Algiers submitted, six'

months after, to nearly the same conditions imposed on it by

Louis XIV.: one of the articles stipulated that French

merchants should be treated as favorably as any foreign

nation, and even more so (May 17, 1666). More than 3,000

French slaves were set at liberty." Between 1669 and 1672,

Louis XIV. was seriously meditating a great war of conquest

with the Turks and their dependencies, but preferred, finally,

to enter upon his war with Holland, which brought the other

project to naught. France and the Ottoman empire then remained

on tolerably good terms until 1681, when a "squadron of

Tripolitan corsairs having carried off a French ship on the

coast of Provence, Duquesne, at the head of seven vessels,

pursued the pirates into the waters of Greece. They took

refuge in the harbor of Scio. Duquesne summoned the Pacha of

Scio to expel them. The Pacha refused, and fired on the French

squadron, when Duquesne cannonaded both the pirates and the

town with such violence that the Pacha, terrified, asked for a

truce, in order to refer the matter to the Sultan (July 23,

1681). Duquesne converted the attack into a blockade. At the

news of this violation of the Ottoman territory, the Sultan,

Mahomet IV., fell into a rage ... and dispatched the

Captain-Pacha to Scio with 32 galleys. Duquesne allowed the

Turkish galleys to enter the harbor, then blockaded them with

the pirates, and declared that he would burn the whole if

satisfaction were not had of the Tripolitans. The Divan

hesitated. War was about to recommence with the Emperor; it

was not the moment to kindle it against France." In the end

there was a compromise, and the Tripolitans gave up the French

vessel and the slaves they had captured, promising, also, to

receive a French consul at Tripoli. "During this time another

squadron, commanded by Château-Renault, blockaded the coasts

of Morocco, the men of Maghreb having rivalled in depredations

the vassals of Turkey. The powerful Emperor of Morocco, Muley

Ismael, sent the governor of Tetuan to France to solicit peace

of Louis XIV. The treaty was signed at Saint-Germain, January

29, 1682, on advantageous conditions," including restitution

of French slaves. "Affairs did not terminate so amicably with

Algiers. From this piratical centre had proceeded the gravest

offenses. A captain of the royal navy was held in slavery

there, with many other Frenchmen. It was resolved to inflict a

terrible punishment on the Algerines. The thought of

conquering Algeria had more than once presented itself to the

king and Colbert, and they appreciated the value of this

conquest; the Jijeli expedition had been formerly a first

attempt. They did not, however, deem it incumbent on them to

embark in such an enterprise; a descent, a siege, would have

required too great preparations; they had recourse· to another

means of attack. The regenerator of the art of naval

construction, Petit-Renau, invented bomb-ketches expressly for

the purpose. ... July 23, 1682, Duquesne anchored before

Algiers, with 11 ships, 15 galleys, 5 bomb-ketches, and

Petit-Renau to guide them. After five weeks' delay caused by

bad weather, then by a fire on one of the bomb-ketches, the

thorough trial took place during the night of August 30. The

effect was terrible: a part of the great mosque fell on the

crowd that had taken refuge there. During the night of

September 3-4, the Algerines attempted to capture the

bomb-ketches moored at the entrance of their harbor; they were

repulsed, and the bombardment continued. The Dey wished to

negotiate; the people, exasperated, prevented him. The wind

shifting to the northwest presaged the equinoctial storm;

Duquesne set sail again, September 12. The expedition had not

been decisive. It was begun anew. June 18, 1683, Duquesne

reappeared in the road of Algiers; he had, this time, seven

bomb-ketches instead of five. These instruments of

extermination had been perfected in the interval. The nights

of June 26-27 witnessed the overthrow of a great number of

houses, several mosques, and the palace of the Dey. A thousand

men perished in the harbor and the town." The Dey opened

negotiations, giving up 700 French slaves, but was killed by

his Janizaries, and one Hadgi-Hussein proclaimed in his stead.

{263}

"The bombardment was resumed with increasing violence. ... The

Algerines avenged themselves by binding to the muzzles of

their guns a number of Frenchmen who remained in their hands.

... The fury of the Algerines drew upon them redoubled

calamities. ... The bombs rained almost without intermission.

The harbor was strewn with the wrecks of vessels. The city was

... a heap of bloody ruins." But "the bomb-ketches had

exhausted their ammunition. September was approaching.

Duquesne again departed; but a strong blockading force was

kept up, during the whole winter, as a standing threat of the

return of the 'infernal vessels.' The Algerines finally bowed

their head, and, April 25, 1684, peace was accorded by

Tourville, the commander of the blockade, to the Pacha, Dey,

Divan, and troops of Algiers. The Algerines restored 320

French slaves remaining in their power, and 180 other

Christians claimed by the King; the janizaries only which had

been taken from them were restored; they engaged to make no

prizes within ten leagues of the coast of France, nor to

assist the other Moorish corsairs at war with France; to

recognize the precedence of the flag of France over all other

flags, &c., &c.; lastly, they sent an embassy to carry their

submission to Louis XIV.; they did not, however, pay the

damages which Duquesne had wished to exact of them."

H. Martin, History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,

volume 1, chapter 4 and 7.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1785-1801.

Piratical depredations upon American commerce.

Humiliating treaties and tribute.

The example of resistance given by the United States.

"It is difficult for us to realize that only 70 years ago the

Mediterranean was so unsafe that the merchant ships of every

nation stood in danger of being captured by pirates, unless

they were protected either by an armed convoy or by tribute

paid to the petty Barbary powers. Yet we can scarcely open a

book of travels during the last century without mention being

made of the immense risks to which everyone was exposed who

ventured by sea from Marseilles to Naples. ... The European

states, in order to protect their commerce, had the choice

either of paying certain sums per head for each captive, which

in reality was a premium on capture, or of buying entire

freedom for their commerce by the expenditure of large sums

yearly. The treaty renewed by France, in 1788, with Algiers,

was for fifty years, and it was agreed to pay $200,000

annually, besides large presents distributed according to

custom every ten years, and a great sum given down. The peace

of Spain with Algiers is said to have cost from three to five

millions of dollars. There is reason to believe that at the

same time England was paying an annual tribute of about

$280,000. England was the only power sufficiently strong on

the sea to put down these pirates; but in order to keep her

own position as mistress of the seas she preferred to leave

them in existence in order to be a scourge to the commerce of

other European powers, and even to support them by paying a

sum so great that other states might find it difficult to make

peace with them. When the Revolution broke out, we [of the

United States of America] no longer had the safeguards for our

commerce that had been given to us by England, and it was

therefore that in our very first negotiations for a treaty

with France we desired to have an article inserted into the

treaty, that the king of France should secure the inhabitants

of the United States, and their vessels and effects, against

all attacks or depredations from any of the Barbary powers. It

was found impossible to insert this article in the treaty of

1778, and instead of that the king agreed to  'employ his good

offices and interposition in order to provide as fully and

efficaciously as possible for the benefit, conveniency and

safety of the United States against the princes and the states

of Barbary or their subjects.'"

Direct negotiations between the United States and the

piratical powers were opened in 1785, by a call which Mr.

Adams made upon the Tripolitan ambassador. The latter

announced to Mr. Adams that "'Turkey, Tripoli, Tunis, Algiers,

and Morocco were the sovereigns of the Mediterranean; and that

no nation could navigate that sea without a treaty of peace

with them.' ... The ambassador demanded as the lowest price

for a perpetual peace 30,000 guineas for his employers and

£3,000 for himself; that Tunis would probably treat on the

same terms; but he could not answer for Algiers or Morocco.

Peace with all four powers would cost at least $1,000,000, and

Congress had appropriated only $80,000. ... Mr. Adams was

strongly opposed to war, on account of the expense, and

preferred the payment of tribute. ... Mr. Jefferson quite as

decidedly preferred war." The opinion in favor of a trial of

pacific negotiations prevailed, and a treaty with the Emperor

of Morocco was concluded in 1787. An attempt at the same time

to make terms with the Del of Algiers and to redeem a number

of American captives in his hands, came to nothing. "For the

sake of saving a few thousand dollars, fourteen men were

allowed to remain in imprisonment for ten years. ... In

November, 1793, the number of [American] prisoners at Algiers

amounted to 115 men, among whom there remained only ten of the

original captives of 1785." At last, the nation began to

realize the intolerable shame of the matter, and, "on January

2, 1794, the House of Representatives resolved that a 'naval

force adequate for the protection of the commerce of the

United States against the AIgerine forces ought to be

provided.' In the same year authority was given to build six

frigates, and to procure ten smaller vessels to be equipped as

galleys. Negotiations, however, continued to go on," and in

September, 1795, a treaty with the Dey was concluded. "In

making this treaty, however, we had been obliged to follow the

usage of European powers--not only pay a large sum for the

purpose of obtaining peace, but an annual tribute, in order to

keep our vessels from being captured in the future. The total

cost of fulfilling the treaty was estimated at $992,463. 25."

E. Schuyler, American Diplomacy, part 4.

"The first treaty of 1795, with Algiers, which was negotiated

during Washington's administration, cost the United States,

for the ransom of American captives, and the Dey's

forbearance, a round $1,000,000, in addition to which an

annuity was promised. Treaties with other Barbary States

followed, one of which purchased peace from Tripoli by the

payment of a gross sum. Nearly $2,000,000 had been squandered

thus far in bribing these powers to respect our flag, and

President Adams complained in 1800 that the United States had

to pay three times the tribute imposed upon Sweden and

Denmark.

{264}

But this temporizing policy only made matters worse. Captain

Bainbridge arrived at Algiers in 1800, bearing the annual

tribute money for the Dey in a national frigate, and the Dey

ordered him to proceed to Constantinople to deliver Algerine

dispatches. 'English, French, and Spanish ships of war have

done the same,' said the Dey, insolently, when Bainbridge and

the American consul remonstrated. 'You pay me tribute because

you are my slaves.' Bainbridge had to obey. ... The lesser

Barbary States were still more exasperating. The Bashaw of

Tripoli had threatened to seize American vessels unless

President Adams sent him a present like that bestowed upon

Algiers. The Bashaw of Tunis made a similar demand upon the

new President [Jefferson]. ... Jefferson had, while in

Washington's cabinet, expressed his detestation of the method

hitherto favored for pacifying these pests of commerce; and,

availing himself of the present favorable opportunity, he sent

out Commodore Dale with a squadron of three frigates and a

sloop of war, to make a naval demonstration on the coast of

Barbary. ... Commodore Dale, upon arriving at Gibraltar [July,

1801], found two Tripolitan cruisers watching for American

vessels; for, as had been suspected, Tripoli already meditated

war. The frigate Philadelphia blockaded these vessels, while

Bainbridge, with the frigate Essex, convoyed American vessels

in the Mediterranean. Dale, in the frigate President,

proceeded to cruise off Tripoli, followed by the schooner

Experiment, which presently captured a Tripolitan cruiser of

14 guns after a spirited action. The Barbary powers were for a

time overawed, and the United States thus set the first

example among Christian nations of making reprisals instead of

ransom the rule of security against these commercial

marauders. In this respect Jefferson's conduct was applauded

at home by men of all parties."

J. Schouler, History of the U. S.,

chapter 5, section 1 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

R. L. Playfair, The Scourge of Christendom, chapter 16.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1803-1805.

American War with the pirates of Tripoli.

"The war with Tripoli dragged tediously along, and seemed no

nearer its end at the close of 1803 than 18 months before.

Commodore Morris, whom the President sent to command the

Mediterranean squadron, cruised from port to port between May,

1802, and August, 1803, convoying merchant vessels from

Gibraltar to Leghorn and Malta, or lay in harbor and repaired

his ships, but neither blockaded nor molested Tripoli; until

at length, June 21, 1803, the President called him home and

dismissed him from the service. His successor was Commodore

Preble, who Sept. 12, 1803, reached Gibraltar with the

relief-squadron which Secretary Gallatin thought unnecessarily

strong. ... He found Morocco taking part with Tripoli. Captain

Bainbridge, who reached Gibraltar in the 'Philadelphia' August

24, some three weeks before Preble arrived, caught in the

neighborhood a Moorish cruiser of 22 guns with an American

brig in its clutches. Another American brig had just been

seized at Mogador. Determined to stop this peril at the

outset, Preble united to his own squadron the ships which he

had come to relieve, and with this combined force, ... sending

the 'Philadelphia' to blockade Tripoli, he crossed to Tangiers

October 6, and brought the Emperor of Morocco to reason. On

both sides prizes and prisoners were restored, and the old

treaty was renewed, This affair consumed time; and when at

length Preble got the 'Constitution' under way for the

Tripolitan coast, he spoke [to] a British frigate off the

Island of Sardinia, which reported that the 'Philadelphia' had

been captured October 21, more than three weeks before.

Bainbridge, cruising off Tripoli, had chased a Tripolitan

cruiser into shoal water, and was hauling off, when the

frigate struck on a reef at the mouth of the harbor. Every

effort was made without success to float her; but at last she

was surrounded by Tripolitan gunboats, and Bainbridge struck

his flag. The Tripolitans, after a few days work, floated the

frigate, and brought her under the guns of the castle. The

officers became prisoners of war, and the crew, in number 300

or more, were put to hard labor. The affair was in no way

discreditable to the squadron. ... The Tripolitans gained

nothing except the prisoners; for at Bainbridge's suggestion

Preble, some time afterward, ordered Stephen Decatur, a young

lieutenant in command of the 'Enterprise', to take a captured

Tripolitan craft renamed the 'Intrepid,' and with a crew of 75

men to sail from Syracuse, enter the harbor of Tripoli by

night, board the 'Philadelphia,' and burn her under the castle

guns. The order was literally obeyed. Decatur ran into the

harbor at ten o'clock in the night of February 16, 1804, boarded

the frigate within half gun-shot of the Pacha's castle, drove

the Tripolitan crew overboard, set the ship on fire, remained

alongside until the flames were beyond control, and then

withdrew without losing a man."

H. Adams, History of the United States: Administration of

Jefferson, volume 2, chapter 7.

"Commodore Preble, in the meantime, hurried his preparations

for more serious work, and on July 25th arrived off Tripoli

with a squadron, consisting of the frigate Constitution, three

brigs, three schooners, six gunboats, and two bomb vessels.

Opposed to him were arrayed over a hundred guns mounted on

shore batteries, nineteen gunboats, one ten-gun brig, two

schooners mounting eight guns each, and twelve galleys.

Between August 3rd and September 3rd five attacks were made,

and though the town was never reduced, substantial damage was

inflicted, and the subsequent satisfactory peace rendered

possible. Preble was relieved by Barron in September, not

because of any loss of confidence in his ability, but from

exigencies of the service, which forbade the Government

sending out an officer junior to him in the relief squadron

which reinforced his own. Upon his return to the United States

he was presented with a gold medal, and the thanks of Congress

were tendered him, his officers, and men, for gallant and

faithful services. The blockade was maintained vigorously, and

in 1805 an attack was made upon the Tripolitan town of Derna,

by a combined land and naval force; the former being under

command of Consul-General Eaton, who had been a captain in the

American army, and of Lieutenant O'Bannon of the Marines. The

enemy made a spirited though disorganized defence, but the

shells of the war-ships drove them from point to point, and

finally their principal work was carried by the force under

O'Bannon and Midshipman Mann. Eaton was eager to press

forward, but he was denied reinforcements and military stores,

and much of his advantage was lost.

{265}

All further operations were, however, discontinued in June,

1805, when, after the usual intrigues, delays, and

prevarications, a treaty was signed by the Pasha, which

provided that no further tribute should be exacted, and that

American vessels should be forever free of his rovers.

Satisfactory as was this conclusion, the uncomfortable fact

remains that tribute entered into the settlement. After all

the prisoners had been exchanged man for man, the Tripolitan

Government demanded, and the United States paid, the handsome

sum of sixty thousand dollars to close the contract. This

treaty, however, awakened the conscience of Europe, and from

the day it was signed the power of the Barbary Corsairs began

to wane. The older countries saw their duty more clearly, and

ceased to legalize robbery on the high seas."

S. Lane-Poole, Story of the Barbary Corsairs, chapter 20.

ALSO IN:

J. F. Cooper, History of the U. S. Navy,

volume 1, chapter 18 and volume 2, chapter 1-7.

J. F. Cooper, Life of Preble.

A. S. Mackenzie, Life of Decatur, chapter 3-7.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1815.

Final War of Algiers with the United States.

Death-blow to Algerine piracy.

"Just as the late war with Great Britain broke out, the Dey of

Algiers, taking offense at not having received from America

the precise articles in the way of tribute demanded, had

unceremoniously dismissed Lear, the consul, had declared war,

and had since captured an American vessel, and reduced her

crew to slavery. Immediately after the ratification of the

treaty with England, this declaration had been reciprocated.

Efforts had been at once made to fit out ships, new and old,

including several small ones lately purchased for the proposed

squadrons of Porter and Perry, and before many weeks Decatur

sailed from New York with the Guerrière, Macedonian, and

Constellation frigates, now released from blockade; the

Ontario, new sloop of war, four brigs, and two schooners. Two

days after passing Gibralter, he fell in with and captured an

Algerine frigate of 44 guns, the largest ship in the Algerine

navy, which struck to the Guerrière after a running fight of

twenty-five minutes. A day or two after, an Algerine brig was

chased into shoal water on the Spanish coast, and captured by

the smaller vessels. Decatur having appeared off Algiers, the

terrified Dey at once consented to a treaty, which he

submitted to sign on Decatur's quarter deck, surrendering all

prisoners on hand, making certain pecuniary indemnities,

renouncing all future claim to any American tribute or

presents, and the practice, also, of reducing prisoners of war

to slavery. Decatur then proceeded to Tunis and Tripoli, and

obtained from both indemnity for certain American vessels

captured under the guns of their forts by British cruisers

during the late war. The Bey of Tripoli being short of cash,

Decatur agreed to accept in part payment the restoration of

liberty to eight Danes and two Neapolitans held as slaves."

R. Hildreth, History of the U. S., Second Series, chapter 30

(volume 3).

ALSO IN:

A. S. Mackenzie, Life of Decatur, chapter 13-14.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1816.

Bombardment of Algiers by Lord Exmouth.

Relinquishment of Christian slavery in Algiers, Tripolis and

Tunis.

"The corsairs of Barbary still scoured the Mediterranean; the

captives, whom they had taken from Christian vessels, still

languished in captivity in Algiers; and, to the disgrace of

the civilized world, a piratical state was suffered to exist

in its very centre. ... The conclusion of the war [of the

Coalition against Napoleon and France] made the continuance of

these ravages utterly intolerable. In the interests of

civilization it was essential that piracy should be put down;

Britain was mistress of the seas, and it therefore devolved

upon her to do the work. ... Happily for this country the

Mediterranean command was held by an officer [Lord Exmouth]

whose bravery and skill were fully equal to the dangers before

him. ... Early in 1816 Exmouth was instructed to proceed to

the several states of Barbary; to require them to recognize

the cession of the Ionian Islands to Britain; to conclude

peace with the kingdoms of Sardinia and Naples; and to abolish

Christian slavery. The Dey of Algiers readily assented to the

two first of these conditions; the Beys of Tripolis and Tunis

followed the example of the Dey of Algiers, and in addition

consented to refrain in future from treating prisoners of war

as slaves. Exmouth thereupon returned to Algiers, and

endeavoured to obtain a similar concession from the Dey. The

Dey pleaded that Algiers was subject to the Ottoman Porte,"

and obtained a truce of three months in order to confer with

the Sultan. But meantime the Algerines made an unprovoked

attack upon a neighbouring coral fishery, which was protected

by the British flag, massacring the fishermen and destroying

the flag. This brought Exmouth back to Algiers in great haste,

with an ultimatum which he delivered on the 27th of August. No

answer to it was returned, and the fleet (which had been

joined by some vessels of the Dutch navy) sailed into battle

range that same afternoon. "The Algerines permitted the ships

to move into their stations. The British reserved their fire

till they could deliver it with good effect. A crowd of

spectators watched the ships from the shore; and Exmouth waved

his hat to them to move and save themselves from the fire.

They had not the prudence to avail themselves of his timely

warning. A signal shot was fired by the Algerines from the

mole. The 'Queen Charlotte' replied by delivering her entire

broadside. Five hundred men were struck down by the first

discharge. ... The battle, which had thus begun at two o'clock

in the afternoon, continued till ten o'clock in the evening.

By that time half Algiers had been destroyed; the whole of the

Algerine navy had been burned; and, though a few of the

enemy's batteries still maintained a casual fire, their

principal fortifications were crumbling ruins; the majority of

their guns were dismounted." The Dey humbled himself to the

terms proposed by the British commander. "On the first day of

September Exmouth had the satisfaction of acquainting his

government with the liberation of all the slaves in the city

of Algiers, and the restitution of the money paid since the

commencement of the year by the Neapolitan and Sardinian

Governments for the redemption of slaves." He had also

extorted from the piratical Dey a solemn declaration that he

would, in future wars, treat all prisoners according to the

usages of European nations. In the battle which won these

important results, "128 men were killed and 690 wounded on

board the British fleet; the Dutch lost 13 killed and 52

wounded."

S. Walpole, History of England from 1815,

chapter 2 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

H. Martineau, History of the Thirty Years Peace,

book 1, chapter 6 (volume l).

L. Hertslet, Collection of Treaties and Conventions,

volume 1.

{266}

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830.

French conquest of Algiers.

"During the Napoleonic wars, the Dey of Algiers supplied grain

for the use of the French armies; it was bought by merchants

of Marseilles, and there was a dispute about the matter which

was unsettled as late as 1829. Several instalments had been

paid; the dey demanded payment in full according to his own

figures, while the French government, believing the demand

excessive, required an investigation. In one of the numerous

debates on the subject, Hussein Pasha, the reigning dey,

became very angry, struck the consul with a fan, and ordered

him out of the house. He refused all reparation for the

insult, even on the formal demand of the French government,

and consequently there was no alternative but war." The

expedition launched from the port of Toulon, for the

chastisement of the insolent Algerine, "comprised 37,500 men,

3,000 horses, and 180 pieces of artillery. ... The sea-forces

included 11 ships of the line, 23 frigates, 70 smaller

vessels, 377 transports, and 230 boats for landing troops.

General Bourmont, Minister of War, commanded the expedition,

which appeared in front of Algiers on the 13th of June, 1830."

Hussein Pasha "had previously asked for aid from the Sultan of

Turkey, but that wily ruler had blankly refused. The beys of

Tunis and Tripoli had also declined to meddle with the

affair." The landing of the French was effected safely and

without serious opposition, at Sidi-Ferruch, about 16 miles

west of Algiers. The Algerine army, 40,000 to 50,000 strong,

commanded by Aga Ibrahim, son-in-law of the dey, took its

position on the table-land of Staoueli, overlooking the

French, where it waited while their landing was made. On the

19th General Bourmont was ready to advance. His antagonist,

instead of adhering to the waiting attitude, and forcing the

French to attack him, on his own ground, now went out to meet

them, and flung his disorderly mob against their disciplined

battalions, with the result that seldom fails. "The Arab loss

in killed and wounded was about 3,000, ... while the French

loss was less than 500. In little more than an hour the battle

was over, and the Osmanlis were in full and disorderly

retreat." General Bourmont took possession of the Algerine

camp at Staoueli, where he was again attacked on the 24th of

June, with a similar disastrous result to the Arabs. He then

advanced upon the city of Algiers, established his army in

position behind the city, constructed batteries, and opened,

on the 4th of July, a bombardment so terrific that the dey

hoisted the white flag in a few hours. "Hussein Pasha hoped to

the last moment to retain his country and its independence by

making liberal concessions in the way of indemnity for the

expenses of the war, and offered to liberate all Christian

slaves in addition to paying them for their services and

sufferings. The English consul tried to mediate on this basis,

but his offers of mediation were politely declined. ... It was

finally agreed that the dey should surrender Algiers with all

its forts and military stores, and be permitted to retire

wherever he chose with his wives, children, and personal

belongings, but he was not to remain in the country under any

circumstances. On the 5th of July the French entered Algiers

in great pomp and took possession of the city. ... The spoils

of war were such as rarely fall to the lot of a conquering

army, when its numbers and the circumstances of the campaign

are considered. In the treasury was found a large room filled

with gold and silver coins heaped together indiscriminately,

the fruits of three centuries of piracy; they were the coins

of all the nations that had suffered from the depredations of

the Algerines, and the variety in the dates showed very

clearly that the accumulation had been the work of two or

three hundred years. How much money was contained in this vast

pile is not known; certain it is that nearly 50,000,000

francs, or £2,000,000 sterling, actually reached the French

treasury. ... The cost of the war was much more than covered

by the captured property. ... Many slaves were liberated. ...

The Algerine power was forever broken, and from that day

Algeria has been a prosperous colony of France. Hussein Pasha

embarked on the 10th of July with a suite of 110 persons, of

whom 55 were women. He proceeded to Naples, where he remained

for a time, went afterwards to Leghorn, and finally to Egypt."

In Egypt he died, under circumstances which indicated poison.

T. W. Knox, Decisive Battles Since Waterloo, chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

R. L. Playfair, The Scourge of Christendom, chapter 19.

E. E. Crowe, History of the Reigns of Louis XVIII. and

Charles X., volume 2, chapter 13.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830-1846.

The French war of Subjugation in Algeria with Abd-el-Kader.

"When Louis Philippe ascended the throne [of France, A. D.

1830] the generals of his predecessor had overrun the country

[of Algiers]--though they did not effectually subdue it;

their absolute dominion not extending far round Algiers--from

Bona, on the east, in latitude 36° 53' North, longitude 7° 46'

West, to Oran, on the west--nearly the entire extent of the

ancient Libya. ... There was always a party in the chamber of

deputies opposed to the conquest who deprecated the

colonisation of Algeria, and who steadily opposed any grants

of either men or money to be devoted to the African

enterprise. The natural result followed. Ten thousand men

could not effect the work for which 40,000 were required; and,

whilst the young colony languished, the natives became

emboldened, and encouraged to make that resistance which cost

the French so dear. Marshal Clausel, when entrusted with the

government of the colony, and the supreme command of the

troops ... established a series of fortified posts, which were

adequately garrisoned; and roads were opened to enable the

garrisons promptly to communicate with each other. These

positions, rapidly acquired, he was unable to maintain, in

consequence of the home government recalling the greater part

of his force. To recruit his army he resolved to enlist some

corps of the natives; and, in October, 1830, the first

regiment of zouaves was raised." ... In 1833 we "first hear of

Abd-el-Kader. This chief was the son of a marabout, or priest,

in the province of Oran. He united consummate ability with

great valour; was a devout Mohammedan; and when he raised the

standard of the prophet, he called the Arabs around him, with

the fullest confidence of success.

{267}

His countrymen obeyed his call in great numbers; and,

encouraged by the enthusiasm they displayed, he first, at the

close of 1833, proclaimed himself emir of Tlemsen (the former

name of Oran), and then seized on the port of Arzew, on the

west side of the gulf of that name; and the port of

Mostaganem, on the opposite coast. The province of Mascara,

lying at the foot of the Atlas, was also under his rule. At

that time General Desmichels commanded at Oran. He had not a

very large force, but he acted promptly. Marching against

Abd-el-Kader, he defeated him in two pitched battles; retook

Arzew and Mostaganem; and, on the 26th of February, 1834,

entered into a treaty with the emir, by which both parties

were bound to keep the peace towards each other. During that

year the terms were observed; but, in 1835, the Arab chief

again commenced hostilities. He marched to the east, entered

the French territories, and took possession of Medeah, being

received with the utmost joy by the inhabitants. On the 26th

of June, General Trezel, with only 2,300 men, marched against

him. Abd-el-Kader had 8,000 Arabs under his command; and a

sanguinary combat took place in the defiles of Mouley-Ismael.

After a severe combat, the French forced the passage, but with

considerable loss. ... The French general, finding his

position untenable, commenced a retrograde movement on the

28th of June. In his retreat he was pursued by the Arabs; and

before he reached Oran, on the 4th of July, he lost all his

waggons, train, and baggage; besides having ten officers, and

252 sous-officers and rank-and-file killed, and 308 wounded.

The heads of many of the killed were displayed in triumph by

the victors. This was a severe blow to the French, and the

cause of great rejoicing to the Arabs. The former called for

marshal Clausel to be restored to his command, and the

government at home complied; at the same time issuing a

proclamation, declaring that Algeria should not be abandoned,

but that the honour of the French arms should be maintained.

The marshal left France on the 28th of July; and as soon as he

landed, he organised an expedition against Mascara, which was

Abd-el-Kader's capital. ... The Arab chieftain advanced to

meet the enemy; but, being twice defeated, he resolved to

abandon his capital, which the French entered on the 6th of

December, and found completely deserted. The streets and

houses were alike empty and desolate; and the only living

creature they encountered was an old woman, lying on some

mats, who could not move of herself, and had been either

forgotten or abandoned. The French set fire to the deserted

houses; and having effected the destruction of Mascara, they

marched to Mostaganem, which Clausel determined to make the

centre of French power in that district."

Thomas Wright, History of France, volume 3, pages 633-635.

"A camp was established on the Taafna in April 1836, and an

action took place there on the 25th, when the Tableau states

that 3,000 French engaged 10,000 natives; and some of the

enemies being troops of Morocco, an explanation was required

of Muley-Abd-er-Rachman, the emperor, who said that the

assistance was given to the Algerines without his knowledge.

On July 6th, 1836, Abd-el-Kader suffered a disastrous defeat

on the river Sikkak, near Tlemsen, at the hands of Marshal

Bugeaud. November 1836, the first expedition was formed

against Constantina. ...After the failure of Clauzel, General

Damrémont was appointed governor, February 12th, 1837; and on the

30th of May the treaty of the Taafna between General Bugeaud

and Abd-el-Kader left the French government at liberty to

direct an their attention against Constantina, a camp being

formed at Medjoy-el-Ahmar in that direction. An army of 10,000

men set out thence on the 1st of October, 1837, for

Constantina. On the 6th it arrived before Constantina; and on

the 13th the town was taken with a severe loss, including

Damrémont. Marshal Vallée succeeded Damrémont as governor. The

fall of Constantina destroyed the last relic of the old

Turkish government. ... By the 27th January, 1838, 100 tribes

had submitted to the French. A road was cleared in April by

General Negrier from Constantina to Stora on the sea. This

road, passing by the camps of Smendou and the Arrouch, was 22

leagues in length. The coast of the Bay of Stora, on the site

of the ancient Rusicada, became covered with French settlers:

and Philippeville was founded Oct. 1838, threatening to

supplant Bona. Abd-el-Kader advancing in December 1837 to the

province of Constantina, the French advanced also to observe

him; then both retired, without coming to blows. A

misunderstanding which arose respecting the second article of

the treaty of Taafna was settled in the beginning of 1838. ...

When Abd-el-Kader assumed the royal title of Sultan and the

command of a numerous army, the French, with republican

charity and fraternal sympathy, sought to infringe the Taafna

treaty, and embroil the Arab hero, in order to ruin his rising

empire, and found their own on its ashes. The Emir had been

recognised by the whole country, from the gates of Ouchda to

the river Mijerda. ... The war was resumed, and many French

razzias took place. They once marched a large force from

Algiers on Milianah to surprise the sultan's camp. They failed

in their chief object, but nearly captured the sultan himself.

He was surrounded in the middle of a French square, which

thought itself sure of the reward of 100,000 francs (£4,000)

offered for him; but uttering his favourite 'en-shallah' (with

the will of God), he gave his white horse the spur, and came

over their bayonets unwounded. He lost, however, thirty of his

bodyguard and friends, but killed six Frenchmen with his own

hand. Still, notwithstanding his successes, Abd-el-Kader had

been losing all his former power, as his Arabs, though brave,

could not match 80,000 French troops, with artillery and all

the other ornaments of civilised warfare. Seven actions were

fought at the Col de Mouzaia, where the Arabs were overthrown

by the royal dukes, in 1841; and at the Oued Foddha, where

Changarnier, with a handful of troops, defeated a whole

population in a frightful gorge. It was on this occasion that,

having no guns, he launched his Chasseurs d'Afrique against

the fort, saying, 'Voilà mon artillerie!' Abd-el·Kader had

then only two chances,--the support of Muley-Abd-er-Rahman,

Emperor of Morocco; or the peace that the latter might

conclude with France for him. General Bugeaud, who had

replaced Marshal Vallée, organised a plan of campaign by

movable columns radiating from Algiers, Oran, and Constantina;

and having 100,000 excellent soldiers at his disposal, the

results as against the Emir were slowly but surely effective.

{268}

General Negrier at Constantina, Changarnier amongst the

Hadjouts about Medeah and Milianah, Cavaignae and Lamoricière

in Oran,--carried out the commander-in-chiefs instructions

with untiring energy and perseverance; and in the spring of

1843 the Duc d'Aumale, in company with General Changarnier,

surprised the Emir's camp in the absence of the greatest part

of his force, and it was with difficulty that he himself

escaped. Not long afterwards he took refuge in Morocco,

excited the fanatical passions of the populace of that empire,

and thereby forced its ruler, Muley-Abd-er-Rahman, much

against his own inclination, into a war with France; a war

very speedily terminated by General Bugeaud's victory of Isly,

with some slight assistance from the bombardment of Tangier

and Mogador by the Prince de Joinville. In 1845 the struggle

was maintained amidst the hills by the partisans of

Abd-el-Kader; but our limits prevent us from dwelling on its

particulars, save in one instance. ... On the night of the

12th of June, 1845, about three months before Marshal Bugeaud

left Algeria, Colonels Pelissier and St. Arnaud, at the head

of a considerable force, attempted a razzia upon the tribe of

the Beni-Oulell-Hiah, numbering, in men, women, and children,

about 700 persons. This was in the Dahra. The Arabs escaped

the first clutch of their pursuers; and when hard pressed, as

they soon were, took refuge in the cave of Khartani, which had

some odour of sanctity about it: some holy man or marabout had

lived and died there, we believe. The French troops came up

quickly to the entrance, and the Arabs were summoned to

surrender. They made no reply. Possibly they did not hear the

summons. ... As there was no other outlet from the cave than

that by which the Arabs entered, a few hours' patience must

have been rewarded by the unconditional surrender of the

imprisoned tribe. Colonels Pelissier and St. Arnaud were

desirous of a speedier result; and by their order an immense

fire was kindled at the mouth of the cave, and fed sedulously

during the summer night with wood, grass, reeds, anything that

would help to keep up the volume of smoke and flame which the

wind drove, in roaring, whirling eddies, into the mouth of the

cavern. It was too late now for the unfortunate Arabs to offer

to surrender; the discharge of a cannon would not have been

heard in the roar of that huge blast-furnace, much less

smoke-strangled cries of human agony. The fire was kept up

throughout the night; and when the day had fully dawned, the

then expiring embers were kicked aside, and as soon as a

sufficient time had elapsed to render the air of the silent

cave breathable, some soldiers were directed to ascertain how

matters were, within. They were gone but a few minutes; and

they came back, we are told, pale, trembling, terrified,

hardly daring, it seemed, to confront the light of day. No

wonder they trembled and looked pale. They had found all the

Arabs dead--men, women, children. ... St. Arnaud and Pelissier

were rewarded by the French minister; and Marshal Soult

observed, that 'what would be a crime against civilisation in

Europe might be a justifiable necessity in Africa.' ... A

taste of French bayonets at Isly, and the booming of French

guns at Mogador, had brought Morocco to reason. ... Morocco

sided with France, and threatened Abel-el-Kader, who cut one

of their corps to pieces, and was in June on the point of

coming to blows with Muley-Abd-el-Rahman, the emperor. But the

Emperor of Morocco took vigorous measures to oppose him,

nearly exterminating the tribes friendly to him; which drew

off many partisans from the Emir, who tried to pacify the

emperor, but unsuccessfully." In December, 1846, "he asked to

negotiate, offered to surrender; and after 24 hours'

discussion he came to Sidi Brahim, the scene of his last

exploits against the French, where he was received with

military honours, and conducted to the Duke of Aumale at

Nemours. France has been severely abused for the detention of

Abd-el-Kader in Ham."

J. R. Morell, Algeria, chapter 22.

BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1881.

Tunis brought under the protectorate of France.

See FRANCE: A. D.1875-1889.

----------BARBARY STATES: End----------

BARBES.--BARBETS.

The elders among the early Waldenses were called barbes, which

signified "Uncle." Whence came the nickname Barbets, applied

to the Waldensian people generally.

E. Comba, History of the Waldenses of Italy, page 147.

BARCA.

See CYRENE.

BARCELONA: A. D. 713.

Surrender to the Arab-Moors.

See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

BARCELONA: A. D. 1151.

The County joined to Aragon.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.

BARCELONA: 12th-16th Centuries.

Commercial prosperity and municipal freedom.

"The city of Barcelona, which originally gave its name to the

county of which it was the capital, was distinguished from a

very early period by ample municipal privileges. After the

union with Aragon in the 12th century, the monarchs of the

latter kingdom extended towards it the same liberal

legislation; so that, by the 13th, Barcelona had reached a

degree of commercial prosperity rivalling that of any of the

Italian republics. She divided with them the lucrative

commerce with Alexandria; and her port, thronged with

foreigners from every nation, became a principal emporium in

the Mediterranean for the spices, drugs, perfumes, and other

rich commodities of the East, whence they were diffused over

the interior of Spain and the European continent. Her consuls,

and her commercial factories, were established in every

considerable port in the Mediterranean and in the north of

Europe. The natural products of her soil, and her various

domestic fabrics, supplied her with abundant articles of

export. Fine wool was imported by her in considerable

quantities from England in the 14th and 15th centuries, and

returned there manufactured into cloth; an exchange of

commodities the reverse of that existing between the two

nations at the present day. Barcelona claims the merit of

having established the first bank of exchange and deposit in

Europe, in 1401; it was devoted to the accommodation of

foreigners as well as of her own citizens. She claims the

glory, too, of having compiled the most ancient written code,

among the moderns, of maritime law now extant, digested from

the usages of commercial nations, and which formed the basis

of the mercantile jurisprudence of Europe during the Middle

Ages. The wealth which flowed in upon Barcelona, as the result

of her activity and enterprise, was evinced by her numerous

public works, her docks, arsenal, warehouses, exchange,

hospitals, and other constructions of general utility.

Strangers, who visited Spain in the 14th and 15th centuries,

expatiate on the magnificence of this city, its commodious

private edifices, the cleanliness of its streets and public

squares (a virtue by no means usual in that day), and on the

amenity of its gardens and cultivated environs.

{269}

But the peculiar glory of Barcelona was the freedom of her

municipal institutions. Her government consisted of a senate

or council of one hundred, and a body of regidores or

counsellors, as they were styled, varying at times from four

to six in number; the former intrusted with the legislative,

the latter with the executive functions of administration. A

large proportion of these bodies were selected from the

merchants, tradesmen, and mechanics of the city. They were

invested not merely with municipal authority, but with many of

the rights of sovereignty. They entered into commercial

treaties with foreign powers; superintended the defence of the

city in time of war; provided for the security of trade;

granted letters of reprisal against any nation who might

violate it; and raised and appropriated the public moneys for

the construction of useful works, or the encouragement of such

commercial adventures as were too hazardous or expensive for

individual enterprise. The counsellors, who presided over the

municipality, were complimented with certain honorary

privileges, not even accorded to the nobility. They were

addressed by the title of magnificos; were seated, with their

heads covered, in the presence of royalty; were preceded by

mace-bearers, or lictors, in their progress through the

country; and deputies from their body to the court were

admitted on the footing and received the honors of foreign

ambassadors. These, it will be recollected, were

plebeians,--merchants and mechanics. Trade never was esteemed

a degradation in Catalonia, as it came to be in Castile."

W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Ferdinand and

Isabella, introduction, section 2.

BARCELONA: A. D. 1640.

Insurrection.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642.

BARCELONA: A. D. 1651-1652.

Siege and capture by the Spaniards.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1648-1652.

BARCELONA: A. D. 1705.

Capture by the Earl of Peterborough.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1705.

BARCELONA: A. D. 1706.

Unsuccessful siege by the French and Spaniards.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1706.

BARCELONA: A. D. 1713-1714.

Betrayal and desertion by the Allies.

Siege, capture and massacre by French and Spaniards.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.

BARCELONA: A. D. 1842.

Rebellion and bombardment.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.

----------BARCELONA: End----------

BARCELONA, Treaty of.

See ITALY: A.D. 1527-1529.

BARCIDES, OR BARCINE FAMILY, The.

The family of the great Carthaginian, Hamilcar Barca, father

of the more famous Hannibal. The surname Barca, or Barcas,

given to Hamilcar, is equivalent to the Hebrew Barak and

signified lightning.

R. B. Smith, Carthage and the Carthagenians, chapter 7.

BARDS.

See FILI.

BARDULIA, Ancient Cantabria.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1026-1230.

BARÉ, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

BAREBONES PARLIAMENT, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1653 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

BARERE AND THE COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC SAFETY.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-JUNE); (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);

TO 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

BARKIAROK, Seljouk Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1092-1104.

BARMECIDES, OR BARMEKIDES, The.

The Barmecides, or Barmekides, famous in the history of the

Caliphate at Bagdad, and made familiar to all the world by the

stories of the "Arabian Nights," were a family which rose to

great power and wealth under the Caliph Haroun Alraschid. It

took its name from one Khaled ibn Barmek, a Persian, whose

father had been the "Barmek" or custodian of one of the most

celebrated temples of the Zoroastrian faith. Khaled accepted

Mahometanism and became one of the ablest agents of the

conspiracy which overthrew the Ommiad Caliphs and raised the

Abbasides to the throne. The first of the Abbaside Caliphs

recognized his ability and made him vizier. His son Yahya

succeeded to his power and was the first vizier of the famous

Haroun Alraschid. But it was Jaafar, one of the sons of Yahya,

who became the prime favorite of Haroun and who raised the

family of the Barmecides to its acme of splendor. So much

greatness in a Persian house excited wide jealousy, however,

among the Arabs, and, in the end, the capricious lord and

master of the all powerful vizier Jaafar turned his heart

against him, and against all his house. The fall of the

Barmecides was made as cruel as their advancement had been

unscrupulous. Jaafar was beheaded without a moment's warning;

his father and brother were imprisoned, and a thousand members

of the family are said to have been slain.

R. D. Osborn, Islam under the Khalifs of Baghdad,

part 2, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: E. H. Palmer, Haroun Alraschid, chapter 3.

BARNABITES.--PAULINES.

"The clerks-regular of St. Paul (Panlines), whose congregation

was founded by Antonio Maria Zacharia of Cremona and two

Milanese associates in 1532, approved by Clement VII. in 1533,

and confirmed as independent by Paul III. in 1534, in 1545

took the name of Barnabites, from the church of St. Barnabas,

which was given up to them at Milan. The Barnabites, who have

been described as the democratic wing of the Theatines,

actively engaged in the conversion of heretics, both in Italy

and in France and in that home of heresy, Bohemia."

A. W. Ward, The Counter Reformation, page 29.

BARNBURNERS.

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

BARNET, Battle of (A. D. 1471).

The decisive battle, and the last but one fought, in the "Wars

of the Roses." Edward IV., having been driven out of England

and Henry VI. reinstated by Warwick, "the King-maker," the

former returned before six months had passed and made his way

to London. Warwick hastened to meet him with an army of

Lancastrians and the two forces came together on Easter

Sunday, April 14, 1471, near Barnet, only ten miles from

London. The victory, long doubtful, was won for the white rose

of York and it was very bloodily achieved. The Earl of Warwick

was among the slain.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

BARNEVELDT, John of, The religious persecution and death of.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

{270}

BARON.

"The title of baron, unlike that of Earl, is a creation of the

[Norman] Conquest. The word, in its origin equivalent to

'homo,' receives under feudal institutions, like 'homo'

itself, the meaning of vassal. Homage (hominium) is the

ceremony by which the vassal becomes the man of his lord; and

the homines of the king are barons. Possibly the king's thegn

of Anglo-Saxon times may answer to the Norman baron."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 11,

section 124.

BARON, Court.

See MANORS.

BARONET.

"One approaches with reluctance the modern title of baronet.

... Grammatically, the term is clear enough; it is the

diminutive of baron: but baron is emphatically a man, the

liege vassal of the king; and baronet, therefore,

etymologically would seem to imply a a doubt. Degrees of honor

admit of no diminution: a 'damoisel' and a 'donzello' are

grammatical diminutives, but they do not lessen the rank of

the bearer; for, on the contrary, they denote the heir to the

larger honor, being attributed to none but the sons of the

prince or nobleman, who bore the paramount title. They did not

degrade, even in their etymological signification, which

baronet appears to do, and no act of parliament can remove

this radical defect. ... Independently of these

considerations, the title arose from the expedient of a needy

monarch [James I.] to raise money, and was offered for sale.

Any man, provided he were of good birth, might, 'for a

consideration,' canton his family shield with the red hand of

Ulster."

R. T. Hampson, Origines Patriciæ, pages 368-369.

BARONS' WAR, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

BARONY OF LAND.

"Fifteen acres, but in some places twenty acres."

N. H. Nicolas, Notitia Historica, page 134.

BARRIER FORTRESSES, The razing of the.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1746-1787.

BARRIER TREATIES, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1709,

and NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1713-1715.

BARROW.

A mound raised over the buried dead. "This form of memorial,

... as ancient as it has been lasting, is found in almost all

parts of the globe. Barrows, under diverse names, line the

coasts of the Mediterranean, the seats of ancient empires and

civilisations. ... They abound in Great Britain and Ireland,

differing in shape and size and made of various materials; and

are known as barrows (mounds of earth) and cairns (mounds of

stone) and popularly in some parts of England as lows, houes,

and tumps."

W. Greenwell, British Barrows, pages 1-2.

ALSO IN: Sir J. Lubbock, Prehistoric TIMES, chapter 5.

BARTENSTEIN, Treaty of.

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

BARWALDE, Treaty of.

See GERMANY. A. D. 1631 (JANUARY).

BASHAN.

See JEWS: ISRAEL UNDER THE JUDGES.

BASHI BOZOUK, OR BAZOUKS.

For the suppression of the revolt of 1875-77 in the Christian

provinces of the Turkish dominions (see TURKS: 1861-1876),

"besides the regular forces engaged against the Bulgarians,

great numbers of the Moslem part of the local population had

been armed by the Government and turned loose to fight the

insurgents in their own way. These irregular warriors are

called Bashi Bozouks, or Rottenheads. The term alludes to

their being sent out without regular organization and without

officers at their head."

H. O. Dwight, Turkish Life in War Time, page 15.

BASIL I. (called the Macedonian), Emperor

in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 867-886.

Basil, or Vassili, I., Grand Duke of Volodomir, A. D. 1272-1276

Basil II., Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 963-1025.

Basil, or Vassili, II., Grand Prince of Moscow, A. D. 1389-1425.

Basil III. (The Blind), Grand Prince of Moscow, A. D. 1425-1462.

Basil IV., Czar of Russia, A. D. 1505-1533.

BASILEUS.

"From the earliest period of history, the sovereigns of Asia

had been celebrated in the Greek language by the title of

Basileus, or King: and since it was considered as the first

distinction among men, it was soon employed by the servile

provincials of the east in their humble address to the Roman

throne."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 13.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

BASILIAN DYNASTY, The.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 820-1057.

BASILICÆ.

"Among the buildings appropriated to the public service at

Rome, none were more important than the Basilicæ. Although

their name is Greek, yet they were essentially a Roman

creation, and were used for practical purposes peculiarly

Roman,--the administration of law and the transaction of

merchants' business. Historically, considerable interest

attaches to them from their connection with the first

Christian churches. The name of Basilica was applied by the

Romans equally to all large buildings intended for the special

needs of public business. ... Generally, however, they took

the form most adapted to their purposes--a semi-circular apse

or tribunal for legal trials and a central nave, with arcades

and galleries on each side for the transaction of business.

They existed not only as separate buildings, but, also as

reception rooms attached to the great mansions of Rome. ... It

is the opinion of some writers that these private basilicæ,

and not the public edifices, served as the model for the

Christian Basilica."

R. Burn, Rome and the Campagna, introduction.

ALSO IN: A. P. Stanley, Christian Institutions,

chapter 9.

BASILIKA, The.

A compilation or codification of the imperial laws of the

Byzantine Empire promulgated A. D. 884, in the reign of Basil

I. and afterwards revised and amplified by his son, Leo VI.

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire, from 716 to

1057, book 2, chapter 1, section 1.

BASING HOUSE, The Storming and Destruction of.

"Basing House [mansion of the Marquis of Winchester, near

Basingstoke, in Hampshire], an immense fortress, with a feudal

castle and a Tudor palace within its ramparts, had long been a

thorn in the side of the Parliament. Four years it had held

out, with an army within, well provisioned for years, and

blocked the road to the west. At last it was resolved to take

it: and Cromwell was directly commissioned by Parliament to

the work. Its capture is one of the most terrible and stirring

incidents of the war. After six days' constant cannonade, the

storm began at six o'clock in the morning of the 14th of

October [A. D. 1645]. After some hours of desperate fighting,

one after another its defences were taken and its garrison put

to the sword or taken. The plunder was prodigious; the

destruction of property unsparing. It was gutted, burnt, and

the very ruins carted away."

F. Harrison, Oliver Cromwell, chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

S. R. Gardiner, History of the Civil War,

chapter 37 (volume 2).

Mrs. Thompson, Recollections of Literary Characters and

Celebrated Places, volume 2, chapter 1.

{271}

BASLE, Council of.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448.

BASLE, Treaties of (1795).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY),

and 1795 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

BASOCHE.--BASOCHIENS.

"The Basoche was an association of the 'clercs du Parlement'

[Parliament of Paris]. The etymology of the name is uncertain.

... The Basoche is supposed to have been instituted in 1302,

by Philippe-le-Bel, who gave it the title of 'Royaume de la

Basoche,' and ordered that it should form a tribunal for

judging, without appeal, all civil and criminal matters that

might arise among the clerks and all actions brought against

them. He likewise ordered that the president should be called

'Roi de la Basoche,' and that the king and his subjects should

have an annual 'montre' or review. ... Under the reign of

Henry III. the number of subjects of the roi de la Basoche

amounted to nearly 10,000. ... The members of the Basoche took

upon themselves to exhibit plays in the 'Palais,' in which

they censured the public manners; indeed they maybe said to

have been the first comic authors and actors that appeared in

Paris. ...At the commencement of the Revolution, the

Basochiens formed a troop, the uniform of which was red, with

epaulettes and silver buttons; but they were afterwards

disbanded by a decree of the National Assembly."

History of Paris (London: G. B. Whittaker, 1827),

volume 2, page 106.

BASQUES, The.

"The western extremity of the Pyrenees, where France and Spain

join, gives us a locality ... where, although the towns, like

Bayonne, Pampeluna, and Bilbao, are French or Spanish, the

country people are Basques or Biscayans--Basques or Biscayans

not only in the provinces of Biscay, but in Alava, Upper

Navarre, and the French districts of Labourd and Soule. Their

name is Spanish (the word having originated in that of the

ancient Vascones), and it is not the one by which they

designate themselves; though possibly it is indirectly

connected with it. The native name is derived from the root

Eusk-; which becomes Euskara when the language, Euskkerria

when the country, and Euskaldunac when the people are spoken

of."

H. G. Latham, Ethnology of Europe, chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

I. Taylor, Origin of the Aryans, chapter 4, section 4.

See, also, IBERIANS, THE WESTERN, and APPENDIX A, volume 1.

BASSANO, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER.)

BASSEIN, Treaty of (1802).

See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

BASSORAH.

See BUSSORAH.

BASTARNÆ, The. See PEUCINI.

BASTILLE, The.

"The name of Bastille or Bastel was, in ancient times, given

to any kind of erection calculated to withstand a military

force; and thus, formerly in England and on the borders of

Scotland, the term Bastel-house was usually applied to places

of strength and fancied security. Of the many Bastilles in

France that of Paris, ... which at first was called the

Bastille St-Antoine, from being erected near the suburb of

St-Antoine, retained the name longest. This fortress, of

melancholy celebrity, was erected under the following

circumstances: In the year 1356, when the English, then at war

with France, were in the neighbourhood of Paris, it was

considered necessary by the inhabitants of the French capital

to repair the bulwarks of their city. Stephen Marcel, provost

of the merchants, undertook this task, and, amongst other

defences, added to the fortifications at the eastern entrance

of the town, a gate flanked with a tower on each side." This

was the beginning of the constructions of the Bastille. They

were enlarged in 1369 by Hugh Aubriot, provost of Paris under

Charles V. He "added two towers, which, being placed opposite

to those already existing on each side of the gate, made of

the Bastille a square fort, with a tower at each of the four

angles." After the death of Charles V., Aubriot, who had many

enemies, was prosecuted for alleged crimes, "was condemned to

perpetual confinement, and placed in the Bastille, of which,

according to some historians, he was the first prisoner. After

some time, he was removed thence to Fort l'Evêque, another

prison," from which he was liberated in 1381, by the

insurrection of the Maillotins (see PARIS: A. D. 1381). "After

the insurrection of the Maillotins, in 1382, the young king,

Charles VI., still further enlarged the Bastille by adding

four towers to it, thus giving it, instead of the square form

it formerly possessed, the shape of an oblong or

parallelogram. The fortress now consisted of eight towers,

each 100 feet high, and, like the wall which united them, nine

feet thick. Four of these towers looked on the city, and four

on the suburb of St-Antoine. To increase its strength, the

Bastille was surrounded by a ditch 25 feet deep and 120 feet

wide. The road which formerly passed through it was turned on

one side. ... The Bastille was now completed (1383), and

though additions were subsequently made to it, the body of the

fortress underwent no important change. ... Both as a place of

military defence, and as a state prison of great strength, the

Bastille was, even at an early period, very formidable."

History of the Bastille

(Chambers's Miscellany, no. 132, volume 17).

For an account of the taking and destruction of the Bastille

by the people, in 1789,

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JULY).

ALSO IN:

D. Bingham, The Bastille.

R. A. Davenport, History of the Bastile.

BASTITANI, The.

See TURDETANI.

BASUTOS, The.

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1811-1868.

BATAVIA (Java), Origin of.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1620.

BATAVIAN REPUBLIC, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (OCTOBER-MAY).

{272}

BATAVIANS, OR BATAVI, The.

"The Germanic Batavi had been peacefully united with the

[Roman] Empire, not by Cæsar, but not long afterwards, perhaps

by Drusus. They were settled in the Rhine delta, that is on

the left bank of the Rhine and on the islands formed

by its arms, upwards as far at least as the Old Rhine, and so

nearly from Antwerp to Utrecht and Leyden in Zealand and

southern Holland, on territory originally Celtic--at least the

local names are predominantly Celtic; their name is still

borne by the Betuwe, the lowland between the Waal and the Leck

with the capital Noviomagus, now Nimeguen. They were,

especially compared with the restless and refractory Celts,

obedient and useful subjects, and hence occupied a distinctive

position in the aggregate, and particularly in the military

system of the Roman Empire. They remained quite free from

taxation, but were on the other hand drawn upon more largely

than any other canton in the recruiting; this one canton

furnished to the army 1,000 horsemen and 9,000 foot soldiers;

besides, the men of the imperial body-guard were taken

especially from them. The command of these Batavian divisions

was conferred exclusively on native Batavi. The Batavi were

accounted indisputably not merely as the best riders and

swimmers of the army, but also as the model of true

soldiers."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 4.

"When the Cimbri and their associates, about a century before

our era, made their memorable onslaught upon Rome, the early

inhabitants of the Rhine island of Batavia, who were probably

Celts, joined in the expedition. A recent and tremendous

inundation had swept away their miserable homes. ... The

island was deserted of its population. At about the same

period a civil dissension among the Chatti--a powerful German

race within the Hercynian forest--resulted in the expatriation

of a portion of the people. The exiles sought a new home in

the empty Rhine island, called it 'Bet-auw,' or 'good meadow,'

and were themselves called, thenceforward, Batavi, or

Batavians."

J. L. Motley, Rise of the Dutch Republic, introduction.,

section 2.

BATAVIANS: A. D. 69.

Revolt of Civilis.

"Galba [Roman Emperor], succeeding to the purple upon the

suicide of Nero, dismissed the Batavian life-guards to whom he

owed his elevation. He is murdered, Otho and Vitellius contend

for the succession, while all eyes are turned upon the eight

Batavian regiments. In their hands the scales of Empire seem

to rest. They declare for Vitellius and the civil war begins.

Otho is defeated; Vitellius acknowledged by Senate and people.

Fearing, like his predecessors, the imperious turbulence of

the Batavian legions, he, too, sends them into Germany. It was

the signal for a long and extensive revolt, which had

well-nigh overturned the Roman power in Gaul and Lower

Germany. Claudius Civilis was a Batavian of noble race, who

had served twenty-five years in the Roman armies. His Teutonic

name has perished. ... After a quarter of a century's service

he was sent in chains to Rome and his brother executed, both

falsely charged with conspiracy. ... Desire to avenge his own

wrongs was mingled with loftier motives in his breast. He knew

that the sceptre was in the gift of the Batavian soldiery. ...

By his courage, eloquence and talent for political

combinations, Civilis effected a general confederation of all

the Netherland tribes, both Celtic and German. For a brief

moment there was a united people, a Batavian commonwealth. ...

The details of the revolt [A. D. 69] have been carefully

preserved by Tacitus, and form one of his grandest and most

elaborate pictures. ... The battles, the sieges, the defeats,

the indomitable spirit of Civilis, still flaming most brightly

when the clouds were darkest around him, have been described

by the great historian in his most powerful manner. ... The

struggle was an unsuccessful one. After many victories and

many overthrows, Civilis was left alone. ... He accepted the

offer of negotiation from Cerialis [the Roman commander]. ...

A colloquy was agreed upon. The bridge across the Nabalia was

broken asunder in the middle and Cerialis and Civilis met upon

the severed sides. ... Here the story abruptly terminates. The

remainder of the Roman's narrative is lost, and upon that

broken bridge the form of the Batavian hero disappears

forever."

J. L. Motley, Rise of the Dutch Republic, introduction.,

sections. 3-4.

ALSO IN: Tacitus, History, books. 4-5.

----------BATAVIANS: End----------

BATH, The Order of the.

"The present Military Order of the Bath, founded by King

George I. in the year 1725, differs so essentially from the

Knighthood of the Bath, or the custom of making Knights with

various rites and ceremonies, of which one was Bathing, that

it may almost be considered a distinct and new fraternity of

chivalry. The last Knights of the Bath, made according to the

ancient forms, were at the coronation of King Charles II.; and

from that period until the reign of the first George, the old

institution fell into total oblivion. At the latter epoch,

however, it was determined to revive, as it was termed, The

Order of the Bath, by erecting it into a regular Military

Order'; and on the 25th May, 1725, Letters Patent were issued

for that purpose. By the Statutes then promulgated, the number

of Knights, independent of the Sovereign, a Prince of the

Blood Royal, and a Great Master, was restricted to 35." It has

since been greatly increased, and the Order divided into three

classes: First Class, consisting of "Knights Grand Cross," not

to exceed 50 for military and 25 for civil service; Second

Class, consisting of "Knights Commanders," not to exceed 102

for military and 50 for civil service; Third Class,

"Companions," not to exceed 525 for military and 200 for civil

service.

Sir B. Burke, Book of Orders of Knighthood, page 104.

BATH, in Roman times.

See AQUÆ: SOLIS.

BATHS OF CARACALLA, Nero, etc.

See THERMÆ.

BATONIAN WAR, The.

A formidable revolt of the Dalmatians and Pannonians, A. D. 6,

involved the Roman Empire, under Augustus, in a serious war of

three years duration, which was called the Batonian War, from

the names of two leaders of the insurgents,--Bato the

Dalmatian, and Bato the Pannonian.

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 1.

BATOUM:

Ceded to Russia.

Declared a free port.

See TURKS: A. D. 1878.

BATTIADÆ, The.

See CYRENE.

BATTLE ABBEY.

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

BATTLE ABOVE THE CLOUDS, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863

(OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

BATTLE OF THE CAMEL.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 661.

BATTLE OF THE KEGS, The.

See PHILADELPHIA: A. D. 1777-1778.

{273}

BATTLE OF THE NATIONS (Leipsic).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER).

BATTLE OF THE THREE EMPERORS.

The battle of Austerlitz

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER)--was so called by

Napoleon.

BATTLES.

The battles of which account is given in this work are so

numerous that no convenience would be served by collecting

references to them under this general heading. They are

severally indexed under the names by which they are

historically known.

BAURE, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

BAUTZEN, Battle of.

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

BAUX, Lords of; Gothic Origin of the.

The illustrious Visigothic race of the "Balthi" or "Baltha"

("the bold"), from which sprang Alaric, "continued to flourish

in France in the Gothic province of Septimania, or Languedoc,

under the corrupted appellation of Baux, and a branch of that

family afterwards settled in the kingdom of Naples."

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

chapter 30, note.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

BAVARIA:

The name.

Bavaria derived its name from the Boii.

R. G. Latham, The Germania of Tacitus; Epilegomena,

section 20.

See, also, BOIANS.

The Ethnology of.

"Bavaria ... falls into two divisions; the Bavaria of the

Rhine, and the Bavaria of the Danube. In Rhenish Bavaria the

descent is from the ancient Vangiones and Nemetes, either

Germanized Gauls or Gallicized Germans, with Roman

superadditions. Afterwards, an extension of the Alemannic and

Suevic populations from the right bank of the Upper Rhine

completes the evolution of their present Germanic character.

Danubian Bavaria falls into two subdivisions. North of the

Danube the valley of the Naab, at least, was originally

Slavonic, containing an extension of the Slavonic population

of Bohemia. But disturbance and displacement began early. ...

In the third and fourth centuries, the Suevi and Alemanni

extended themselves from the Upper Rhine. ... The northwestern

parts of Bavaria were probably German from the beginning.

South of the Danube the ethnology changes. In the first place

the Roman elements increase; since Vindelicia was a Roman

province. ... Its present character has arisen from an

extension of the Germans of the Upper Rhine."

R. G. Latham, Ethnology of Europe, chapter 8.

BAVARIA: A. D. 547.

Subjection of the Bavarians to the Franks.

"It is about this period [A. D. 547] that the Bavarians first

become known in history as tributaries of the Franks; but at

what time they became so is matter of dispute. From the

previous silence of the annalists respecting this people, we

may perhaps infer that both they and the Suabians remained

independent until the fall of the Ostrogothic Empire in Italy.

The Gothic dominions were bounded on the north by Rhætia and

Noricum; and between these countries and the Thuringians, who

lived still further to the north, was the country of the

Bavarians and Suabians. Thuringia had long been possessed by

the Franks, Rhætia was ceded by Vitisges, king of Italy, and

Venetia was conquered by Theudebert [the Austrasian Frank

King]. The Bavarians were therefore, at this period, almost

surrounded by the Frankish territories. ... Whenever they may

have first submitted to the yoke, it is certain that at the

time of Theudebert's death [A. D. 547], or shortly after that

event, both Bavarians and Suabians (or Alemannians), had

become subjects of the Merovingian kings."

W. C. Perry, The Franks, chapter 3.

BAVARIA: A. D. 843-962.

The ancient Duchy.

See GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.

BAVARIA: A. D. 876.

Added to the Austrian March.

See Austria: A. D. 805-1246.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1071-1178.

The Dukes of the House of Guelf.

See GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES;

and SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1101.

Disastrous Crusade of Duke Welf.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1101-1102.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1125-1152.

The origin of the Electorate.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1138-1183.

Involved in the beginnings of the Guelf and Ghibelline

Conflicts.

The struggles of Henry the Proud and Henry the Lion.

See GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES, and SAXONY: A. D. 1178-1183.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1156.

Separation of the Austrian March, which becomes a distinct

Duchy.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1180-1356.

The House of Wittelsbach.

Its acquisition of Bavaria and the Palatinate of the Rhine.

Loss of the Electoral Vote by Bavaria.

When, in 1180, the dominions of Henry the Lion, under the ban

of the Empire, were stripped from him (see SAXONY: A. D.

1178-1183), by the imperial sentence of forfeiture, and were

divided and conferred upon others by Frederick Barbarossa, the

Duchy of Bavaria was given to Otto, Count Palatine of

Wittelsbach. "As he claimed a descent from an ancient royal

family of Bavaria, it was alleged that, in obtaining the

sovereignty of that state, he had only in some measure

regained those rights which in former times belonged to his

ancestors."

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

volume 1, page 276.

"Otto ... was a descendant of that Duke Luitpold who fell in

combat with the Hungarians, and whose sons and grandsons had

already worn the ducal cap of Bavaria. No princely race in

Europe is of such ancient extraction. ... Bavaria was as yet

destitute of towns: Landshutt and Munich first rose into

consideration in the course of the 13th century; Ratisbon,

already a flourishing town, was regarded as the capital and

residence of the Dukes of Bavaria. ... A further accession of

dignity and power awaited the family in 1214 in the

acquisition of the Palatinate of the Rhine. Duke Ludwig was

now the most powerful prince of Southern Germany. ... His son

Otto the Illustrious, remaining ... true to the imperial

house, died excommunicate, and his dominions were placed for

several years under an interdict. ... Upon the death of Otto a

partition of the inheritance took place. This partition became

to the family an hereditary evil, a fatal source of quarrel

and of secret or open enmity. ... In [the] dark and dreadful

period of interregnum [see GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272], when all

men waited for the final dissolution of the empire, nothing

appears concerning the Wittelsbach family. ... Finally in 1273

Rudolf, the first of the Hapsburgs, ascended the

long-unoccupied throne. ... He won over the Bavarian princes

by bestowing his daughters upon them in marriage.

{274}

Louis remained faithful and rendered him good

service; but the turbulent Henry, who had already made war

upon his brother for the possession of the electoral vote,

deserted him, and for this Bavaria was punished by the loss of

the vote, and of the territory above the Enns." Afterwards,

for a time, the Duke of Bavaria and the Count Palatine

exercised the right of the electoral vote alternately; but in

1356 by the Golden Bull of Charles IV. [see GERMANY: A. D.

1347-1493], the vote was given wholly to the Count Palatine,

and lost to Bavaria for nearly 300 years.

J. I. von Döllinger, The House of Wittelsbach (Studies

in European History, chapter 2).

BAVARIA: A. D. 1314.

Election of Louis to the imperial throne.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1500.

Formation of the Circle.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1610.

The Duke at the head of the Catholic League.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1619.

The Duke in command of the forces of the Catholic League.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1623.

Transfer to the Duke of the Electoral dignity of the Elector

Palatine.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1632.

Occupation by Gustavus Adolphus.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1646-1648.

Ravaged by the Swedes and French.

Truce made and renounced by the Elector.

The last campaigns of the war.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1648.

Acquisition of the Upper Palatinate in the Peace of

Westphalia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1686.

The League of Augsburg.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1686.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1689-1696.

The war of the Grand Alliance against Louis XIV.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690; 1689-1691; 1692; 1693 (JULY);

1694; 1695-1696.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1700.

Claims of the Electoral Prince on the Spanish Crown.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1702.

The Elector joins France against the Allies.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1702.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1703.

Successes of the French and Bavarians.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1703.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1704.

Ravaged, crushed and surrendered by the Elector.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1705.

Dissolution of the Electorate.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1705.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1714.

The Elector restored to his Dominions.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1740.

Claims of the Elector to the Austrian succession.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740 (OCTOBER).

BAVARIA: A. D. 1742.

The Elector crowned Emperor.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (OCTOBER).

BAVARIA: A. D. 1743 (April).

The Emperor-Elector recovers his Electoral territory.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER), and 1743.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1743 (June).

The Emperor-Elector again a fugitive.

The Austrians in Possession.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1745.

Death of the Emperor-Elector.

Peace with Austria.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1748.

Termination and results of the war of the Austrian Succession.

See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1767.

Expulsion of the Jesuits.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1777-1779.

The Succession question.

"With the death of Maximilian Joseph, of Bavaria (30 December,

1777), the younger branch of the house of Wittelsbach became

extinct, and the electorate of Bavaria ... came to an end. By

virtue of the original partition in 1310, the duchy of Bavaria

ought to pass to the elder branch of the family, represented

by Charles Theodore, the Elector Palatine. But Joseph [the

Second, the Emperor], saw the possibility of securing valuable

additions to Austria which would round off the frontier on the

west. The Austrian claims were legally worthless. They were

based chiefly upon a gift of the Straubingen territory which

Sigismund was said to have made in 1426 to his son-in-law,

Albert of Austria, but which had never taken effect and had

since been utterly forgotten. It would be impossible to induce

the diet to recognise such claims, but it might be possible to

come to an understanding with the aged Charles Theodore, who

had no legitimate children and was not likely to feel any very

keen interest in his new inheritance. Without much difficulty

the elector was half frightened, half induced to sign a treaty

(3 January, 1778), by which he recognised the claims put

forward by Austria, while the rest of Bavaria was guaranteed

to him and his successors. Austrian troops were at once

despatched to occupy the ceded districts. The condition of

Europe seemed to assure the success of Joseph's bold venture.

... There was only one quarter from which opposition was to be

expected, Prussia. Frederick promptly appealed to the

fundamental laws of the Empire, and declared his intention of

upholding them with arms. But he could find no supporters

except those who were immediately interested, the elector of

Saxony, whose mother, as a sister of the late elector of

Bavaria, had a legal claim to his allodial property, and

Charles of Zweibrücken, the heir apparent of the childless

Charles Theodore. ... Frederick, left to himself, despatched

an army into Bohemia, where the Austrian troops had been

joined by the emperor in person. But nothing came of the

threatened hostilities. Frederick was unable to force on a

battle, and the so-called war was little more than an armed

negotiation. ... France and Russia undertook to mediate, and

negotiations were opened in 1779 at Teschen, where peace was

signed on the 13th of May. Austria withdrew the claims which

had been recognised in the treaty with the Elector Palatine,

and received the 'quarter of the Inn,' i. e., the district

from Passau to Wildshut. Frederick's eventual claims to the

succession in the Franconian principalities of Anspach and

Baireuth, which Austria had every interest in opposing, were

recognised by the treaty. The claims of Saxony were bought off

by a payment of 4,000,000 thalers. The most unsatisfactory

part of the treaty was that it was guaranteed by France and

Russia. ... On the whole, it was a great triumph for Frederick

and an equal humiliation for Joseph II. His schemes of

aggrandisement had been foiled."

R. Lodge, History of Modern Europe, chapter 20, section 3,

ALSO IN: T. H. Dyer, History of Modern Europe, book 6,

chapter 8 (volume 3).

BAVARIA: A. D. 1801-1803.

Acquisition of territory under the Treaty of Luneville.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

{275}

BAVARIA: A. D. 1805-1806.

Aggrandized by Napoleon.

Created a Kingdom.

Joined to the Confederation of the Rhine.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806,

and 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST).

BAVARIA: A. D. 1809.

The revolt in the Tyrol.

Heroic struggle of Hofer and his countrymen.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809-1810 (APRIL-FEBRUARY).

BAVARIA: A. D. 1813.

Abandonment of Napoleon and the Rhenish Confederation.

Union with the Allies.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), and

(OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

BAVARIA: A. D. 1814-1815.

Restoration of the Tyrol to Austria.

Territorial compensations.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF, and FRANCE: A. D. 1814

(APRIL-JUNE).

BAVARIA: A. D. 1848 (March).

Revolutionary outbreak.

Expulsion of Lola Montez.

Abdication of the King.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH).

BAVARIA: A. D. 1866.

The Seven Weeks War.

Indemnity and territorial cession to Prussia.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

BAVARIA: A. D. 1870-1871.

Treaty of Union with the Germanic Confederation, soon

transformed into the German Empire.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER), and 1871.

----------BAVARIA: End----------

BAVAY, Origin of.

See NERVII.

BAXAR, OR BAKSAR, OR BUXAR, Battle of (1764).

See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

BAYARD, The Chevalier: His knightly deeds and his death.

See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504,

and FRANCE: A. D. 1523-1525.

BAYEUX TAPESTRY.

A remarkable roll of mediæval tapestry, 214 feet long and 20

inches wide, preserved for centuries in the cathedral at

Bayeux, Normandy, on which a pictorial history of the Norman

invasion and conquest of England is represented, with more or

less of names and explanatory inscriptions. Mr. E. A.

Freeman (Norman Conquest, volume 3, note A) says: "It will be

seen that, throughout this volume, I accept the witness of the

Bayeux Tapestry as one of my highest authorities. I do not

hesitate to say that I look on it as holding the first place

among the authorities on the Norman side. That it is a

contemporary work I entertain no doubt whatever, and I

entertain just as little doubt as to its being a work fully

entitled to our general confidence. I believe the tapestry to

have been made for Bishop Odo, and to have been most probably

designed by him as an ornament for his newly rebuilt cathedral

church of Bayeux." The precious tapestry is now preserved in

the public library at Bayeux, carefully stretched round the

room under glass.

BAYEUX, The Saxons of.

See SAXONS OF BAYEUX

BAYLEN, Battle of (1808).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER).

BAYOGOULAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

BAYONNE:

Conference of Catharine de'Medici and the Duke of Alva (1565).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

BAZAINE'S SURRENDER AT METZ.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST), (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER),

and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

BEACONSFIELD (Disraeli) Ministries.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1851-1852; 1858-1859; 1868-1870, and

1873-1880.

BEAR FLAG, The.

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.

BEARN: The rise of the Counts.

See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.

BEARN: A. D. 1620.

Absorbed and incorporated in the Kingdom of France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1620-1622.

BEARN: A. D. 1685.

The Dragonnade.

Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.

----------BEARN: End----------

BEATOUN, Cardinal, The assassination of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1546.

BEAUFORT, N. C., Capture of, by the National forces (1862).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL:

NORTH CAROLINA).

BEAUGÉ, Battle of.

The English commanded by the Duke of Clarence, defeated in

Anjou by an army of French and Scots, under the Dauphin of

France; the Duke of Clarence slain.

BEAUMARCHAIS'S TRANSACTIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1778.

BEAUMONT, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

BEAUREGARD, General G. T.

Bombardment of Fort Sumter.

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

At the first Battle of Bull Run.

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

Command in the Potomac district.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-

APRIL: VIRGINIA).

Command in the West.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL:

TENNESSEE), and (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE--MISSISSIPPI).

The Defence of Charleston.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-DECEMBER:

SOUTH CAROLINA).

BEAUVAIS, Origin of.

See BELGÆ.

BEBRYKIANS, The.

See BITHYNIANS.

BEC, Abbey of.

One of the most famous abbeys and ecclesiastical schools of

the middle ages. Its name was derived from the little beck or

rivulet of a valley in Normandy, on the banks of which a pious

knight, Herlouin, retiring from the world, had fixed his

hermitage. The renown of the piety of Herlouin drew others

around him and resulted in the formation of a religious

community with himself at its head. Among those attracted to

Herlouin's retreat were a noble Lombard scholar, Lanfranc of

Pavia, who afterwards became the great Norman archbishop of

Canterbury, and Anselm of Aosta, another Italian, who

succeeded Lanfranc at Canterbury with still more fame. The

teaching of Lanfranc at Bec raised it, says Mr. Green in

his Short History of the English People, into the most

famous school of Christendom; it was, in fact, the first wave

of the intellectual movement which was spreading from Italy to

the ruder countries of the West. The fabric of the canon law

and of mediaeval scholasticism, with the philosophical

skepticism which first awoke under its influence, all trace

their origin to Bec. "The glory of Bec would have been as

transitory as that of other monastic houses, but for the

appearance of one illustrious man [Lanfranc] who came to be

enrolled as a private member of the brotherhood, and who gave

Bec for a while a special and honorable character with which

hardly any other monastery in Christendom could compare."

E. A. Freeman, Norman Conquest, chapter 8.

{276}

BECHUANAS, The.

See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS;

and AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

BECKET, Thomas, and King Henry II.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

BED-CHAMBER QUESTION, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1837-1839.

BED OF JUSTICE.

"The ceremony by which the French kings compelled the

registration of their edicts by the Parliament was called a

'lit de justice' [bed of justice]. The monarch proceeded in

state to the Grand Chambre, and the chancellor, having taken

his pleasure, announced that the king required such and such a

decree to be entered on their records in his presence. It was

held that this personal interference of the sovereign

suspended for the time being the functions of all inferior

magistrates, and the edict was accordingly registered without

a word of objection. The form of registration was as follows:

'Le roi séant en son lit de justice a ordonné et ordonne que

les présents édits seront enregistrés;' and at the end of the

decree, 'Fait en Parlement, le roi y séant en son lit de

justice.'"

Students' History of France, note to chapter 19.

See, also, PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

"The origin of this term ['bed of justice'] has been much

discussed. The wits complained it was so styled because there

justice was put to sleep. The term was probably derived from

the arrangement of the throne on which the king sat. The back

and sides were made of bolsters and it was called a bed."

J. B. Perkins, France under Mazarin, volume 1, page 388,

foot-note.

An elaborate and entertaining account of a notable Bed of

Justice held under the Regency, in the early part of the reign

of Louis XV., will be found in the

Memoirs of the Duke de Saint Simon, abridged translation

of St. John, volume 4, chapter 5-7.

BEDR, Battle of.

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

BEDRIACUM, Battles of.

See ROME: A. D. 69.

BEECHY HEAD, Battle of (A. D. 1690).

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1690 (JUNE).

BEEF-EATERS, The.

See YEOMEN OF THE GUARD.

BEEF STEAK CLUB, The.

See CLUBS: THE BEEF STEAK.

BEER-ZATH, Battle of.

The field on which the great Jewish soldier and patriot, Judas

Maccabæus, having but 800 men with him, was beset by an army

of the Syrians and slain, B. C. 161.

Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, book 12, chapter 11.

ALSO IN: H. Ewald, History of Israel, book 5, section 2.

BEG.

A Turkish title, signifying prince or lord; whence, also, Bey.

See BEY.

BEGGARS (Gueux) of the Netherland Revolt.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.

BEGGARS OF THE SEA.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572.

BEGUINES, OR BEGHINES.--BEGHARDS.

Weaving Brothers.

Lollards.

Brethren of the Free Spirit.

Fratricelli.

Bizochi.

Turlupins.

"In the year 1180 there lived in Liege a certain kindly,

stammering priest, known from his infirmity as Lambert le

Bègue. This man took pity on the destitute widows of the town.

Despite the impediment in his speech, he was, as often

happens, a man of a certain power and eloquence in preaching.

... This Lambert so moved the hearts of his hearers that gold

and silver poured in on him, given to relieve such of the

destitute women of Liege as were still of good and pious life.

With the moneys thus collected, Lambert built a little square

of cottages, with a church in the middle and a hospital, and

at the side a cemetery. Here he housed these homeless widows,

one or two in each little house, and then he drew up a half

monastic rule which was to guide their lives. The rule was

very simple, quite informal: no vows, no great renunciation

bound the 'Swestrones Brod durch Got.' A certain time of the

day was set apart for prayer and pious meditation; the other

hours they spent in spinning or sewing, in keeping their

houses clean, or they went as nurses in time of sickness into

the homes of the townspeople. ... Thus these women, though

pious and sequestered, were still in the world and of the

world. ... Soon we find the name' Swestrones Brod durch Got'

set aside for the more usual title of Beguines or Beghines.

Different authorities give different origins of this word. ...

Some have thought it was taken in memory of the founder, the

charitable Lambert le Bègut. Others think that, even as the

Mystics or Mutterers, the Lollards or Hummers, the Popelhards

or Babblers, so the Beguines or Stammerers were thus nicknamed

from their continual murmuring in prayer. This is plausible;

but not so plausible as the suggestion of Dr. Mosheim and M.

Auguste Jundt, who derive the word Beguine from the Flemish

word 'beggen,' to beg. For we know that these pious women had

been veritable beggars; and beggars should they again become.

With surprising swiftness the new order spread through the

Netherlands and into France and Germany. ... Lambert may have

lived to see a beguinage in every great town within his ken;

but we hear no more of him. The Beguines are no longer for

Liege, but for all the world. Each city possessed its quiet

congregation; and at any sick-bed you might meet a woman clad

in a simple smock and a great veil-like mantle, who lived only

to pray and do deeds of mercy. ... The success of the Beguines

had made them an example. ... Before St. Francis and St.

Dominic instituted the mendicant orders, there had silently

grown up in every town of the Netherlands a spirit of

fraternity, not imposed by any rule, but the natural impulse

of a people. The weavers seated all day long alone at their

rattling looms, the armourers beating out their thoughts in

iron, the cross-legged tailors and busy cobblers thinking and

stitching together--these men silent, pious, thoughtful,

joined themselves in a fraternity modelled on that of the

Beguines. They were called the Weaving Brothers. Bound by no

vows and fettered by no rule, they still lived the worldly

life and plied their trade for hire. Only in their leisure

they met together and prayed and dreamed and thought. ... Such

were the founders of the great fraternity of 'Fratres

Textores,' or Beghards as in later years the people more

generally called them."

A. M. F. Robinson, The End of the Middle Ages, 1.

{277}

"The Lollards differed from the Beghards less in reality than

in name. We are informed respecting them that, at their origin

in Antwerp, shortly after 1300, they associated together for

the purpose of waiting upon patients dangerously sick, and

burying the dead. ... Very early, however, an element of a

different kind began to work in those fellowships. Even about

the close of the 13th century irregularities and extravagances

are laid to their charge. .... The charges brought against the

later Beghards and Lollards, in connection, on the one hand,

with the fanatical Franciscans, who were violently contending

with the Church, and on the other, with the Brethren and

Sisters of the Free Spirit, relate to three particulars, viz.,

an a version to all useful industry, conjoined with a

propensity to mendicancy and idleness, an intemperate spirit

of opposition to the Church, and a skeptical and more or less

pantheistical mysticism. ... They ... declared that the time

of Antichrist was come, and on all hands endeavoured to

embroil the people with their spiritual guides. Their own

professed object was to restore the pure primeval state, the

divine life of freedom, innocence, and nature. The idea they

formed of that state was, that man, being in and of himself

one with God, requires only to act in the consciousness of

this unity, and to follow unrestrained the divinely implanted

impulses and inclinations of his nature, in order to be good

and godly."

C. Ullmann, Reformers before the Reformation,

volume 2, pages 14-16.

"The names of beghards and beguines came not unnaturally to be

used for devotees who, without being members of any regular

monastic society, made a profession of religious strictness;

and thus the applications of the names to some kinds of

sectaries was easy--more especially as many of these found it

convenient to assume the outward appearance of beghards, in

the hope of disguising their differences from the church. But

on the other hand, this drew on the orthodox beghards frequent

persecutions, and many of them, for the sake of safety, were glad

to connect themselves as tertiaries with the great mendicant

orders. ... In the 14th century, the popes dealt hardly with

the beghards; yet orthodox societies under this name still

remained in Germany; and in Belgium, the country of their

origin, sisterhoods of beguines flourish to the present day.

... Matthias of Janow, the Bohemian reformer, in the end of

the 14th century, says that all who act differently from the

profane vulgar are called beghardi or turlupini, or by other

blasphemous names. ... Among those who were confounded with

the beghards--partly because, like them, they abounded along

the Rhine--were the brethren and sisters of the Free Spirit.

These appear in various places under various names. They wore

a peculiarly simple dress, professed to give themselves to

contemplation, and, holding that labour is a hindrance to

contemplation and to the elevation of the soul to God, they

lived by beggary. Their doctrines were mystical and almost

pantheistic. ... The brethren and sisters of the Free Spirit

were much persecuted, and probably formed a large proportion

of those who were burnt under the name of beghards."

J. C. Robertson, History of Christian Church,

book 7, chapter 7 (volume 6).

"Near the close of this century [the 13th] originated in Italy

the Fratricelli and Bizochi, parties that in Germany and

France were denominated Beguards; and which, first Boniface

VIII., and afterwards other pontiffs condemned, and wished to

see persecuted by the Inquisition and exterminated in every

possible way. The Fratricelli, who also called themselves in

Latin 'Fratres parvi' (Little Brethren), or 'Fraterculi de

paupere vita' (Little Brothers of the Poor Life), were

Franciscan monks, but detached from the great family of

Franciscans; who wished to observe the regulations prescribed

by their founder St. Francis more perfectly than the others,

and therefore possessed no property, either individually or

collectively, but obtained their necessary food from day to

day by begging. ... They predicted a reformation and

purification of the church. ... They extolled Celestine V. as

the legal founder of their sect; but Boniface and the

succeeding pontiffs, who opposed the Fratricelli, they denied

to be true pontiffs. As the great Franciscan family had its

associates and dependents, who observed the third rule

prescribed by St. Francis [which required only certain pious

observances, such as fasts, prayers, continence, a coarse,

cheap dress, gravity of manners, &c., but did not prohibit

private property, marriage, public offices, and worldly

occupations], and who were usually called Tertiarii, so also

the sect of the Fratricelli ... had numerous Tertiarii of its

own. These were called, in Italy, Bizochi and Bocasoti; in

France Beguini; and in Germany Beghardi, by which name all the

Tertiarii were commonly designated. These differed from the

Fratricelli ... only in their mode of life. The Fratricelli

were real monks, living under the rule of St. Francis; but the

Bizochi or Beguini lived in the manner of other people. ...

Totally different from these austere Beguini and Beguinæ, were

the German and Belgic Beguinæ, who did not indeed originate in

this century, but now first came into notice. ... Concerning

the Turlupins, many have written; but none accurately. ... The

origin of the name, I know not; but I am able to prove from

substantial documents, that the Turlupins who were burned at

Paris, and in other parts of France were no other than the

Brethren of the Free Spirit whom the pontiffs and councils

condemned."

J. L. Von Mosheim, Inst's of Ecclesiastical History,

book 3, century 13, part 2, chapter 2, section 39-41,

and chapter 5, section 9, foot-note.

ALSO IN: L. Mariotti (A. Gallenga), Fra Dolcino and his

Times.

See, also, PICARDS.

BEGUMS OF OUDE, Warren Hastings and the.

See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.

BEHISTUN, Rock of.

"This remarkable spot, lying on the direct route between

Babylon and Ecbatana, and presenting the unusual combination

of a copious fountain, a rich plain and a rock suitable for

sculpture, must have early attracted the attention of the

great monarchs who marched their armies through the Zagros

range, as a place where they might conveniently set up

memorials of their exploits. ... The tablet and inscriptions

of Darius, which have made Behistun famous in modern times,

are in a recess to the right of the scarped face of the rock,

and at a considerable elevation."

G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Media, chapter 1.

The mountain or rock of Behistun fixes the location of the

district known to the Greeks as Bagistana. "It lies southwest

of Elvend, between that mountain and the Zagrus in the valley

of the Choaspes, and is the district now known as Kirmenshah."

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 8, chapter 1.

BEHRING SEA CONTROVERSY, and Arbitration.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1886-1893.

{278}

BEIRUT, Origin of.

See BERYTUS.

BELA I., King of Hungary, A. D. 1060-1063.

Bela II.,  A. D. 1131-1141.

Bela III., A. D. 1173-1196.

Bela IV.,  A. D. 1235-1270.

BELCHITE, Battle of.

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

BELERION, OR BOLERIUM.

The Roman name of Land's End, England.

See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

BELFORT.

Siege by the Germans (1870-1871).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

BELGÆ, The.

"This Belgian confederation included the people of all the

country north of the Seine and Marne, bounded by the Atlantic

on the west and the Rhine on the north and east, except the

Mediomatrici and Treviri. ... The old divisions of France

before the great revolution of 1789 corresponded in some

degree to the divisions of the country in the time of Cæsar,

and the names of the people are still retained with little

alteration in the names of the chief towns or the names of the

ante-revolutionary divisions of France. In the country of the

Remi between the Marne and the Aisne there is the town of

Reims. In the territory of the Suessiones between the Marne

and the Aisne there is Soissons on the Aisne. The Bellovaci

were west of the Oise (Isara) a branch of the Seine: their

chief town, which at some time received the name of

Cæsaromagus, is now Beauvais. The Nervii were between and on

the Sambre and the Schelde. The Atrebates were north of the

Bellovaci between the Somme and the upper Schelde: their chief

place was Nemetacum or Nemetocenna, now Arras in the old

division of Artois. The Ambiani were on the Somme (Samara):

their name is represented by Amiens (Samarobriva). The Morini,

or sea-coast men extended from Boulogne towards Dunkerque. The

Menapii bordered on the northern Morini and were on both sides

of the lower Rhine (B. G. iv., 4). The Caleti were north of

the lower Seine along the coast in the Pays de Caux. The

Velocasses were east of the Caleti on the north side of the

Seine as far as the Oise; their chief town was Rotomagus

(Rouen) and their country was afterwards Vexin Normand and

Vexin Français. The Veromandui were north of the Suessiones:

their chief town under the Roman dominion, Augusta

Veromanduorum, is now St. Quentin. The Aduatuci were on the

lower Maas. The Condrusi and the others included under the

name of Germani were on the Maas, or between the Maas and the

Rhine. The Eburones had the country about Tongern and Spa, and

were the immediate neighbours of the Menapii on the Rhine."

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 4, chapter 3.

"Cæsar ... informs us that, in their own estimation, they [the

Belgæ] were principally descended from a German stock, the

offspring of some early migration across the Rhine. ... Strabo

... by no means concurred in Cæsar's view of the origin of

this ... race, which he believed to be Gaulish and not German,

though differing widely from the Galli, or Gauls of the central

region."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 5.

ALSO IN: E. Guest, Origines Celticæ, volume 1, chapter 12.

BELGÆ: B. C. 57.

Cæsar's campaign against the confederacy.

In the second year of Cæsar's command in Gaul, B. C. 57, he

led his legions against the Belgæ, whom he characterized in

his Commentaries as the bravest of all the people of Gaul. The

many tribes of the Belgian country had joined themselves in a

great league to oppose the advancing Roman power, and were

able to bring into the field no less than 290,000 men. The

tribe of the Remi alone refused to join the confederacy and

placed themselves on the Roman side. Cæsar who had quartered

his army during the winter in the country of the Sequani,

marched boldly, with eight legions, into the midst of these

swarming enemies. In his first encounter with them on the

banks of the Aisne, the Belgic barbarians were terribly cut to

pieces and were so disheartened that tribe after tribe made

submission to the proconsul as he advanced. But the Nervii,

who boasted a Germanic descent, together with the Aduatuci,

the Atrebates and the Veromandui, rallied their forces for a

struggle to the death. The Nervii succeeded in surprising the

Romans, while the latter were preparing their camp on the

banks of the Sambre, and very nearly swept Cæsar and his

veterans off the field, by their furious and tremendous

charge. But the energy and personal influence of the one, with

the steady discipline of the other, prevailed in the end over

the untrained valour of the Nervii, and the proud nation was

not only defeated but annihilated. "Their eulogy is preserved

in the written testimony of their conqueror; and the Romans

long remembered, and never failed to signalize their

formidable valour. But this recollection of their ancient

prowess became from that day the principal monument of their

name and history, for the defeat they now sustained well nigh

annihilated the nation. Their combatants were cut off almost

to a man. The elders and the women, who had been left in

secure retreats, came forth of their own accord to solicit the

conqueror's clemency. ... 'Of 600 senators,' they said, 'we

have lost all but three; of 60,000 fighting men 500 only

remain.' Cæsar treated the survivors with compassion."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 7.

ALSO IN:

Julius Cæsar, Gallic Wars, book 2.

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 4, chapter 3.

Napoleon III., History of Cæsar, book 3, chapter 5.

BELGÆ OF BRITAIN, The.

Supposed to be a colony from the Belgæ of the continent. The

territory which they occupied is now embraced in the counties

of Wiltshire and Somerset.

See BRITAIN: CELTIC TRIBES.

BELGIUM: Ancient and Mediaeval History.

See BELGÆ, NERVII, FRANKS, LORRAINE, FLANDERS, LIEGE.

NETHERLANDS.

BELGIUM: Modern History.

See NETHERLANDS.

BELGRADE:

Origin.

During the attacks of the Avars upon the territory of the

Eastern Empire, in the last years of the 6th century, the city

of Singidunum, at the junction of the Save with the Danube,

was taken and totally destroyed. The advantageous site of the

extinct town soon attracted a colony of Sclavonians, who

raised out of the ruins a new and strongly fortified city--the

Belgrade, or the White City of later times. "The Sclavonic

name of Belgrade is mentioned in the 10th century by

Constantine Porphyorgenitus: the Latin appellation of Alba

Græca is used by the Franks in the beginning of the 9th."

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

chapter 46, note.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

BELGIUM: A. D. 1425.

Acquired by Hungary and fortified against the Turks.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.

{279}

BELGIUM: A. D. 1442.

First repulse of the Turks.

See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.

BELGIUM: A. D. 1456.

Second repulse of the Turks.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458;

and TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1451-1481.

BELGIUM: A. D. 1521.

Siege and capture by Solyman the Magnificent.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.

BELGIUM: A. D. 1688-1690.

Taken by the Austrians and recovered by the Turks.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

BELGIUM: A. D. 1717.

Recovery from the Turks.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.

BELGIUM: A. D. 1739.

Restored to the Turks.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

BELGIUM: A. D. 1789-1791.

Taken by the Austrians and restored to the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

BELGIUM: A. D. 1806.

Surprised and taken by the Servians.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14TH-19TH CENTURIES

(SERVIA).

BELGIUM: A. D. 1862.

Withdrawal of Turkish troops.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14TH-19TH CENTURIES

(SERVIA).

----------BELGIUM: End----------

BELGRADE, The Peace of.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

BELIK, Battle on the (Carrhæ--B. C. 53).

See ROME: B. C. 57-52.

BELISARIUS, Campaigns of.

See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534,

and ROME: A. D. 535-553.

BELIZE, or British Honduras.

See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

BELL ROLAND, The great.

See GHENT: A. D. 1539-1540.

BELLE ALLIANCE, Battle of La.

The battle of Waterloo

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE)--is so called by the

Prussians.

BELLE ISLE PRISON-PEN, The.

See PRISONS AND PRISON-PENS, CONFEDERATE.

BELLOVACI, The.

See BELGÆ.

BELLVILLE, Battle, of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).

BELMONT, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861

(SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

Bema, The.

See PNYX.

BEMIS HEIGHTS, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

BENARES.

"The early history of Benares is involved in much obscurity.

It is, indisputably, a place of great antiquity, and may even

date from the time when the Aryan race first spread itself

over Northern India. ... It is certain that the city is

regarded by all Hindus as coeval with the birth of Hinduism, a

notion derived both from tradition and from their own

writings. Allusions to Benares are exceedingly abundant in

ancient Sanskrit literature; and perhaps there is no city in

all Hindustan more frequently referred to. By reason of some

subtle and mysterious charm, it has linked itself with the

religious sympathies of the Hindus through every century of

its existence. For the sanctity of its inhabitants--of its

temples and reservoirs--of its wells and streams--of the very

soil that is trodden--of the very air that is breathed--and of

everything in and around it, Benares has been famed for

thousands of years. ... Previously to the introduction of the

Buddhist faith into India, she was already the sacred city of

the land,--the centre of Hinduism, and chief seat of its

authority. Judging from the strong feelings of veneration and

affection with which the native community regard her in the

present day, and bearing in mind that the founder of Buddhism

commenced his ministry at this spot, it seems indisputable

that, in those early times preceding the Buddhist reformation,

the city must have exerted a powerful and wide-spread

religious influence over the land. Throughout the Buddhist

period in India--a period extending from 700 to 1,000

years--she gave the same support to Buddhism which she had

previously given to the Hindu faith. Buddhist works of that

era ...  clearly establish the fact that the Buddhists of

those days regarded the city with much the same kind of

veneration as the Hindu does now."

M. A. Sherring, The Sacred City of the Hindus, chapter

1.

For an account of the English annexation of Benares,

See INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.

BENEDICT II., Pope, A. D. 684-685.

Benedict III., Pope, A. D. 855-858.

Benedict IV., Pope, A. D. 900-903.

Benedict V., Pope, A. D. 964-965.

Benedict VI., Pope, A. D. 972-974.

Benedict VII., Pope, A. D. 975-984.

Benedict VIII., Pope, A. D. 1012-1024.

Benedict IX., Pope, A. D. 1033-1044, 1047-1048.

Benedict X., Antipope, A. D. 1058-1059.

Benedict XI., Pope, A. D. 1303-1304.

Benedict XII., Pope, A. D. 1334-1342.

Benedict XIII., Pope, A. D. 1394-1423 (at Avignon).

Benedict XIII., Pope, A. D. 1724-1730.

Benedict XIV., Pope, A. D. 1740-1758.

BENEDICTINE ORDERS.

The rule of St. Benedict.

"There were many monasteries in the West before the time of

St. Benedict of Nursia (A. D. 480); but he has been rightly

considered the father of Western monasticism; for he not only

founded an order to which many religious houses became

attached, but he established a rule for their government

which, in its main features, was adopted as the rule of

monastic life by all the orders for more than five centuries,

or until the time of St. Dominic and St. Francis of Assisi.

Benedict was first a hermit, living in the mountains of

Southern Italy, and in that region he afterwards established

in succession twelve monasteries, each with twelve monks and a

superior. In the year 520 he founded the great monastery of

Monte Casino as the mother-house of his order, a house which

became the most celebrated and powerful monastery, according

to Montalembert, in the Catholic universe, celebrated

especially because there Benedict prepared his rule and formed

the type which was to serve as a model to the innumerable

communities submitting to that sovereign code. ... Neither in

the East nor in the West were the monks originally

ecclesiastics; and it was not until the eighth century that

they became priests, called regulars, in contrast with the

ordinary parish clergy, who were called seculars. ... As

missionaries, they proved the most powerful instruments in

extending the authority and the boundaries of the church. The

monk had no individual property: even his dress belonged to

the monastery. ... To enable him to work efficiently, it was

necessary to feed him well; and such was the injunction of

Benedict, as opposed to the former practice of strict

asceticism."

C. J. Stillé, Studies in Mediæval History, chapter 12.

{280}

"Benedict would not have the monks limit themselves to

spiritual labour, to the action of the soul upon itself; he

made external labour, manual or literary, a strict obligation

of his rule. ... In order to banish indolence, which he called

the enemy of the soul, he regulated minutely the employment of

every hour of the day according to the seasons, and ordained

that, after having celebrated the praises of God seven times

a-day, seven hours a-day should be given to manual labour, and

two hours to reading. ... Those who are skilled in the

practice of an art or trade, could only exercise it by the

permission of the abbot, in all humility; and if anyone prided

himself on his talent, or the profit which resulted from it to

the house, he was to have his occupation changed until he had

humbled himself. ... Obedience is also to his eyes a work,

obedientiae laborem, the most meritorious and essential of

all. A monk entered into monastic life only to make the

sacrifice of self. This sacrifice implied especially that of

the will. ... Thus the rule pursued pride into its most secret

hiding-place. Submission had to be prompt, perfect, and

absolute. The monk must obey always, without reserve, and

without murmur, even in those things which seemed impossible

and above his strength, trusting in the succour of God, if a

humble and seasonable remonstrance, the only thing permitted

to him, was not accepted by his superiors."

The Count de Montalembert, The Monks of the West, book 4,

section 2 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

E. L. Cutts, Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages,

chapter 2.

S. R. Maitland, The Dark Ages, No. 10.

J. H. Newman, Mission of St. Benedict (Hist. Sketches,

volume 2).

P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church,

volume 2, chapter 4, section 43-45.

E. F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the

Middle Ages, book 3, no. 1.

See, also, CAPUCHINS.

BENEFICIUM.--COMMENDATION.

Feudalism "had grown up from two great sources--the

beneficium, and the practice of commendation, and had been

specially fostered on Gallic soil by the existence of a

subject population which admitted of any amount of extension

in the methods of dependence. The beneficiary system

originated partly in gifts of land made by the kings out of

their own estates to their kinsmen and servants, with a

special undertaking to be faithful; partly in the surrender by

landowners of their estates to churches or powerful men, to be

received back again and held by them as tenants for rent or

service. By the latter arrangement the weaker man obtained the

protection of the stronger, and he who felt himself insecure

placed his title under the defence of the Church. By the

practice of commendation, on the other hand, the inferior put

himself under the personal care of a lord, but without

altering his title or divesting himself of his right to his

estate; he became a vassal and did homage. The placing of his

hands between those of his lord was the typical act by which

the connexion was formed."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 9,

section 93.

ALSO IN: H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 2, part 1.

See, also, SCOTLAND: 10TH-11TH CENTURIES.

BENEFIT OF CLERGY.

"Among the most important and dearly-prized privileges of the

church was that which conferred on its members immunity from

the operation of secular law, and relieved them from the

jurisdiction of secular tribunals. ... So priceless a

prerogative was not obtained without a long and resolute

struggle. ... To ask that a monk or priest guilty of crime

should not be subject to the ordinary tribunals, and that

civil suits between laymen and ecclesiastics should be

referred exclusively to courts composed of the latter, was a

claim too repugnant to the common sense of mankind to be

lightly accorded. ... The persistence of the church, backed up

by the unfailing resource of excommunication, finally

triumphed, and the sacred immunity of the priesthood was

acknowledged, sooner or later, in the laws of every nation of

Europe." In England, when Henry II. in 1164, "endeavored, in

the Constitutions of Clarendon, to set bounds to the

privileges of the church, he therefore especially attacked the

benefit of clergy. ... The disastrous result of the quarrel

between the King and the archbishop [Becket] rendered it

necessary to abandon all such schemes of reform. ... As time

passed on, the benefit of clergy gradually extended itself.

That the laity were illiterate and the clergy educated was

taken for granted, and the test of churchmanship came to be

the ability to read, so that the privilege became in fact a

free pardon on a first offence for all who knew their letters.

... Under Elizabeth, certain heinous offences were declared

felonies without benefit of clergy. ... Much legislation

ensued from time to time, effecting the limitation of the

privilege in various offences. ... Early in the reign of Anne

the benefit of clergy was extended to all malefactors by

abrogating the reading test, thus placing the unlettered felon

on a par with his better educated fellows, and it was not

until the present century was well advanced that this remnant

of mediæval ecclesiastical prerogative was abolished by 7 and

8 Geo. iv. c. 28."

H. C. Lea, Studies in Church History, part 2.

ALSO IN:

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,

section 722-725 (chapter 19, page 3).

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

BENEVENTO, OR GRANDELLA, Battle of (1266).

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268.

BENEVENTUM:

The Lombard Duchy.

The Duchy of Beneventum was a Lombard fief of the 8th and 9th

centuries, in southern Italy, which survived the fall of the

Lombard kingdom in northern Italy. It covered nearly the

territory' of the modern kingdom of Naples. Charlemagne

reduced the Duchy to submission with considerable difficulty,

after he had extinguished the Lombard kingdom. It was

afterwards divided into the minor principalities of Benevento,

Salerno and Capua, and became part of the Norman conquest.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016; and 1000-1090;

also, LOMBARDS: A. D. 573-774,

and AMALFI.

BENEVENTUM, Battle of (B. C. 275).

See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

BENEVOLENCES.

"The collection of benevolences, regarded even at the time

[England, reign of Edward IV.] as an innovation, was perhaps a

resuscitated form of some of the worst measures of Edward II.

and Richard II., but the attention which it aroused under

Edward IV. shows how strange it had become under the

intervening kings. ... Such evidence as exists shows us Edward

IV. canvassing by word of mouth or by letter for direct gifts

of money from his subjects. Henry III. had thus begged for new

year's gifts. Edward IV. requested and extorted 'free-will

offerings' from everyone who could not say no to the pleadings

of such a king. He had a wonderful memory, too, and knew the

name and the particular property of every man in the country

who was worth taxing in this way. He had no excuse for such

meanness; for the estates had shown themselves liberal."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,

chapter 18, section 696.

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1471-1485.

{281}

BENGAL, The English acquisition of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1755-1757; 1757; and 1757-1772.

BENGAL: "Permanent Settlement."

See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

BENNINGTON, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

BENTINCK, Lord William, The Indian Administration of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

BENTONSVILLE, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865

(FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS).

BEOTHUK, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BEOTHUKAN FAMILY.

BERBERS, The.

See LIBYANS; NUMIDIANS; EGYPT, ORIGIN OF THE ANCIENT

PEOPLE; and MAROCCO.

BERENICE, Cities of.

Ptolemy Philadelphus, the second of the Ptolemies, founded a

city on the Egyptian shore of the Red Sea, to which he gave

the name of his mother, Berenice. It became an important port

of trade. Subsequently two other cities of the same name were

founded at points further south on the same coast, while a

fourth Berenice came into existence on the border of the Great

Syrtis, in Cyrenaica.

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography.,

chapter 15, section 1.

BERESINA, Passage of the.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

BERESTECZKO, Battle of (1651).

See POLAND: A. D. 1648-1654.

BERGEN, Battles of (1759 and 1799).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (APRIL-AUGUST);

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

BERGEN-OP-ZOOM, A. D. 1588.

The siege raised.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.

BERGEN A. D. 1622.

Unsuccessful siege by the Spaniards.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

BERGEN: A. D. 1747-1748.

Taken by the French and restored to Holland.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747,

and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.

----------BERGEN: End----------

BERGER.

See BIRGER.

BERGERAC, Peace of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1577-1578.

BERING SEA CONTROVERSY AND ARBITRATION.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1886-1893.

BERKELEY, Lord, The Jersey Grant to.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664.-1667, to 1688-1738.

BERKELEY, Sir William, Government of Virginia.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1642--1649, to 1660-1677.

BERLIN: A. D. 1631.--Forcible entry of Gustavus Adolphus.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631.

BERLIN: A. D. 1675.

Threatened by the Swedes.

See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.

BERLIN: A. D. 1757.

Dashing Austrian attack.

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

BERLIN: A. D. 1760.

Taken and plundered by the Austrians and Russians.

See GERMANY: A.D. 1760.

BERLIN: A. D. 1806.

Napoleon in possession.

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

BERLIN: A. D. 1848.

Mistaken battle of soldiers and citizens.

Continued disorder.

State of siege.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1848 (MARCH), and 1848-1850.

----------BERLIN: End----------

BERLIN CONFERENCE (1884-5), The.

See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1889;

and CONGO FREE STATE.

BERLIN, Congress and Treaty of.

See TURKS: A. D. 1878.

BERLIN DECREE, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1806-1810;

and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.

BERMUDA HUNDRED.

See HUNDRED, THE.

BERMUDA HUNDRED, Butler's Army at.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864

(MAY: VIRGINIA), THE ARMY OF THE JAMES.

BERMUDAS, The.

English Discovery of the islands (1609).

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1609-1616.

BERMUDO,

King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 788-791.

Bermudo II., A. D. 982-999.

Bermudo III., A. D. 1027-1037.

BERN, Dietrich of.

See VERONA: A. D. 493-525.

BERNADOTTE, Career of.

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

1799 (NOVEMBER); 1806 (JANUARY-OCTOBER);

1814(JANUARY-MARCH); 1806-1807;

SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1810;

GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813; 1813 (AUGUST),

(SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

BERNARD, St., and the Second Crusade.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149.

BERNE, A. D. 1353.

Joined to the original Swiss Confederation, or Old League of

High Germany.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1332-1460.

BERNE: A. D. 1798.

Occupation by the French.

The plundering of the Treasury.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1792-1798.

----------BERNE: End----------

BERNICIA, The Kingdom of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633;

and SCOTLAND: 7th CENTURY.

BERSERKER.--BÆRSÆRK.

"The word Bærsærk is variously spelt, and stated to be derived

from 'bar' and 'særk,' or 'bareshirt.' The men to whom the

title was applied [among the Northmen] ... were stated to be

in the habit of fighting without armour, and wearing only a

shirt of skins, or at times naked. In Iceland they were

sometimes called Ulfrhedin, i. e., wolfskin. The derivation of

Bærsærk has been questioned, as in philology is not uncommon.

The habit of their wearing bear (björn) skins, is said to

afford the meaning of the word. In philology, to agree to

differ is best. The Bærsærks, according to the sagas, appear

to have been men of unusual physical development and savagery.

They were, moreover, liable to what was called Bærsærkegang,

or a state of excitement in which they exhibited superhuman

strength, and then spared neither friend nor foe. ... After an

attack of Bærsærk frenzy, it was believed that the superhuman

influence or spirit left the Bærsærk's body as a 'ham,' or

cast-off shape or form, with the result that the Bærsærk

suffered great exhaustion, his natural forces being used up."

J. F. Vicary, Saga Time, chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

P. B. Du Chaillu, The Viking Age, volume 2, chapter 26.

{282}

BERWICK-UPON-TWEED: A. D. 1293-1333.

Conquest by the English.

At the beginning, in 1293, of the struggle of the Scottish

nation to cast off the feudal yoke which Edward I. had laid

upon it, the English king, marching angrily northwards, made

his first assault upon Berwick. The citizens, whose only

rampart was a wooden stockade, foolishly aggravated his wrath

by gibes and taunts. "The stockade was stormed with the loss

of a single knight, and nearly 8,000 of the citizens were mown

down in a ruthless carnage, while a handful of Flemish traders

who held the town-hall stoutly against all assailants were

burned alive in it. ... The town was ruined forever, and the

great merchant city of the North sank from that time into a

petty seaport." Subsequently recovered by the Scotch, Berwick

was held by them in 1333 when Edward III. attempted to seat

Edward Balliol, as his vassal, on the Scottish throne. The

English laid siege to the place, and an army under the regent

Douglas came to its relief. The battle of Halidon Hill, in

which the Scotch were utterly routed, decided the fate of

Berwick. "From that time the town remained the one part of

Edward's conquests which was preserved by the English crown.

Fragment as it was, it was viewed as legally representing the

realm of which it had once formed a part. As Scotland, it had

its chancellor, chamberlain, and other officers of state: and

the peculiar heading of acts of Parliament enacted for England

'and the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed' still preserves the memory

of its peculiar position."-

J. R. Green, Short History of the English People,

chapter 4, section 3 and 6.

ALSO IN: J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 17.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.

BERWICK, Pacification of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

BERWICK, Treaty of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558-1560.

BERYTUS.

The colony of Berytus (modern Beirut) was founded by Agrippa,

B. C. 15, and made a station for two legions.

BERYTUS: A. D. 551.

Its Schools.

Its Destruction by Earthquake.

The city of Berytus, modern Beirut, was destroyed by

earthquake on the 9th of July, A. D. 551. "That city, on the

coast of Phœnicia, was illustrated by the study of the civil

law, which opened the surest road to wealth and dignity: the

schools of Berytus were filled with the rising spirits of the

age, and many a youth was lost in the earthquake who might

have lived to be the scourge or the guardian of his country."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 43.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

BERYTUS: A. D. 1111.

Taken by the Crusaders.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111.

----------BERYTUS: End----------

BESANÇON: Origin.

See VESONTIO.

BESANÇON: A. D. 1152-1648.

A Free City of the Empire.

See FRANCHE COMTÉ.

BESANÇON: A. D. 1674.

Siege and capture by Vauban.

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

BESSI, The.

The Bessi were an ancient Thracian tribe who occupied the

mountain range of Hæmus (the Balkan) and the upper valley of

the Hebrus. They were subdued by Lucullus, brother of the

conqueror of Mithridates.

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,

chapter 18, section 6.

BESSIN, The.

The district of Bayeux.

See SAXONS OF BAYEUX.

BETH-HORON, Battles of.

The victory of Joshua over "the five kings of the Amorites"

who laid siege to Gibeon; the decisive battle of the Jewish

conquest of Canaan. "The battle of Beth-horon or Gibeon is one

of the most important in the history of the world; and yet so

profound has been the indifference, first of the religious

world, and then (through their example or influence) of the

common world, to the historical study of the Hebrew annals,

that the very name of this great battle is far less known to

most of us than that of Marathon or Cannæ."

Dean Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish

Church, lecture 11.

In the Maccabean war, Beth-horon was the scene of two of the

brilliant victories of Judas Maccabeus, in B. C. 167 and

162.

Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, book 12.

Later, at the time of the Jewish revolt against the Romans, it

witnessed the disastrous retreat of the Roman general Cestius.

BETHSHEMESH, Battle of.

Fought by Joash, king of Israel, with Amaziah, king of Judah,

defeating the latter and causing part of the walls of

Jerusalem to be thrown down.

2 Chronicles, xxv.

BETH-ZACHARIAH, Battle of.

A defeat suffered (B. C. 163) by the Jewish patriot, Judas·

Maccabæus, at the hands of the Syrian monarch Antiochus

Eupator: the youngest of the Maccabees being slain.

Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, book 12, chapter 9.

BETHZUR, Battle of.

Defeat of an army sent by Antiochus, against Judas Maccabæus,

the Jewish patriot, B. C. 165,

Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, book 12, chapter 7.

BEVERHOLT, Battle of (1381).

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1379-1381.

BEY.--BEYLERBEY.--PACHA.--PADISCHAH.

"The administration of the [Turkish] provinces was in the time

of Mahomet II. [the Sultan, A. D. 1451-1481, whose legislation

organized the Ottoman government] principally intrusted to the

Beys and Beylerbeys. These were the natural chiefs of the

class of feudatories [Spahis], whom their tenure of office

obliged to serve on horseback in time of war. They mustered

under the Sanjak, the banner of the chief of their district,

and the districts themselves were thence called Sanjaks, and

their rulers Sanjak-beys. The title of Pacha, so familiar to

us when speaking of a 'Turkish provincial ruler, is not

strictly a term implying territorial jurisdiction, or even

military authority. It is a title of honour, meaning literally

the Shah's or sovereign's foot, and implying that the person

to whom that title was given was one whom the sovereign

employed. ... The title of Pacha was not at first applied

among the Ottomans exclusively to those officers who commanded

armies or ruled provinces or cities. Of the five first Pachas,

that are mentioned by Ottoman writers, three were literary

men. By degrees this honorary title was appropriated to those

whom the Sultan employed in war and set over districts and

important towns; so that the word Pacha became almost

synonymous with the word governor. The title Padischah, which

the Sultan himself bears, and which the Turkish diplomatists

have been very jealous in allowing to Christian Sovereigns, is

an entirely different word, and means the great, the imperial

Schah or Sovereign. In the time of Mahomet II. the Ottoman

Empire contained in Europe alone thirty-six Sanjaks, or

banners, around each of which assembled about 400 cavaliers."

Sir E. S. Creasy, History of the Ottoman Turks, chapter

6.

{283}

BEYLAN, Battle of (1832).

See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

BEYROUT, Origin of.

See BERYTUS.

BEZANT, The.

The bezant was a Byzantine gold coin (whence its name), worth

a little less than ten English shillings--$2.50.

BEZIERES, The Massacre at.

See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1209.

BHARADARS.

See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

BHONSLA RAJA, The.

See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

BHURTPORE, Siege of(1805).

See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

BIANCHI AND NERI (The Whites and Blacks).

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

BIANCHI, or White Penitents.

See WHITE PENITENTS.

BIBERACH, Battles of (1796 and 1800).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);

and A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

BIBRACTE.

See GAULS.

BIBROCI, The.

A tribe of ancient Britons who dwelt near the Thames. It is

suspected, but not known, that they gave their name to Berks

County.

BICAMERAL SYSTEM, The.

This term was applied by Jeremy Bentham to the division of a

legislative body into two chambers--such as the House of Lords

and House of Commons in England, and the Senate and House of

Representatives in the United States of America.

BICOQUE OR BICOCCA, La, Battle of (1522).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523.

BIG BETHEL, Battle of.

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

BIG BLACK, Battle of the.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863

(APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

BIGERRIONES, The.

See AQUITAINE, THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

BIGI, OR GREYS, The.

One of the three factions which divided Florence in the time

of Savonarola, and after. The Bigi, or Greys, were the

partisans of the Medici; their opponents were the Piagnoni, or

Weepers, and the Arrabiati, or Madmen.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

BILL OF RIGHTS.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (OCTOBER).

BILLAUD-VARENNES and the French Revolutionary Committee of Public

Safety.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER),

(SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER), to 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

BILOXIS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

BIMINI, The island of.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1512.

BIRAPARACH, Fortress of.

See JUROIPACH.

BIRGER, King of Sweden, A. D. 1290-1319.

Birger, or Berger Jarl, Regent of Sweden, A. D. 1250-1266.

BISHOPS' WAR, The First and Second.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640;

and ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.

BISMARCK'S MINISTRY.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866, to 1888;

and FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JUNE-JULY); 1870-1871;

and 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).

BISSEXTILE YEAR.

See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

BITHYNIANS, THYNIANS.

"Along the coast of the Euxine, from the Thracian Bosphorus.

eastward to the river Halys, dwelt Bithynians or Thynians,

Mariandynians and Paphlagonians,--all recognized branches of

the widely extended 'l'hracian race. The Bithynians

especially, in the northwestern portion of this territory, and

reaching from the Euxine to the Propontis, are often spoken of

as Asiatic Thracians,--while on the other hand various tribes

among the Thracians of Europe are denominated Thyni or

Thynians,--so little difference was there in the population on

the two sides of the Bosphorus, alike brave, predatory, and

sanguinary. The Bithynians of Asia are also sometimes called

Bebrykians, under which denomination they extend as far

southward as the gulf of Kios in the Propontis."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 16.

The Bithynians were among the people in Asia Minor subjugated

by Crœsus, king of Lydia, and fell, with his fall, under the

Persian rule. But, in some way not clearly understood, an

independent kingdom of Bithynia was formed, about the middle

of the 5th century B. C. which resisted the Persians,

successfully resisted Alexander the Great and his successors

in Asia Minor, resisted Mithridates of Pontus, and existed

until B. C. 74, when its last king Nicomedes III. bequeathed

his kingdom to Rome and it was made a Roman province.

BITONTO, Battle of (1734).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

BITURIGES, The.

See ÆEDUI;

also BOURGES, ORIGIN OF.

BIZOCHI, The.

See BEGUINES, ETC.

BIZYE.

See THRACIANS.

BLACK ACTS, The.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1584.

BLACK DEATH, The.

"The Black Death appears to have had its origin in the centre

of China, in or about the year 1333. It is said that it was

accompanied at its outbreak by various terrestrial and

atmospheric phænomena of a novel and most destructive

character, phænomena similar to those which characterized the

first appearance of the Asiatic Cholera, of the Influenza, and

even in more remote times of the Athenian Plague. It is a

singular fact that all epidemics of an unusually destructive

character have had their homes in the farthest East, and have

travelled slowly from those regions towards Europe. It

appears, too, that the disease exhausted itself in the place

of its origin at about the same time in which it made its

appearance in Europe. ... The disease still exists under the

name of the Levant or Oriental Plague, and is endemic in Asia

Minor, in parts of Turkey, and in Egypt. It is specifically a

disease in which the blood is poisoned, in which the system

seeks to relieve itself by suppuration of the glands, and in

which, the tissues becoming disorganized, and the blood

thereupon being infiltrated into them, dark blotches appear on

the skin.

{284}

Hence the earliest name by which the Plague was described. The

storm burst on the Island of Cyprus at the end of the year

1347, and was accompanied, we are told, by remarkable physical

phænomena, as convulsions of the earth, and a total change in

the atmosphere. Many persons affected died instantly. The

Black Death seemed, not only to the frightened imagination of

the people, but even to the more sober observation of the few

men of science of the time, to move forward with measured

steps from the desolated East, under the form of a dark and

fetid mist. It is very likely that consequent upon the great

physical convulsions which had rent the earth and preceded the

disease, foreign substances of a deleterious character had

been projected into the atmosphere. ... The Black Death

appeared at Avignon in January 1348, visited Florence by the

middle of April, and had thoroughly penetrated France and

Germany by August. It entered Poland in 1349, reached Sweden

in the winter of that year, and Norway by infection from

England at about the same time. It spread even to Iceland and

Greenland. ... It made its appearance in Russia in 1351, after

it had well-nigh exhausted itself in Europe. It thus took the

circuit of the Mediterranean, and unlike most plagues which

have penetrated from the Eastern to the Western world, was

checked, it would seem, by the barrier of the Caucasus. ...

Hecker calculates the loss to Europe as amounting to

25,000,000."

J. E. T. Rogers, History of Agriculture and Prices,

volume 1, chapter 15.

ALSO IN:

J. F. C. Hecker, Epidemics of the Middle Ages.

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1348-1349;

FRANCE: A. D. 1347-1348;

FLORENCE: A. D. 1348;

JEWS: A: D. 1348-1349.

BLACK EAGLE, Order of the.

A Prussian order of knighthood instituted by Frederick III.,

elector of Brandenburg, in 1701.

BLACK FLAGS, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

BLACK FRIARS.

See MENDICANT ORDERS.

BLACK GUELFS (NERI).

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

BLACK HAWK WAR, The.

See ILLINOIS: A. D. 1832.

BLACK HOLE OF CALCUTTA, The.

See INDIA: A. D. 1755-1757:

BLACK PRINCE, The wars of the.

See POITIERS; FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380;

and SPAIN (CASTILE): A. D. 1366-1369.

BLACK ROBE, Counsellors of the.

See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.

BLACK ROD.

"The gentleman whose duty it is to preserve decorum in the

House of Lords, just as it is the duty of the Sergeant-at-Arms

to maintain order in the House of Commons. These officials are

bound to execute the commands of their respective chambers,

even though the task involves the forcible ejection of an

obstreperous member. ... His [Black Rod's] most disturbing

occupation, now-a-days, is when he conveys a message from the

Lords to the Commons. ... No sooner do the policemen herald

his approach from the lobbies than the doors of the Lower

Chamber are closed against him, and he is compelled to ask for

admission with becoming humility and humbleness. After this

has been granted, he advances to the bar, bows to the chair,

and then--with repeated acts of obeisance--walks slowly to the

table, where his request is made for the Speaker's attendance

in the Upper House. The object may be to listen to the Queen's

speech, or it may simply be to hear the Royal assent given to

various bills. ... The consequence is nearly always the same.

The Sergeant-at-Arms shoulders the mace, the Speaker joins

Black Rod, the members fall in behind, and a more or less

orderly procession then starts on its way to the Peer's

Chamber. ... No matter what the subject under consideration,

Black Rod's appearance necessitates a check ... till the

journey to the Lords has been completed, The annoyance thus

caused has often found expression during recent sessions. So

great was the grumbling last year [1890], indeed, that the

Speaker undertook to devise a better system."-

Popular Account of Parliamentary Procedure, page 11.

BLACK ROOD, of Scotland.

See HOLY ROOD OF SCOTLAND.

BLACKBURN'S FORD, Engagement at.

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

BLACKFEET.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET.

BLADENSBURG, Battle of.

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

BLAIR, Francis P., Sr., in the "Kitchen

Cabinet" of President Jackson.

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

BLAIR, General Francis P., Jr.

Difficulties with General Fremont.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: MISSOURI).

BLANCHE, Queen of Aragon, A. D. 1425-1441.

BLANCO, General Guzman, The dictatorship of.

See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1869-1892.

BLAND SILVER BILL, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1878.

BLANII, The.

See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

BLANKETEERS, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1816-1820.

BLENEAU, Battle of (1652).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1651-1653.

BLENHEIM, Battle of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

BLENNERHASSET, Harman, and Aaron Burr.

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

BLENNERHASSETT'S ISLAND.

An island in the Ohio, near Marietta, on which Harman

Blennerhassett, a gentleman from Ireland, had created a

charming home, at the beginning of the present century. He was

drawn into Aaron Burr's mysterious scheme (see UNITED STATES

OF AMERICA: A. D. 1806-1807); his island became the rendezvous

of the expedition, and he was involved in the ruin of the

treasonable project.

BLOCK BOOKS.

See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.

BLOCK ISLAND, The name.

See NEW YORK A. D. 1610-1614.

BLOCKADE, Paper.

This term has been applied to the assumption by a belligerent

power, in war, of the right to declare a given coast or

certain enumerated ports, to be in the state of blockade,

without actual presence of blockading squadrons to enforce the

declaration; as by the British "Orders in Council" and the

"Berlin" and "Milan Decrees" of Napoleon, in 1806-1807.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1804-1809.

{285}

BLOIS, Treaties of.

See ITALY: A. D. 1504-1506.

BLOOD COUNCIL, The.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1567.

BLOOD, or Kenai Indians.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET.

BLOODY ANGLE, The.

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

BLOODY ASSIZE, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (SEPTEMBER).

BLOODY BRIDGE, Ambuscade at (A. D. 1763).

See PONTIAC'S WAR.

BLOODY BROOK, Battle of.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675.

BLOODY MARSH, The Battle of the.

See GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.

BLOREHEATH, Battle of (A. D. 1459).

Fought on a plain called Bloreheath, near Drayton, in

Staffordshire, England, Sept. 23, 1459, between 10,000

Lancastrians, commanded by Lord Audley, and about half that

number of Yorkists under the Earl of Salisbury. The latter won

a victory by superior strategy. The battle was the second that

occurred in the Wars of the Roses.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1455-1471.

BLUCHER'S CAMPAIGNS.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER); 1812-1813; 1813

(APRIL-MAY) to (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);

FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH), and 1815.

BLUE, Boys in.

See BOYS IN BLUE.

BLUE LICKS, Battle of (A. D. 1782).

See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1775-1784.

BLUE-LIGHT FEDERALISTS.

"An incident, real or imaginary, which had lately [in 1813]

occurred at New London [Connecticut] was seized upon as

additional proof of collusion between the Federalists and the

enemy. [See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812.] As the

winter approached, Decatur had expected to get to sea with his

two frigates. Vexed to find himself thwarted in every attempt

by the watchfulness of the enemy, he wrote to the Navy

Department in a fit of disgust, that, beyond all doubt, the

British had, by signals or otherwise, instantaneous

information of all his movements; and as proof of it, he

stated that, after several nights of favorable weather, the

report circulating in the town that an attempt was to be made

to get out, 'in the course of the evening two blue lights were

burned on both points of the harbor's mouth.' These 'signals

to the enemy,' for such he unhesitatingly pronounced them, had

been repeated, so he wrote, and had been seen by twenty

persons at least of the squadron, though it does not appear

that Decatur himself was one of the number. ... Such a clamor

was raised about it, that one of the Connecticut members of

Congress moved for a committee of investigation. ... The

inquiry was ... quashed; but the story spread and grew, and

the more vehement opponents of the war began to be stigmatized

as 'blue-light Federalists.'"--

R. Hildreth, History of the U. S., volume 6, page 467.

BLUE PARTY (of Venezuela), The.

See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

BLUE RIBBON, The Order of the.

See SERAPHIM.

BLUES, Roman Faction of the.

See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.

BOABDIL, The last Moorish King in Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

BOADICEA, Revolt of.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.

BOAIRE, The.

A "Cow-lord," having certain wealth in cattle, among the

ancient Irish.

BOARIAN TRIBUTE, The.

Also called the Boruwa, or Cow-tribute. An humiliating

exaction said to have been levied on the province of Leinster

by a King Tuathal of Erin, in the second century, and which

was maintained for five hundred years.

BOCAGE, The.

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

BOCASOTI, The.

See BEGUINES, &c.

BOCLAND.--BOOKLAND.

See ALOD.

BŒOTARCHS.

See BŒOTIAN LEAGUE.

BŒOTIA.--BŒOTIANS.

"Between Phokis and Lokris on one side, and Attica (from which

it is divided by the mountains Kithærôn and Parnes) on the

other, we find the important territory called Bœotia, with its

ten or twelve autonomous cities, forming a sort of confederacy

under the presidency of Thebes, the most powerful among them.

Even of this territory, destined during the second period of

this history to play a part so conspicuous and effective, we

know nothing during the first two centuries after 776 B. C. We

first acquire some insight into it on occasion of the disputes

between Thebes and Platæa, about the year 520 B. C."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 3.

In the Greek legendary period one part of this territory,

subsequently Bœotian--the Copaic valley in the north--was

occupied by the enterprising people called the Minyi, whose

chief city was Orchomenus. Their neighbors were the Cadmeians

of Thebes, who are "rich," as Grote expresses it, "in

legendary antiquities." The reputed founder of Thebes was

Cadmus, bringer of letters to Hellas, from Phœnicia or from

Egypt, according to different representations. Dionysus

(Bacchus) and Hêraklês were both supposed to recognize the

Cadmeian city as their birth-place. The terrible legends of

Œdipus and his unhappy family connect themselves with the same

place, and the incident wars between Thebes and Argos--the

assaults of the seven Argive chiefs and of their sons, the

Epigoni--were, perhaps, real causes of a real destruction of

the power of some race for whom the Cadmeians stand. They and

their neighbors, the Minyi of Orchomenus, appear to have given

way before another people, from Thessaly, who gave the name

Bœotia to the country of both and who were the inhabitants of

the Thebes of historic times.

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 14;

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 1, chapter 4.

"That the Bœotia of history should never have attained to a

significance corresponding to the natural advantages of the

locality, and to the prosperity of the district in the

pre-Homeric age, is due above all to one principal cause. The

immigration of the Thessalian Bœotians, from which the country

derived its name and the beginnings of its connected history,

destroyed the earlier civilization of the land, without

succeeding in establishing a new civilization capable of

conducting the entire district to a prosperous and harmonious

development. It cannot be said that the ancient germs of

culture were suppressed, or that barbarous times supervened.

The ancient seats of the gods and oracles continued to be

honoured and the ancient festivals of the Muses on Mount

Helicon, and of the Charites at Orchomenus, to be celebrated.

{286}

In Bœotia too the beneficent influence of Delphi was at work,

and the poetic school of Hesiod, connected as it was with

Delphi, long maintained itself here. And a yet stronger

inclination was displayed by the Æolian immigrants towards

music and lyric poetry. The cultivation of the music of the

flute was encouraged by the excellent reeds of the Copaic

morasses. This was the genuinely national species of music in

Bœotia. ... And yet the Bœotians lacked the capacity for

attracting to themselves the earlier elements of population in

such a way as to bring about a happy amalgamation. ... The

Bœotian lords were not much preferable to the Thessalian; nor

was there any region far or near, inhabited by Greek tribes,

which presented a harsher contrast in culture or manners, than

the district where the road led from the Attic side of Mount

Parnes across to the Bœotian."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 6, chapter 1.

See, also, GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.

BŒOTIAN LEAGUE.

"The old Bœotian League, as far as its outward forms went,

seems to have been fairly entitled to the name of a Federal

Government, but in its whole history we trace little more than

the gradual advance of Thebes to a practical supremacy over

the other cities. ... The common government was carried on in

the name of the whole Bœotian nation. Its most important

magistrates bore the title of Bœotarchs: their exact number,

whether eleven or thirteen, is a disputed point of Greek

archæology, or rather of Bœotian geography. ... Thebes chose

two Bœotarchs and each of the other cities one."

E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government.,

chapter 4, section 2.

BOERS, Boer War.

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

BOGDANIA.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES, 14TH-15TH CENTURIES

(ROUMANIA, ETC.)

BOGESUND, Battle of (1520).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.

BOGOMILIANS, The.

A religious sect which arose among the Sclavonians of Thrace

and Bulgaria, in the eleventh century, and suffered

persecution from the orthodox of the Greek church. They

sympathized with the Iconoclasts of former times, were hostile

to the adoration of the Virgin and saints, and took more or

less from the heretical doctrines of the Paulicians. Their

name is derived by some from the two Sclavonian words, "Bog,"

signifying God, and "milui," "have mercy." Others say that

"Bogumil," meaning "one beloved by God," was the correct

designation. Basilios, the leader of the Bogomilians, was

burned by the Emperor Alexius Comnenos, in the hippodrome, at

Constantinople, A. D. 1118.

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,

716-1453, book 3, chapter 2, section 1.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 9TH-16TH CENTURIES (BOSNIA,

ETC.)

BOGOTA, The founding of the city (1538).

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.

BOHEMIA, Derivation of the name.

See BOIANS.

BOHEMIA:

Its people and their early history.

"Whatever may be the inferences from the fact of Bohemia

having been politically connected with the empire of the

Germanic Marcomanni, whatever may be those from the element

Boioas connecting its population with the Boii of Gaul and

Bavaria (Baiovarii), the doctrine that the present Slavonic

population of that kingdom--Tshekhs [or Czekhs] as they call

themselves--is either recent in origin or secondary to any

German or Keltic aborigines, is wholly unsupported by history.

In other words, at the beginning of the historical period

Bohemia was as Slavonic as it is now. From A. D. 526 to A. D.

550, Bohemia belonged to the great Thuringian Empire. The

notion that it was then Germanic (except in its political

relations) is gratuitous. Nevertheless, Schaffarik's account

is, that the ancestors of the present Tshekhs came, probably,

from White Croatia: which was either north of the Carpathians,

or each side of them. According to other writers, however, the

parts above the river Kulpa in Croatia sent them forth. In

Bohemian the verb 'ceti' = 'to begin,' from which Dobrowsky

derives the name Czekhs = the beginners, the foremost, i. e.,

the first Slavonians who passed westwards. The powerful Samo,

the just Krok, and his daughter, the wise Libussa, the founder

of Prague, begin the uncertain list of Bohemian kings, A. D.

624-700. About A. D. 722, a number of petty chiefs become

united under P'remysl the husband of Libussa. Under his son

Nezamysl occurs the first Constitutional Assembly at Wysegrad;

and in A. D. 845, Christianity was introduced. But it took no

sure footing till about A. D. 966. Till A. D. 1471 the names

of the Bohemian kings and heroes are Tshekh--Wenceslaus,

Ottokar, Ziska, Podiebrad. In A. D. 1564, the Austrian

connexion and the process of Germanizing began. ... The

history and ethnology of Moravia is nearly that of Bohemia,

except that the Marcomannic Germans, the Turks, Huns, Avars,

and other less important populations may have effected a

greater amount of intermixture. Both populations are Tshekh,

speaking the Tshekh language--the language, probably, of the

ancient Quadi."

R. G. Latham, Ethnology of Europe, chapter 11.

BOHEMIA: 7th Century.

The Yoke of the Avars broken.

The Kingdom of Samo.

See AVARS: 7TH CENTURY.

BOHEMIA: 9th Century.

Subject to the Moravian Kingdom of Svatopluk.

See MORAVIA: 9TH CENTURY.

BOHEMIA: 13th Century.

The King made a Germanic Elector.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1276.

War of King Ottocar with the Emperor Rodolph of Hapsburg.

His defeat and death.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1310.

Acquisition of the crown by John of Luxembourg.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1308-1313.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1347.

Charles IV. elected to the imperial throne.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1355.

The succession fixed in the Luxemburg dynasty.

Incorporation of Moravia, Silesia, &c.

The diet of the nobles, in 1355, joined Charles IV. in "fixing

the order of succession in the dynasty of Luxemburg, and in

definitely establishing that principle of primogeniture which

had already been the custom in the Premyslide dynasty.

Moravia, Silesia, Upper Lusatia, Brandenburg, which had been

acquired from the margrave Otto, and the county of Glatz

(Kladsko), with the consent of the diets of these provinces,

were declared integral and inalienable portions of the kingdom

of Bohemia."

L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, chapter 11.

{287}

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1364.

Reversion of the crown guaranteed to the House of Austria.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1378-1400.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1405-1415.

John Hus, and the movement of Religious Reformation.

"Some sparks of the fire which Wielif had lighted [see

ENGLAND: A. D. 1360-1414], blown over half Europe, as far as

remote Bohemia, quickened into stronger activity a flame which

for long years burned and scorched and consumed, defying all

efforts to extinguish it. But for all this, it was not Wiclif

who kindled the Bohemian fires. His writing did much to fan

and feed them; while the assumed and in part erroneously

assumed, identity of his teaching with that of Hus contributed

not a little to shape the tragic issues of the Bohemian

reformer's life. But the Bohemian movement was an independent

and eminently a national one. If we look for the proper

forerunners of Hus, his true spiritual ancestors, we shall

find them in his own land, in a succession of earnest and

faithful preachers. ... John Hus (b. 1369, d. 1415), the

central figure of the Bohemian Reformation, took in the year

1394 his degree as Bachelor of Theology in that University of

Prague, upon the fortunes of which he was destined to exercise

so lasting an influence; and four years later, in 1398, he

began to deliver lectures there. ... He soon signalized

himself by his diligence in breaking the bread of life to

hungering souls, and his boldness in rebuking vice in high

places as in low. So long as he confined himself to reproving

the sins of the laity, leaving those of the Clergy and monks

unassailed, he found little opposition, nay, rather support

and applause from these. But when [1405] he brought them also

within the circle of his condemnation, and began to upbraid

them for their covetousness, their ambition, their luxury,

their sloth, and for other vices, they turned angrily upon

him, and sought to undermine his authority, everywhere

spreading reports of the unsoundness of his teaching. ...

While matters were in this strained condition, events took

place at Prague which are too closely connected with the story

that we are telling, exercised too great an influence in

bringing about the issues that lie before us, to allow us to

pass them by. ... The University of Prague, though recently

founded--it only dated back to the year 1348--was now, next

after those of Paris and Oxford, the most illustrious in

Europe. ... This University, like that of Paris, on the

pattern of which it had been modelled, was divided into four

'nations'--four groups, that is, or families of scholars--each

of these having in academical affairs a single collective

vote. These nations were the Bavarian, the Saxon, the Polish,

and the Bohemian. This does not appear at first an unfair

division--two German and two Slavonic; but in practical

working the Polish was so largely recruited from Silesia, and

other German or half-German lands, that its vote was in fact

German also. The Teutonic votes were thus as three to one, and

the Bohemians in their own land and their own University on

every important matter hopelessly outvoted. When, by, aid of

this preponderance, the University was made to condemn the

teaching of Wiclif ... matters came to a crisis. Urged by Hus,

who as a stout patriot, and an earnest lover of the Bohemian

language and literature, had more than a theological interest

in the matter,--by Jerome [of Prague],--by a large number of

the Bohemian nobility,--King Wenzel published an edict whereby

the relations of natives and foreigners were completely

reversed. There should be henceforth three votes for the

Bohemian nation, and only one for the three others. Such a

shifting of the weights certainly appears as a redressing of

one inequality by creating another. At all events it was so

earnestly resented by the Germans, by professors and students

alike, that they quitted the University in a body, some say of

five, and some of thirty thousand, and founded the rival

University of Leipsic, leaving no more than two thousand

students at Prague. Full of indignation against Hus, whom they

regarded as the prime author of this affront and wrong, they

spread throughout all Germany the most unfavourable reports of

him and of his teaching. This exodus of the foreigners had

left Hus, who was now Rector of the University, with a freer

field than before. But Church matters at Prague did not mend;

they became more confused and threatening every day; until

presently the shameful outrage against all Christian morality

which a century later did a still more effectual work, served

to put Hus into open opposition to the corrupt hierarchy of

his time. Pope John XXIII., having a quarrel with the King of

Naples, proclaimed a crusade against him, with what had become

a constant accompaniment of this,--Indulgences to match. But

to denounce Indulgences, as Hus with fierce and righteous

indignation did now, was to wound Rome in her most sensitive

part. He was excommunicated at once, and every place which

should harbour him stricken with an interdict. While matters

were in this frame the Council of Constance [see PAPACY: A. D.

1414-1418] was opened, which should appease all the troubles

of Christendom, and correct whatever was amiss. The Bohemian

difficulty could not be omitted, and Hus was summoned to make

answer at Constance for himself. He had not been there four

weeks when he was required to appear before the Pope and

Cardinals (Nov. 18, 1414). After a brief informal hearing he

was committed to harsh durance from which he never issued as a

free man again. Sigismund, the German King and Emperor Elect,

who had furnished Hus with a safe-conduct which should protect

him, 'going to the Council, tarrying at the Council, returning

from the Council,' was absent from Constance at the time, and

heard with real displeasure how lightly regarded this promise

and pledge of his had been. Some big words too he spoke,

threatening to come himself and release the prisoner by force;

but, being waited on by a deputation from the Council, who

represented to him that he, as a layman, in giving such a

safe conduct had exceeded his powers, and intruded into a

region which was not his, Sigismund was convinced, or affected

to be convinced. ... More than seven months elapsed before Hus

could obtain a hearing before the Council. This was granted to

him at last. Thrice heard (June 5, 7, 8, 1415),--if indeed

such tumultuary sittings, where the man speaking for his life,

and for much more than his life, was continually interrupted

and overborne by hostile voices, by loud cries of 'Recant,'

'Recant,' may be reckoned as hearings at all,--he bore

himself, by the confession of all, with courage, meekness and

dignity." He refused to recant. Some of the articles brought

against him, he said, "charged him with teaching things which

he had never taught, and he could not, by this formal act of

retraction, admit that he had taught them." He was condemned,

sentenced to the stake, and burned, on the 6th of July, 1415.

His friend, Jerome, of Prague, suffered the same fate in the

following May.

R. C. Trench, Lectures on Mediaeval Church History,

lecture 22.

ALSO IN:

E. H. Gillett, Life and times of John Hus.

A. H. Wratislaw, John Hus.

A. Neander, General History of Christian Religion,

volume 9, part 2.

{288}

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1410.

Election of King Sigismund to the imperial throne.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

The Hussite Wars.

The Reformation checked.

"The fate of Huss and Jerome created an instant and fierce

excitement among the Bohemians. An address, defending them

against the charge of heresy and protesting against the

injustice and barbarity of the Council, was signed by 400 or

500 nobles and forwarded to Constance. The only result was

that the Council decreed that no safe-conduct could be allowed

to protect a heretic, that the University of Prague must be

reorganized, and the strongest measures applied to suppress

the Hussite doctrines in Bohemia. This was a defiance which

the Bohemians courageously accepted. Men of all classes united

in proclaiming that the doctrines of Huss should be freely

taught, and that no Interdict of the Church should be

enforced: the University, and even Wenzel's queen, Sophia,

favored this movement, which soon became so powerful that all

priests who refused to administer the sacrament 'in both

forms' were driven from the churches. ... When the Council of

Constance was dissolved [1418], Sigismund [the Emperor]

hastened to Hungary to carry on a new war with the Turks, who

were already extending their conquests along the Danube. The

Hussites in Bohemia employed this opportunity to organize

themselves for resistance; 40,000 of them, in July, 1419,

assembled on a mountain to which they gave the name of Tabor,

and chose as their leader a nobleman who was surnamed Ziska,

'the one-eyed.' The excitement soon rose to such a pitch that

several monasteries were stormed and plundered. King Wenzel

arrested some of the ringleaders, but this only inflamed the

spirit of the people. They formed a procession in Prague,

marched through the city, carrying the sacramental cup at

their head, and took forcible possession of several churches.

When they halted before the city-hall, to demand the release

of their imprisoned brethren, stones were thrown at them from

the windows, whereupon they broke into the building and hurled

the Burgomaster and six other officials upon the upheld spears

of those below. ... The Hussites were already divided into two

parties, one moderate in its demands, called the Calixtines,

from the Latin 'calix,' a chalice, which was their symbol

[referring to their demand for the administration of the

eucharistic cup to the laity, or communion 'sub utraque

specie'--whence they were also called 'Utraquists']; the other

radical and fanatic, called the 'Taborites,' who proclaimed

their separation from the Church of Rome and a new system of

brotherly equality through which they expected to establish

the Millenium upon earth. The exigencies of their situation

obliged these two parties to unite in common defence against

the forces of the Church and the Empire, during the sixteen

years of war which followed; but they always remained

separated in their religious views, and mutually intolerant.

Ziska, who called himself 'John Ziska of the Chalice,

commander in the hope of God of the Taborites,' had been a

friend and was an ardent follower of Huss. He was an old man,

bald-headed, short, broad-shouldered, with a deep furrow

across his brow, an enormous aquiline nose, and a short red

moustache. In his genius for military operations, he ranks

among the great commanders of the world; his quickness, energy

and inventive talent were marvellous, but at the same time he

knew neither tolerance nor mercy. . . . Sigismund does not

seem to have been aware of the formidable character of the

movement, until the end of his war with the Turks, some months

afterwards, and he then persuaded the Pope to summon all

Christendom to a crusade against Bohemia. During the year 1420

a force of 100,000 soldiers was collected, and Sigismund

marched at their head to Prague. The Hussites met him with the

demand for the acceptance of the following articles: 1.--The

word of God to be freely preached; 2.--The sacrament to be

administered in both forms; 3.---The clergy to possess no

property or temporal authority; 4.--All sins to be punished by

the proper authorities. Sigismund was ready to accept these

articles as the price of their submission, but the Papal

Legate forbade the agreement, and war followed. On the 1st of

November, 1420, the Crusaders were totally defeated by Ziska,

and all Bohemia was soon relieved of their presence. The

dispute between the moderates and the radicals broke out

again; the idea of a community of property began to prevail

among the Taborites, and most of the Bohemian nobles refused

to act with them. Ziska left Prague with his troops and for a

time devoted himself to the task of suppressing all opposition

through the country, with fire and sword. He burned no less

than 550 convents and monasteries, slaying the priests and

monks who refused to accept the new doctrines. ... While

besieging the town of Raby, an arrow destroyed his remaining

eye, yet he continued to plan battles and sieges as before.

The very name of the blind warrior became a terror throughout

Germany. In September, 1421, a second Crusade of 200,000 men,

commanded by five German Electors, entered Bohemia from the

west. ... But the blind Ziska, nothing daunted, led his

wagons, his flail-men, and mace-wielders against the Electors,

whose troops began to fly before them. No battle was fought;

the 200,000 Crusaders were scattered in all directions, and

lost heavily during their retreat. Then Ziska wheeled about

and marched against Sigismund, who was late in making his

appearance. The two armies met on the 8th of January, 1422 [at

Deutschbrod], and the Hussite victory was so complete that the

Emperor narrowly escaped falling into their hands. ... A third

Crusade was arranged and Frederick of Brandenburg (the

Hohenzollern) selected to command it, but the plan failed from

lack of support.

{289}

The dissensions among the Hussites became fiercer

than ever; Ziska was at one time on the point of attacking

Prague, but the leaders of the moderate party succeeded in

coming to an understanding with him, and he entered the city

in triumph. In October, 1424, while marching against Duke

Albert of Austria, who had invaded Moravia, he fell a victim

to the plague. Even after death he continued to terrify the

German soldiers, who believed that his skin had been made into

a drum, and still called the Hussites to battle. A majority of

the Taborites elected a priest, called Procopius the Great, as

their commander in Ziska's stead; the others who thenceforth

styled themselves 'Orphans,' united under another priest,

Procopius the Little. The approach of another Imperial army,

in 1426, compelled them to forget their differences, and the

result was a splendid victory over their enemies. Procopius

the Great then invaded Austria and Silesia, which he laid

waste without mercy. The Pope called a fourth Crusade, which

met the same fate as the former ones: the united armies of the

Archbishop of Treves, the Elector Frederick of Brandenburg and

the Duke of Saxony, 200,000 strong, were utterly defeated, and

fled in disorder, leaving an enormous quantity of stores and

munitions of war in the hands of the Bohemians. Procopius, who

was almost the equal of Ziska as a military leader, made

several unsuccessful attempts to unite the Hussites in one

religious body. In order to prevent their dissensions from

becoming dangerous to the common cause, he kept the soldiers

of all sects under his command, and undertook fierce invasions

into Bavaria, Saxony and Brandenburg, which made the Hussite

name a terror to all Germany. During these expeditions one

hundred towns were destroyed, more than 1,500 villages burned,

tens of thousands of the inhabitants slain, and such

quantities of plunder collected that it was impossible to

transport the whole of it to Bohemia. Frederick of Brandenburg

and several other princes were compelled to pay heavy tributes to

the Hussites: the Empire was thoroughly humiliated, the people

weary of slaughter, yet the Pope refused even to call a

Council for the discussion of the difficulty. ... The German

princes made a last and desperate effort: an army of 130,000

men, 40,000 of whom were cavalry, was brought together, under

the command of Frederick of Brandenburg, while Albert of

Austria was to support it by invading Bohemia from the south.

Procopius and his dauntless Hussites met the Crusaders on the

14th of August, 1431, at a place called Thauss, and won

another of their marvellous victories. The Imperial army was

literally cut to pieces, 8,000 wagons, filled with provisions

and munitions of war, and 150 cannons, were left upon the

field. The Hussites marched northward to the Baltic, and

eastward into Hungary, burning, slaying, and plundering as

they went. Even the Pope now yielded, and the Hussites were

invited to attend the Council at Basel, with the most solemn

stipulations in regard to personal safety and a fair

discussion of their demands. ... In 1433, finally 300

Hussites, headed by Procopius, appeared in Basel. They

demanded nothing more than the acceptance of the four articles

upon which they had united in 1420; but after seven weeks of

talk, during which the Council agreed upon nothing and

promised nothing, they marched away, after stating that any

further negotiation must be carried on in Prague. This course

compelled the Council to act; an embassy was appointed, which

proceeded to Prague, and on the 30th of November, the same

year, concluded a treaty with the Hussites. The four demands

were granted, but each with a condition attached which gave

the Church a chance to regain its lost power. For this reason,

the Taborites and 'Orphans' refused to accept the compact; the

moderate party united with the nobles and undertook to

suppress the former by force. A fierce internal war followed,

but it was of short duration. In 1434, the Taborites were

defeated [at Lipan, May 30], their fortified mountain taken,

Procopius the Great and the Little were both slain, and the

members of the sect dispersed. The Bohemian Reformation was

never again dangerous to the Church of Rome."

B. Taylor, History of Germany, chapter 22.

ALSO IN:

C. A. Peschek, Reformation and Anti-Reformation in

Bohemia, introductory chapter.

E. H. Gillett, Life and Times of John Hus,

volume 2, chapter 13-18.

E. de Schweinitz, History of the Church known as the Unitas

Fratrum, chapter 9.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1434-1457.

Organization of the Utraquist National Church.

Minority of Ladislaus Posthumus.

Regency of George Podiebrad.

Origin of the Unitas Fratrum.

"The battle of Lipan was a turning point in the history of the

Hussites. It put Bohemia and Moravia into the hands of the

Utraquists, and enabled them to carry out their plans

unhindered. The man who was foremost in shaping events and who

became more and more prominent, until he exercised a

commanding influence, was John of Rokycana. ... At the diet of

1435 he was unanimously elected archbishop. ... Meantime

Sigismund endeavored to regain his kingdom. The Diet made

demands which were stringent and humiliating; but he pledged

himself to fulfill them, and on the 5th of July, 1436, at a

meeting held with great pomp and solemnity, in the

market-place of Iglau, was formally acknowledged as King of

Bohemia. On the same occasion, the Compactata were anew

ratified and the Bohemians readmitted to the fellowship of the

mother church. But scarcely had Sigismund reached his capital

when he began so serious a reaction in favor of Rome that

Rokycana secretly left the city and retired to a castle near

Pardubic (1437). The king's treachery was, however, cut short

by the hand of death, on the 9th of December, of the same

year, at Znaim, while on his way to Hungary; and his successor

and son-in-law, Albert of Austria, followed him to the grave

in 1439, in the midst of a campaign against the Turks. Bohemia

was left without a ruler, for Albert had no children except a

posthumous son [Ladislaus Posthumus.]"

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442, and 1442-1458.

"A time of anarchy began and various leagues arose, the most

powerful of which stood under Baron Ptacek. ... He ... called

an ecclesiastical convention at Kuttenberg (October 4th). This

convention brought about far-reaching results. ... Rokycana

was acknowledged as Archbishop elect, the supreme direction of

ecclesiastical affairs was committed into his hands, the

priests promised him obedience, and 24 doctrinal and

constitutional articles were adopted which laid the foundation

of the Utraquist Church as the National Church of Bohemia.

{290}

But the Taborites stood aloof. ... At last a disputation was

agreed upon," as the result of which the Taborites were

condemned by the Diet. "They lost all prestige; their towns,

with the exception of Tabor, passed out of their hands; their

membership was scattered and a large part of it joined the

National Church. In the following summer Ptacek died and

George Podiebrad succeeded him as the head of the league.

Although a young man of only 24 years, he displayed the

sagacity of an experienced statesman and was distinguished by

the virtues of a patriot. In 1448 a bold stroke made him

master of Prague and constituted him practically Regent of all

Bohemia; four years later his regency was formally

acknowledged. He was a warm friend of Rokycana, whose

consecration he endeavored to bring about." When it was found

that Rome could not be reconciled, there were thoughts of

cutting loose altogether from the Roman Catholic and uniting

with the Greek Church. "Negotiations were actually begun in

1452, but came to an abrupt close in the following year, in

consequence of the fall of Constantinople. About the same time

Ladislaus Posthumus, Albert's son, assumed the crown,

Podiebrad remaining Regent. The latter continued the friend of

Rokycana; the former, who was a Catholic, conceived a strong

dislike to him. As soon as Rokycana had given up the hope of

conciliating Rome, he began to preach, with great power and

eloquence, against its corruptions." It was at this time that

a movement arose among certain of his followers which resulted

in the formation of the remarkable religious body which called

itself Unitas Fratrum. The leading spirit in this movement was

Rokycana's nephew, commonly called Gregory the Patriarch. The

teaching and influence which shaped it was that of Peter

Chelcicky. Gregory and his companions, wishing to dwell

together, in the Christian unity of which they had formed an

ideal in their minds, found a retreat at the secluded village

of Kunwald, on the estate of George Podiebrad. "The name which

they chose was 'Brethren of the Law of Christ'--'Fratres

Legis Christi'; inasmuch, however, as this name gave rise to

the idea that they were a new order of Monks, they changed it

simply into 'Brethren.' When the organization of their Church

had been completed, they assumed the additional title of

'Jednota Bratrska,' or Unitas Fratrum, that is, the Unity of

the Brethren, which has remained the official and significant

appellation of the Church to the present day. .... It was

often abbreviated into 'The Unity.' Another name by which the

Church called itself was 'The Bohemian Brethren.' It related

to all the Brethren, whether they belonged to Bohemia,

Moravia, Prussia or Poland. To call them The Bohemian-Moravian

Brethren, or the Moravian Brethren, is historically incorrect.

The name Moravian arose in the time of the Renewed Brethren's

Church, because the men by whom it was renewed came from

Moravia. ... The organization of the Unitas Fratrum took place

in the year 1457."

E. De Schweinitz, History of the Church known as Unitas

Fratrum, chapter 10-12.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458.

Election of George Podiebrad to the throne.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471.

Papal excommunication and deposition of the king, George

Podiebrad.

A crusade.

War with the Emperor and Matthias of Hungary.

Death of Podiebrad and election of Ladislaus of Poland.

"George Podiebrad had scarcely ascended the throne before the

Catholics, at the instigation of the pope, required him to

fulfil his coronation oath,  by expelling all heretics from

the kingdom. He complied with their request, banished the

Taborites, Picards, Adamites, and all other religious sects

who did not profess the Catholic doctrines, and issued a

decree that all his subjects should become members of the

Catholic church, as communicants under one or both kinds. The

Catholics, however, were not satisfied; considering the

Calixtins as heretics, they entreated him to annul the

compacts, or to obtain a new ratification of them from the new

pope: To gratify their wishes he sent an embassy to Rome,

requesting a confirmation of the compacts; but Pius, under the

pretence that the compacts gave occasion to heresy, refused

his ratification, and sent Fantino della Valle, as legate, to

Prague, for the purpose of persuading the king to prohibit the

administration of the communion under both kinds. In

consequence of this legation the king called a diet, at which

the legate and the bishops of Olmutz and Breslau were present.

The ill success of the embassy to Rome having been announced,

he said, 'I am astonished, and cannot divine the intentions of

the pope. The compacts were the only means of terminating the

dreadful commotions in Bohemia, and if they are annulled, the

kingdom will again relapse into the former disorders. The

council of Basle, which was composed of the most learned men

in Europe, approved and granted them to the Bohemians, and

pope Eugenius confirmed them. They contain no heresy, and are

in all respects conformable to the doctrines of the holy

church. I and my wife have followed them from our childhood,

and I am determined to maintain them till my death.' ...

Fantino replying in a long and virulent invective, the king

ordered him to quit the assembly, and imprisoned him in the

castle of Podiebrad, allowing him no other sustenance except

bread and water. The pope, irritated by this insult, annulled

the compacts, in 1463, and fulminated a sentence of

excommunication against the king, unless he appeared at Rome

within a certain time to justify his conduct. This bull

occasioned a great ferment among the Catholics; Podiebrad was

induced to liberate the legate, and made an apology to the

offended pontiff; while Frederic, grateful for the assistance

which he had recently received from the king of Bohemia, when

besieged by his brother Albert, interposed his mediation with

the pope, and procured the suspension of the sentence of

excommunication. Pius dying on the 14th of August, 1464, the

new pope, Paul II., persecuted the king of Bohemia with

increasing acrimony. He sent his legate to Breslau to excite

commotions among the Catholics, endeavoured without effect to

gain Casimir, king of Poland, by the offer of the Bohemian

crown, and applied with the same ill success to the states of

Germany. He at length overcame the gratitude of the emperor by

threats and promises, and at the diet of Nuremberg in 1467,

the proposal of his legate Fantino, to form a crusade against the

heretic king of Bohemia, was supported by the imperial ambassadors.

{291}

Although this proposal was rejected by the diet,

the pope published a sentence of deposition against Podiebrad,

and his emissaries were allowed to preach the crusade

throughout Germany, and in every part of the Austrian

territories. The conduct of Frederic drew from the king of

Bohemia, in 1468, a violent invective against his ingratitude,

and a formal declaration of war; he followed this declaration

by an irruption into Austria, spreading devastation as far as

the Danube. Frederic in vain applied to the princes of the

empire for assistance: and at length excited Matthias king of

Hungary against his father-in-law, by offering to invest him

with the kingdom of Bohemia. Matthias, forgetting his

obligations to Podiebrad, to whom he owed his life and crown,

was dazzled by the offer, and being assisted by bodies of

German marauders, who had assumed the cross, invaded Bohemia.

At the same time the intrigues of the pope exciting the

Catholics to insurrection, the country again became a prey to

the dreadful evils of a civil and religious war. The vigour

and activity of George Podiebrad suppressed the internal

commotions, and repelled the invasion of the Hungarians; an

armistice was concluded, and the two kings, on the 4th of

April, 1469, held an amicable conference at Sternberg, in

Moravia, where they entered into a treaty of peace. But

Matthias, influenced by the perfidious maxim, that no compact

should be kept with heretics, was persuaded by the papal

legate to resume hostilities. After overrunning Moravia and

Silesia, he held a mock diet at Olmutz with some of the

Catholic party, where he was chosen king of Bohemia, and

solemnly crowned by the legate. ... Podiebrad, in order to

baffle the designs both of the emperor and Matthias, summoned

a diet at Prague, and proposed to the states as his successor,

Ladislaus, eldest son of Casimir, king of Poland, by

Elizabeth, second daughter of the emperor Albert. The proposal

was warmly approved by the nation, ... as the Catholics were

desirous of living under a prince of their own communion, and

the Calixtins anxious to prevent the accession of Frederic or

Matthias, both of whom were hostile to their doctrines. The

states accordingly assented without hesitation, and Ladislaus

was unanimously nominated successor to the throne. The

indignation of Matthias was inflamed by his disappointment,

and hostilities were continued with increasing fury. The two

armies, conducted by their respective sovereigns, the ablest

generals of the age, for some time kept each other in check;

till at length both parties, wearied by the devastation of

their respective countries, concluded a kind of armistice, on

the 22nd of July, 1470, which put a period to hostilities. On

the death of Podiebrad, in the ensuing year, Frederic again

presenting himself as a candidate, was supported by still

fewer adherents than on the former occasion; a more numerous

party espoused the interests of Matthias; but the majority

declaring for Ladislaus, he was re-elected, and proclaimed

king. Frederic supported Ladislaus in preference to Matthias,

and by fomenting the troubles in Hungary, as well as by his

intrigues with the king of Poland, endeavoured not only to

disappoint Matthias of the throne of Bohemia, but even to

drive him from that of Hungary."

W. Coxe. History of the House of Austria,

chapter 18 (volume 1).

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1471-1479.

War with Matthias of Hungary.

Surrender of Moravia and Silesia.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1490.

King Ladislaus elected to the throne of Hungary.

See Hungary: A. D. 1487-1526.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1516-1576.

Accession of the House of Austria.

The Reformation and its strength.

Alternating toleration and persecution.

In 1489 Vladislav "was elected to the throne of Hungary after

the death of Mathias Corvinus. He died in 1516, and was

succeeded on the throne of Bohemia and Hungary by his minor

son, Louis, who perished in 1526 at the battle of Mohacz

against the Turks [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526]. An equality

of rights was maintained between the Hussites and the Roman

Catholics during these two reigns. Louis left no children, and

was succeeded on the throne of Hungary and Bohemia by

Ferdinand of Austria [see, also, AUSTRIA: A. D. 1406-1526],

brother of the Emperor Charles V., and married to the sister

of Louis, a prince of a bigoted and despotic character. The

doctrines of Luther had already found a speedy echo amongst

the Calixtines under the preceding reign; and Protestantism

gained so much ground under that of Ferdinand, that the

Bohemians refused to take part in the war against the

Protestant league of Smalkalden, and formed a union for the

defence of the national and religious liberties, which were

menaced by Ferdinand. The defeat of the Protestants at the

battle of Muhlberg, in 1547, by Charles V., which laid

prostrate their cause in Germany, produced a severe reaction

in Bohemia. Several leaders of the union were executed, others

imprisoned or banished; the property of many nobles was

confiscated, the towns were heavily fined, deprived of several

privileges, and subjected to new taxes. These measures were

carried into execution with the assistance of German, Spanish,

and Hungarian soldiers, and legalized by an assembly known

under the name of the Bloody Diet. ... The Jesuits were also

introduced during that reign into Bohemia. The privileges of

the Calixtine, or, as it was officially called, the Utraquist

Church, were not abolished; and Ferdinand, who had succeeded

to the imperial crown after the abdication of his brother

Charles V., softened, during the latter years of his reign,

his harsh and despotic character. ... He died in 1564,

sincerely regretting, it is said, the acts of oppression which

he had committed against his Bohemian subjects. He was

succeeded by his son, the Emperor Maximilian II., a man of

noble character and tolerant disposition, which led to the

belief that he himself inclined towards the doctrines of the

Reformation. He died in 1576, leaving a name venerated by all

parties. ... Maximilian's son, the Emperor Rudolph, was

educated at the court of his cousin, Philip II. of Spain, and

could not be but adverse to Protestantism, which had, however,

become too strong, not only in Bohemia, but also in Austria

proper, to be easily suppressed; but several indirect means

were adopted, in order gradually to effect this object."

V. Krasinski, Lectures on the Religious History of the

Slavonic Nations, lecture 2.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1576-1604.

Persecution of Protestants by Rudolph.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.

{292}

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1611-1618.

The Letter of Majesty, or Royal Charter, and Matthias's

violation of it.

Ferdinand of Styria forced upon the nation as king by

hereditary right.

The throwing of the Royal Counsellors from the window.

Beginning of the Thirty Years War.

In 1611 the Emperor Rodolph was forced to surrender the crown

of Bohemia to his brother Matthias. The next year he died,

and Matthias succeeded him as Emperor also. "The tranquillity

which Rodolph II.'s Letter of Majesty [see GERMANY: A. D.

1608-1618] had established in Bohemia lasted for some time,

under the administration of Matthias, till the nomination of a

new heir to this kingdom in the person of Ferdinand of Gratz

[Styria]. This prince, whom we shall afterwards become better

acquainted with under the title of Ferdinand II., Emperor of

Germany, had, by the violent extirpation of the Protestant

religion within his hereditary dominions, announced himself as

an inexorable zealot for popery, and was consequently looked

upon by the Catholic part of Bohemia as the future pillar of

their church. The declining health of the Emperor brought on

this hour rapidly; and, relying on so powerful a supporter,

the Bohemian Papists began to treat the Protestants with

little moderation. The Protestant vassals of Roman Catholic

nobles, in particular, experienced the harshest treatment. At

length several of the former were incautious enough to speak

somewhat loudly of their hopes, and by threatening hints to

awaken among the Protestants a suspicion of their future

sovereign. But this mistrust would never have broken out into

actual violence, had the Roman Catholics confined themselves

to general expressions, and not by attacks on individuals

furnished the discontent of the people with enterprising

leaders. Henry Matthias, Count Thurn, not a native of Bohemia,

but proprietor of some estates in that kingdom, had, by his

zeal for the Protestant cause, and an enthusiastic attachment

to his newly adopted country, gained the entire confidence of

the Utraquists, which opened him the way to the most important

posts. ... Of a hot and impetuous disposition, which loved

tumult because his talents shone in it--rash and thoughtless

enough to undertake things which cold prudence and a calmer

temper would not have ventured upon--unscrupulous enough,

where the gratification of his passions was concerned, to

sport with the fate of thousands, and at the same time politic

enough to hold in leading-strings such a people as the

Bohemians then were. He had already taken an active part in

the troubles under Rodolph's administration; and the Letter of

Majesty which the States had extorted from that Emperor, was

chiefly to be laid to his merit. The court had intrusted to

him, as burgrave or castellan of Calstein, the custody of the

Bohemian crown, and of the national charter. But the nation

had placed in his hands something far more important--itself

--with the office of defender or protector of the faith. The

aristocracy by which the Emperor was ruled, imprudently

deprived him of this harmless guardianship of the dead, to

leave him his full influence over the living. They took from

him his office of burgrave, or constable of the castle, which

had rendered him dependent on the court, thereby opening his

eyes to the importance of the other which remained, and

wounded his vanity, which yet was the thing that made his

ambition harmless. From this moment he was actuated solely by

a desire of revenge; and the opportunity of gratifying it was

not long wanting. In the Royal Letter which the Bohemians had

extorted from Rodolph II., as well as in the German religious

treaty, one material article remained undetermined. All the

privileges granted by the latter to the Protestants, were

conceived in favour of the Estates or governing bodies, not of

the subjects; for only to those of ecclesiastical states had a

toleration, and that precarious, been conceded. The Bohemian

Letter of Majesty, in the same manner, spoke only of the

Estates and the imperial towns, the magistrates of which had

contrived to obtain equal privileges with the former. These

alone were free to erect churches and schools, and openly to

celebrate their Protestant worship: in all other towns, it was

left entirely to the government to which they belonged, to

determine the religion of the inhabitants. The Estates of the

Empire had availed themselves of this privilege in its fullest

extent; the secular indeed without opposition; while the

ecclesiastical, in whose case the declaration of Ferdinand had

limited this privilege, disputed, not without reason, the

validity of that limitation. What was a disputed point in the

religious treaty, was left still more doubtful in the Letter

of Majesty. ... In the little town of Klostergrab, subject to

the Archbishop of Prague; and in Braunau, which belonged to

the abbot of that monastery, churches were founded by the

Protestants, and completed notwithstanding the opposition of

their superiors, and the disapprobation of the Emperor. ... By

the Emperor's orders, the church at Klostergrab was pulled

down; that at Braunau forcibly shut up, and the most turbulent

of the citizens thrown into prison. A general commotion among

the Protestants was the consequence of this measure; a loud

outcry was everywhere raised at this violation of the Letter

of Majesty; and Count Thurn animated by revenge, and

particularly called upon by his office of defender, showed

himself not a little busy in inflaming the minds of the

people. At his instigation deputies were summoned to Prague

from every circle in the empire, to concert the necessary

measures against the common danger. It was resolved to

petition the Emperor to press for the liberation of the

prisoners. The answer of the Emperor, already offensive to the

states, from its being addressed, not to them, but to his

viceroy, denounced their conduct as illegal and rebellious,

justified what had been done at Klostergrab and Braunau as the

result of an imperial mandate, and contained some passages

that might be construed into threats. Count Thurn did not fail

to augment the unfavourable impression which this imperial

edict made upon the assembled Estates. ... He held it ...

advisable first to direct their indignation against the

Emperor's counsellors; and for that purpose circulated a

report, that the imperial proclamation had been drawn up by

the government at Prague and only signed in Vienna. Among the

imperial delegates, the chief objects of the popular hatred,

were the President of the Chamber, Slawata, and Baron

Martinitz, who had been elected in place of Count Thurn,

Burgrave of Calstein. ... Against two characters so unpopular

the public indignation was easily excited, and they were

marked out for a sacrifice to the general indignation.

{293}

On the 23rd of May, 1618, the deputies appeared armed, and in

great numbers, at the royal palace, and forced their way into

the hall where the Commissioners Sternberg, Martinitz,

Lobkowitz, and Slawata were assembled. In a threatening tone

they demanded to know from each of them, whether he had taken

any part, or had consented to, the imperial proclamation.

Sternberg received them with composure, Martinitz and Slawata

with defiance. This decided their fate; Sternberg and

Lobkowitz, less hated, and more feared, were led by the arm

out of the room; Martinitz and Slawata were seized, dragged to

a window, and precipitated from a height of 80 feet, into the

castle trench. Their creature, the secretary Fabricius, was

thrown after them. This singular mode of execution naturally

excited the surprise of civilized nations. The Bohemians

justified it as a national custom, and saw nothing remarkable

in the whole affair, excepting that anyone should have got up

again safe and sound after such a fall. A dunghill, on which

the imperial commissioners chanced to be deposited, had saved

them from injury. [The incident of the flinging of the

obnoxious ministers from the window is often referred to as

'the defenestration at Prague.'] ... By this brutal act of

self-redress, no room was left for irresolution or repentance,

and it seemed as if a single crime could be absolved only by a

series of violences. As the deed itself could not be undone,

nothing was left but to disarm the hand of punishment. Thirty

directors were appointed to organize a regular insurrection.

They seized upon all the offices of state, and all the

imperial revenues, took into their own service the royal

functionaries and the soldiers, and summoned the whole

Bohemian nation to avenge the common cause."

F. Schiller, History of the Thirty Years' War, book 1,

pages 51-55.

ALSO IN:

S. R. Gardiner, The Thirty Years' War, chapter 2.

A. Gindely, History of the Thirty Years' War, chapter 1.

F. Kohlrausch, History of Germany, chapter 22.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1618-1620.

Conciliatory measures defeated by Ferdinand.

His election to the Imperial throne, and his deposition in

Bohemia.

Acceptance of the crown by Frederick the Palatine Elector.

His unsupported situation.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1618-1620.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1620.

Disappointment in the newly elected King.

His aggressive Calvinism.

Battle of the White Mountain before Prague.

Frederick's flight.

Annulling of the Royal charter.

Loss of Bohemian Liberties.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1620,

and HUNGARY: A. D. 1606-1660.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1621-1648.

The Reign of Terror.

Death, banishment, confiscation, dragoonades.

The country a desert.

Protestantism crushed, but not slain.

"In June, 1621, a fearful reign of terror began in Bohemia,

with the execution of 27 of the most distinguished heretics.

For years the unhappy people bled under it; thousands were

banished, and yet Protestantism was not fully exterminated.

The charter was cut into shreds by the Emperor himself; there

could be no forbearance towards 'such acknowledged rebels.' As

a matter of course, the Lutheran preaching was forbidden under

the heaviest penalties; heretical works, Bibles especially,

were taken away in heaps. Jesuit colleges, churches, and

schools came into power; but this was not all. A large number

of distinguished Protestant families were deprived of their

property, and, as if that were not enough, it was decreed that

no non-Catholic could be a citizen, nor carry on a trade,

enter into a marriage, nor make a will; anyone who harboured a

Protestant preacher forfeited his property; whoever permitted

Protestant instruction to be given was to be fined, and

whipped out of town; the Protestant poor who were not

converted were to be driven out of the hospitals, and to be

replaced by Catholic poor; he who gave free expression to his

opinions about religion was to be executed. In 1624 an order

was issued to all preachers and teachers to leave the country

within eight days under pain of death; and finally, it was

ordained that whoever had not become Catholic by Easter, 1626,

must emigrate. ... But the real conversions were few;

thousands quietly remained true to the faith; other thousands

wandered as beggars into foreign lands, more than 30,000

Bohemian families, and among them 500 belonging to the

aristocracy, went into banishment. Exiled Bohemians were to be

found in every country of Europe, and were not wanting in any

of the armies that fought against Austria. Those who could not

or would not emigrate, held to their faith in secret. Against

them dragoonades were employed. Detachments of soldiers were

sent into the various districts to torment the heretics till

they were converted. The 'Converters' (Seligmacher) went thus

throughout all Bohemia, plundering and murdering. ... No

succour reached the unfortunate people; but neither did the

victors attain their end. Protestantism and the Hussite

memories could not be slain, and only outward submission was

extorted. ... A respectable Protestant party exists to this

day in Bohemia and Moravia. But a desert was created; the land

was crushed for a generation. Before the war Bohemia had

4,000,000 inhabitants, and in 1648 there were but 700,000 or

800,000. These figures appear preposterous, but they are

certified by Bohemian historians. In some parts of the country

the population has not attained the standard of 1620 to this

day."

L. Häusser, The Period of the Reformation, chapter 32.

ALSO IN:

C. A. Peschek, Reformation and Anti-Reformation in

Bohemia, volume 2.

E. de Schweinitz, History of the Church known as the

Unitas Fratrum, chapter 47-51.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1631-1632.

Temporary occupation by the Saxons.

Their expulsion by Wallenstein.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1640-1645.

Campaigns of Baner and Torstenson.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1646-1648.

Last campaigns of the Thirty Years War.

Surprise and capture of part of Prague by the Swedes.

Siege of the old city.

Peace.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1740.

The question of the Austrian Succession.

The Pragmatic Sanction.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, and 1740.

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1741.

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

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1742 (JANUARY-MAY).

Prussian invasion.

Battle of Chotusitz.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JANUARY-MAY).

{294}

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

Expulsion of the French.

Belleisle's retreat.

Maria Theresa crowned at Prague.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JUNE-DECEMBER).

BOHEMIA: A. D. 1757.

The Seven Years War.

Frederick's invasion and defeat.

Battles of Prague and Kolin.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (APRIL-JUNE).

----------BOHEMIA: End----------

BOHEMIAN BRETHREN, The.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1434-1457,

and GERMANY: A. D. 1620.

BOHEMIANS (Gypsies).

See GYPSIES.

BOIANS, OR BOII.

Some passages in the earlier history and movements of the

powerful Gallic tribe known as the Boii will be found touched

upon under ROME: B. C. 390-347, and B. C. 295-191, in accounts

given of the destruction of Rome by the Gauls, and of the

subsequent wars of the Romans with the Cisalpine Gauls. After

the final conquest of the Boians in Gallia Cisalpina, early in

the second century, B. C., the Romans seem to have expelled

them, wholly or partly, from that country, forcing them to

cross the Alps. They afterwards occupied a region embraced in

modern Bavaria and Bohemia, both of which countries are

thought to have derived their names from these Boian people.

Some part of the nation, however, associated itself with the

Helvetii and joined in the migration which Cæsar arrested. He

settled these Boians in Gaul, within the Æduan territory,

between the Loire and the Allier. Their capital city was

Gergovia, which was also the name of a city of the Arverni.

The Gergovia of the Boians is conjectured to have been modern

Moulius. Their territory was the modern Bourbonnais, which

probably derived its name from them. Three important names,

therefore, in European geography and history, viz.--Bourbon,

Bavaria and Bohemia, are traced to the Gallic nation of the

Boii.

Tacitus, Germany, translated by a Church and Brodribb,

notes.

ALSO IN:

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 12, note.

BOIS-LE-DUC.

Siege and capture by the Dutch (1629).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

BOKHARA (Ancient Transoxania).

"Taken literally, the name [Transoxania] is a translation of

the Arabic Mavera-un-nehr (that which lies beyond or across

the river), and it might therefore be supposed that

Transoxania meant the country lying beyond or on the right

shore of the Oxus. But this is not strictly speaking the case.

... From the period of the Samanides down to modern times, the

districts of Talkan, Tokharistan and Zem, although lying

partly or entirely on the left bank of the Oxus, have been

looked on as integral portions of Bokhara. Our historical

researches seem to prove that this arrangement dates from the

Samanides, who were themselves originally natives of that part

of Khorassan. ... It is almost impossible in dealing

geographically with Transoxania to assign definitely an

accurate frontier. We can and will therefore comprehend in our

definition of Transoxania solely Bokhara, or the khanate of

Bokhara; for although it has only been known by the latter

name since the time of Sheïbani and of the Ozbegs [A. D.

1500], the shores of the Zerefshan and the tract of country

stretching southwards to the Oxus and northwards to the desert

of Kizil Kum, represent the only parts of the territory which

have remained uninterruptedly portions of the original

undivided state of Transoxania from the earliest historical

times. ... Bokhara, the capital from the time of the

Samanides, and at the date of the very earliest geographical

reports concerning Transoxania, is said, during its

prosperity, to have been the largest city of the Islamite

world. ... Bokhara was not, however, merely a luxurious city,

distinguished by great natural advantages; it was also the

principal emporium for the trade between China and Western

Asia; in addition to the vast warehouses for silks, brocades,

and cotton stuffs, for the finest carpets, and all kinds of

gold and silversmiths' work, it boasted of a great

money-market, being in fact the Exchange of all the population

of Eastern and Western Asia. ... Sogd ... comprised the

mountainous part of Transoxania (which may be described as the

extreme western spurs of the Thien-Shan). ... The capital was

Samarkand, undoubtedly the Maracanda of the Greeks, which they

specify as the capital of Sogdia. The city has, throughout the

history of Transoxania been the rival of Bokhara. Before the

time of the Samanides, Samarkand was the largest city beyond

the Oxus, and only began to decline from its former importance

when Ismail chose Bokhara for his own residence. Under the

Khahrezmians it is said to have raised itself again, and

become much larger than its rival, and under Timour to have

reached the culminating point of its prosperity."

A. Vambery, History of Bokhara, introduction.

ALSO IN: J. Hutton, Central Asia, chapter 2-3.

BOKHARA: B. C. 329-327.

Conquest by Alexander the Great.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 330-323.

BOKHARA: 6th Century.

Conquest from the White Huns by the Turks.

See TURKS: 6TH CENTURY.

BOKHARA: A. D. 710.

The Moslem Conquest.

See. MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 710.

BOKHARA: A. D. 991-998.

Under the Samanides.

See SAMANIDES.

BOKHARA: A. D. 1004-1193.

The Seldjuk Turks.

See TURKS (THE SELDJUKS): A. D. 1004-1063, and after.

BOKHARA: A. D. 1209-1220.

Under the Khuarezmians.

See KHUAREZM: 12TH CENTURY.

BOKHARA: A. D. 1219.

Destruction of the city by Jingis Khan.

Bokhara was taken by Jingis Khan in the summer of 1219. "It

was then a very large and magnificent city. Its name,

according to the historian Alai-ud-din, is derived from

Bokhar, which in the Magian language means the Centre of

Science." The city surrendered after a siege of a few days.

Jingis Khan, on entering the town, saw the great mosque and

asked if it was the Sultan's palace. "Being told it was the

house of God, he dismounted, climbed the steps, and said in a

loud voice to his followers, 'The hay is cut, give your horses

fodder.' They easily understood this cynical invitation to

plunder. ... The inhabitants were ordered to leave the town in

a body, with only their clothes, so that it might be more

easily pillaged, after which the spoil was divided among the

victors. 'It was a fearful day,' says Ibn al Ithir; 'one only

heard the sobs and weeping of men, women and children, who

were separated forever; women were ravished, while men died

rather than survive the dishonour of their wives and

daughters.' The Mongols ended by setting fire to all the

wooden portion of the town, and only the great mosque and

certain palaces which were built of brick remained standing."

H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols, volume 1, chapter 3.

{295}

"The flourishing city on the Zerefshan had become a heap of

rubbish, but the garrison in the citadel, commanded by Kok

Khan, continued to hold out with a bravery which deserves our

admiration. The Mongols used every imaginable effort to reduce

this last refuge of the enemy; the Bokhariots themselves were

forced on to the scaling-ladders: but all in vain, and it was

not until the moat had been literally choked with corpses of

men and animals that the stronghold was taken and its brave

defenders put to death. The peaceable portion of the

population was also made to suffer for this heroic resistance.

More than 30,000 men were executed, and the remainder were,

with the exception of the very old people among them, reduced

to slavery, without any distinction of rank whatever; and thus

the inhabitants of Bokhara, lately so celebrated for their

learning, their love of art, and their general refinement,

were brought down to a dead level of misery and degradation

and scattered to all quarters."

A. Vambery, History of Bokhara, chapter 8.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.

BOKHARA: A. D. 1868.

Subjection to Russia.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876.

----------BOKHARA: End----------

BOLERIUM.

See BELERION.

BOLESLAUS I.,      King of Poland, A. D. 1000-1025.

Boleslaus II.,  King of Poland, A. D. 1058-1083.

Boleslaus III., Duke of Poland, A. D. 1102-1138.

Boleslaus IV.,  Duke of Poland, A. D. 1146-1173.

Boleslaus V.,   King of Poland, A. D. 1227-1279.

BOLEYN, Anne.

Marriage, trial and execution.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534; and, 1536-1543.

BOLGARI.

See BULGARIA: ORIGIN OF.

BOLIVAR'S LIBERATION OF THE SOUTH AMERICAN STATES.

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819, 1819-1830;

and PERU: A. D. 1820-1826, 1825-1826, and 1826-1876.

BOLIVIA:

The aboriginal inhabitants.

"With the Toromonos tribe, who occupied, as Orbigny tells us,

a district of from 11° to 13° of South latitude, it was an

established rule for every man to build his house, with his

own hands alone, and if he did otherwise he lost the title of

man, as well as became the laughing-stock of his fellow

citizens. The only clothing worn by these people was a turban

on the head, composed of feathers, the rest of the body being

perfectly naked; whilst the women used a garment, manufactured

out of cotton, that only partially covered their persons. ...

The ornament in which the soft sex took most pride was a

necklace made of the teeth of enemies, killed by their

husbands in battle. Amongst the Moxos polygamy was tolerated,

and woman's infidelity severely punished. ... The Moxos

cultivated the land with ploughs, and other implements of

agriculture, made of wood. They fabricated canoes, fought and

fished with bows and arrows. In the province of the Moxos

lived also a tribe called Itonomos, who, besides these last

named instruments of war, used two edged wooden scimitars. The

immorality of these Itonomos was something like that of the

Mormons of our time. ... The Canichanas, who lived near

Machupo, between 13° and 14° South latitude and 67° to 68° West

longitude, are reputed by M. d'Orbigny as the bravest of the

Bolivian Indians. They are accredited to have been cannibals.

...Where Jujuy--the most northern province· of the Argentine

Republic--joins Bolivia, we have in the present day the

Mataguaya and Cambas Indians. The latter are represented to me

by Dr. Matienzo, of Rosario, as intelligent and devoted to

agricultural labor. They have fixed tolderias [villages], the

houses of which are clean and neat. Each town is commanded by

a capitan, whose sovereignty is hereditary to his male

descendants only."

T. J. Hutchinson, The Parana, chapter 4.

See, also, AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS, and TUPI.

In the Empire of the Incas.

See PERU: THE EMPIRE OF THE INCAS.

BOLIVIA: A. D. 1559.

Establishment of the Audiencia of Charcas.

See AUDIENCIAS.

BOLIVIA: A. D. 1825-1826.

The independent Republic founded and named in Upper Peru.

The Bolivian Constitution.

"Upper Peru [or Las Charcas, as it was more specifically

known] ... had been detached [in 1776--see ARGENTINE REPUBLIC:

A. D. 1580-1777] from the government of Lima ... to form part

of the newly constituted Viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres. The

fifteen years' struggle for independence was here a sanguinary

one indeed. There is scarcely a town, village, or noticeable

place in this vast region where blood is not recorded to have

been shed in this terrible struggle. ... The Spanish army

afterwards succumbed to that of the independents of Peru; and

thus Upper Peru gained, not indeed liberty, but independence

under the rule of a republican army. This vast province was

incapable of governing itself. The Argentines laid claim to it

as a province of the confederation; but they already exercised

too great a preponderance in the South American system, and

the Colombian generals obtained the relinquishment of these

pretensions. Sucre [Bolivar's Chief of Staff] assumed the

government until a congress could be assembled: and under the

influence of the Colombian soldiery Upper Peru was erected

into an independent state by the name of the Republic of

Bolivar, or Bolivia."--

E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, page 290.

For an account of the Peruvian war of liberation--the results

of which embraced Upper Peru--and the adoption of the Bolivian

constitution by the latter,

See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826, and 1825-1826.

BOLIVIA: A. D. 1834-1839.

Confederation with Peru.

War with Chile.

See PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.

BOLIVIA: A. D. 1879-1884.

The war with Chile.

See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.

----------BOLIVIA: End----------

BOLIVIAN CONSTITUTION, or Code Bolivar.

See PERU: A. D. 1825-1826, and 1826-1876.

BOLOGNA: Origin of the city.

On the final conquest of the Boian Gauls in North Italy, a new

Roman colony and frontier fortress were established, B. C.

189, called first Felsina and then Bononia, which is the

Bologna of modern Italy.

H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 41.

BOLOGNA:

Origin of the name.

See BOIANS.

{296}

BOLOGNA: B. C. 43.

Conference of the Triumvirs.

See ROME: B. C. 44-42.

BOLOGNA: 11th Century.

School of Law.

The Glossators.

"Just at this time [end of the 11th century] we find a famous

school of law established in Bologna, and frequented by

multitudes of pupils, not only from all parts of Italy, but

from Germany, France, and other countries. The basis of all

its instructions was the Corpus Juris Civilis. Its teachers,

who constitute a series of distinguished jurists extending

over a century and a half, devoted themselves to the work of

expounding the text and elucidating the principles of the

Corpus Juris, and especially the Digest. From the form in

which they recorded and handed down the results of their

studies, they have obtained the name of glossators. On their

copies of the Corpus Juris they were accustomed to write

glosses, i. e., brief marginal explanations and remarks. These

glosses came at length to be an immense literature."

J. Hadley, Introduction to Roman Law, lecture 2.

BOLOGNA: 11th-12th Centuries.

Rise and Acquisition of Republican Independence.

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

BOLOGNA: A. D. 1275.

Sovereignty of the Pope confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburg.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

BOLOGNA: A. D. 1350-1447.

Under the tyranny of the Visconti.

See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447;

and FLORENCE: A. D. 1390-1402.

BOLOGNA: A. D. 1512.

Acquisition by Pope Julius II.

See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

BOLOGNA: A. D. 1796-1797.

Joined to the Cispadane Republic.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);

1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

BOLOGNA: A. D. 1831.

Revolt suppressed by Austrian troops.

See ITALY: A. D. 1830-1832.

----------BOLOGNA: End----------

BOMBAY.

Cession to England (1661).

See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

BON HOMME RICHARD AND THE SERAPIS.--Sea-fight.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1779 (SEPTEMBER).

BONAPARTE, Jerome, and his Kingdom of Westphalia.

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

1813 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER), and (OCTOBER--DECEMBER).

BONAPARTE, Joseph,

King of Naples, King of Spain.

See

FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER);

SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (MAY-SEPTEMBER), to 1812-1814.

BONAPARTE, Louis, and the Kingdom of Holland.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1806-1810.

BONAPARTE, Louis Napoleon.

See NAPOLEON III.

BONAPARTE, NAPOLEON,

The career of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER),

and 1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER), to 1815.

BONAPARTE FAMILY,

The origin of the.

"About four miles to the south of Florence, on an eminence

overlooking the valley of the little river Greve, and the then

bridle-path leading towards Siena and Rome, there was a very

strong castle, called Monte Boni, Mons Boni, as it is styled

in sundry deeds of gift executed within its walls in the years

1041, 1085, and 1100, by which its lords made their peace with

the Church, in the usual way, by sharing with churchmen the

proceeds of a course of life such as needed a whitewashing

stroke of the Church's office. A strong castle on the road to

Rome, and just at a point where the path ascended a steep

hill, offered advantages and temptations not to be resisted;

and the lords of Monte Boni 'took toll' of passengers. But, as

Villani very naïvely says, 'the Florentines could not endure

that another should do what they abstained from doing.' So as

usual they sallied forth from their gates one fine morning,

attacked the strong fortress, and razed it to the ground. All

this was, as we have seen, an ordinary occurrence enough in

the history of young Florence. This was a way the burghers

had. They were clearing their land of these vestiges of

feudalism, much as an American settler clears his ground of

the stumps remaining from the primeval forest. But a special

interest will be admitted to belong to this instance of the

clearing process, when we discover who those noble old

freebooters of Monte Boni were. The lords of Monte Boni were

called, by an easy, but it might be fancied ironical,

derivation from the name of their castle 'Buoni del

Monte,'--the Good Men of the Mountain;--and by abbreviation,

Buondelmonte, a name which we shall hear more of anon in the

pages of this history. But when, after the destruction of

their fortress, these Good Men of the Mountain became

Florentine citizens, they increased and multiplied; and in the

next generation, dividing off into two branches, they assumed,

as was the frequent practice, two distinctive appellations; the

one branch remaining Buondelmonti, and the other calling

themselves Buonaparte. This latter branch shortly afterwards

again divided itself into two, of which one settled at San

Miniato al Tedesco, and became extinct there in the person of

an aged canon of the name within this century; while the other

first established itself at Sarzaua, a little town on the

coast about half-way between Florence and Genoa, and from

thence at a later period transplanted itself to Corsica; and

has since been heard of."

T. A. Trollope, History of the Commonwealth of Florence,

volume 1, pages 50-51.

BONIFACE, ST.,

The Mission of.

See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 496-800.

BONIFACE, COUNT, and the Vandals.

See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.

BONIFACE III.,     Pope, A. D. 607, FEBRUARY TO NOVEMBER.

Boniface IV.,   Pope, A. D. 608-615.

Boniface V.,    Pope, A. D. 619-625.

Boniface VI.,   Pope, A. D. 896.

Boniface VII.,  Pope, A. D. 974, 984-985.

Boniface VIII., Pope, A. D. 1294-1303.

Boniface IX.,   Pope, A. D. 1389-1404.

BONN, Siege and Capture by Marlborough (1703).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1702-1704.

BONNET ROUGE, The.

See LIBERTY CAP.

BONONIA IN GAUL.

See GESORIACUM.

BONONIA IN ITALY.

See BOLOGNA.

BOOK OF THE DEAD.

"A collection (ancient Egyptian) of prayers and exorcisms

composed at various periods for the benefit of the pilgrim

soul in his journey through Amenti (the Egyptian Hades); and

it was in order to provide him with a safe conduct through the

perils of that terrible valley that copies of this work, or

portions of it, were buried with the mummy in his tomb. Of the

many thousands of papyri which have been preserved to this

day, it is perhaps scarcely too much to say that one half, if

not two thirds, are copies more or less complete of the Book

of the Dead."

A. B. Edwards, Academy, Sept. 10, 1887.

{297}

M. Naville published in 1887 a collation of the numerous

differing texts of the Book of the Dead, on the preparation of

which he had been engaged for ten years.

BOONE, Daniel, and the settlement of Kentucky.

See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1765-1778, and 1775-1784.

BOONVILLE, Battle of.

See MISSOURI: A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY-JULY).

BOONSBORO, or South Mountain, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862

(SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).

BOOTH, John Wilkes.

Assassination of President Lincoln.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 14TH).

BOR-RUSSIA.

See PRUSSIA: THE ORIGINAL COUNTRY AND ITS NAME.

BORDARII.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: ENGLAND; also MANORS.

BORDEAUX: Origin.

See BURDIGALA.

BORDEAUX: A. D. 732.

Stormed and sacked by the Moslems.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.

BORDEAUX: A. D. 1650.

Revolt of the Frondeurs.

Siege of the city.

Treaty of Peace.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1650-1651.

BORDEAUX: A. D. 1652-1653.

The last phase of the Fronde.

Rebellion of the Society of the Ormée.

Cromwell's help invoked.

Siege and submission of the city.

"The peace of Bordeaux in October, 1650. had left the city

tranquil, but not intimidated, and its citizens were neither

attached to the government nor afraid of it. ... There, as at

Paris, a violent element obtained control, ready for

disturbance, and not alarmed by the possibility of radical

changes in the government. ... During the popular emotion

against Épernon, meetings, mostly of the lower classes, had

been held under some great elms near the city, and from this

circumstance a party had taken the name of the Ormée. It now

assumed a more definite form, and began to protest against the

slackness of the officers and magistrates, who it was charged,

were ready to abandon the popular cause. The Parliament was

itself divided into two factions," known as the Little Fronde

and the Great Fronde--the latter of which was devoted to the

Prince of Condé. "The Ormée was a society composed originally

of a small number of active and violent men, and in its

organization not wholly unlike the society of the Jacobins.

... Troubles increased between this society and the

parliament, and on June 3d [1652] it held a meeting attended

by 3,000 armed men, and decided on the exile of fourteen of

the judges who were regarded as traitors to the cause. ... The

offending judges were obliged to leave the city, but in a few

days the Parliament again obtained control, and the exiles

were recalled and received with great solemnity. But the Ormée

was not thus to be overcome. On June 25th these contests

resulted in a battle in the streets, in which the society had

the advantage. Many of the judges abandoned the conflict and

left the city. The Ormée established itself at the Hotel de

Ville, and succeeded in controlling for the most part the

affairs of the city. ... Condé decided that he would recognize

the Ormée as a political organization, and strengthen it by

his approval. ... The restoration of the King's authority at

Paris [see FRANCE: A. D. 1651-1653] strengthened the party at

Bordeaux that desired peace, and increased the violence of the

party that was opposed to it. Plots were laid for the

overthrow of the local authorities, but they were wholly

unsuccessful. ... The desire of the people, the nobility, and

the clergy was for peace. Only by speedy aid from Spain could

the city be kept in hostility to its King and in allegiance to

Condé. Spain was asked to send assistance and prevent this

important loss, but the Spanish delayed any vigorous action,

partly from remissness and partly from lack of troops and

money. The most of the province of Guienne was gradually lost

to the insurgents. ... Condé seems to have left Guienne to

itself. ... In this condition, the people of Bordeaux turned

to Cromwell as the only person who had the power to help them.

... The envoys were received by Cromwell, but he took no steps

to send aid to Bordeaux. Hopes were held out which encouraged

the city and alarmed the French minister, but no ships were

sent." Meantime, the King's forces in Guienne advanced with

steady success, and early in the summer of 1653 they began the

siege of the city. The peace party within, thus encouraged,

soon overthrew the Ormée, and arranged terms for the

submission of the town. "The government proceeded at once to

erect the castles of Trompette and Ho, and they were made

powerful enough to check any future turbulence."

J. B. Perkins, France under Mazarin, chapter 15 (volume 2).

BORDEAUX: A. D. 1791.

The Girondists in the National Legislative Assembly.

See France: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER).

BORDEAUX: A. D. 1793.

Revolt against the Revolutionary Government of Paris.

Fearful vengeance of the Terrorists.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE); (JULY-DECEMBER); AND

1793-1794 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

BORDEAUX: A. D. 1814.

Occupied by the English.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1812-1814.

----------BORDEAUX: End----------

BORDER-RUFFIANS.

See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

BORGHETTO, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A.D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

BORGIAS, The.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1471-1513.

BORIS, Czar of Russia. A. D. 1598-1605.

BORLA, The.

See PERU: A.D. 1533-1548.

BORNHOVED, Battle of (1227).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397.

BORNY, OR COLOMBEY-NOUILLY, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).

BORODINO, OR THE MOSKOWA, Battle of.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

BOROUGH.--CITY.--TOWN.--VILLE.

"The burh of the Anglo-Saxon period was simply a more strictly

organized form of the township. It was probably in a more

defensible position; had a ditch and mound instead of the

quickset hedge or 'tun' from which the township took its name;

and as the 'tun' originally was the fenced homestead of the

cultivator, the burh was the fortified house and court-yard of

the mighty man--the king, the magistrate, or the noble."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,

chapter 5.

{298}

"I must freely confess that I do not know what difference,

except a difference in rank, there is in England between a

city and a borough. ... A city does not seem to have any

rights or powers as a city which are not equally shared by

every other corporate town. The only corporate towns which

have any special powers above others are those which are

counties of themselves; and all cities are not counties of

themselves, while some towns which are not cities are. The

city in England is not so easily defined as the city in the

United States. There, every corporate town is a city. This

makes a great many cities, and it leads to an use of the word

city in common talk which seems a little strange in British

ears. In England, even in speaking of a real city, the word

city is seldom used, except in language a little formal or

rhetorical; in America it is used whenever a city is

mentioned. But the American rule has the advantage of being

perfectly clear and avoiding all doubt. And it agrees very

well with the origin of the word: a corporate town is a

'civitas,' a commonwealth; any lesser collection of men hardly

is a commonwealth, or is such only in a much less perfect

degree. This brings us to the historical use of the word. It

is clear at starting that the word is not English. It has no

Old-English equivalent; burh, burgh, borough, in its various

spellings and various shades of meaning, is our native word

for urbes of every kind from Rome downward. It is curious that

this word should in ordinary speech have been so largely

displaced by the vaguer word tun, town, which means an

enclosure of any kind, and in some English dialects is still

applied to a single house and its surroundings. ... In common

talk we use the word borough hardly oftener than the word

city; when the word is used, it has commonly some direct

reference to the parliamentary or municipal characters of the

town. Many people, I suspect, would define a borough as a town

which sends members to Parliament, and such a definition,

though still not accurate, has, by late changes, been brought

nearer to accuracy than it used to be. City and borough, then,

are both rather formal words; town is the word which comes

most naturally to the lips when there is no special reason for

using one of the others. Of the two formal words, borough is

English; city is Latin; it comes to us from Gaul and Italy by

some road or other. It is in Domesday that we find, by no

means its first use in England, but its first clearly formal

use, the first use of it to distinguish a certain class of

towns, to mark those towns which are 'civitates' as well as

burgi from those which are burgi only. Now in Gaul the

'civitas' in formal Roman language was the tribe and its

territory, the whole land of the Arverni, Parisii, or any

other tribe. In a secondary sense it meant the head town of

the tribe. ... When Christianity was established, the

'civitas' in the wider sense marked the extent of the bishop's

diocese; the 'civitas' in the narrower sense became the

immediate seat of his bishopstool. Thus we cannot say that in

Gaul a town became a city because it was a bishop's see; but

we may say that a certain class of towns became bishops' sees

because they were already cities. But in modern French use no

distinction is made between these ancient capitals which

became bishoprics and other towns of less temporal and

spiritual honour. The seat of the bishopric, the head of the

ancient province, the head of the modern department, the

smaller town which has never risen to any of those dignities,

are all alike ville. Lyons, Rheims, Paris, are in no way

distinguished from meaner places. The word cité is common

enough, but it has a purely local meaning. It often

distinguishes the old part of a town, the ancient 'civitas,'

from later additions. In Italy on the other hand, città is

both the familiar and the formal name for towns great and

small. It is used just like ville in French."

E. A. Freeman, City and Borough Macmillan's Mag.,

May, 1889.

BOROUGH-ENGLISH.

See FEUDAL TENURES.

BOROUGHBRIDGE, Battle of.

Fought March 16, 1322, in the civil war which arose in England

during the reign of Edward II. on account of the King's

favorites, the Déspensers. Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, the

leader of opposition, was defeated, captured, summarily tried

and beheaded.

BOROUGHS, Rotten and Pocket.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830, and 1830-1832.

BORROMEAN, OR GOLDEN LEAGUE, The.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1579-1630.

BORYSTHENES, The.

The name which the Greeks gave anciently to the river now

known as the Dnieper. It also became the name of a town near

the mouth of the river, which was originally called Olbia,--a

very early trading settlement of the Milesians.

BOSCOBEL, The Royal Oak of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651.

BOSNIA.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

BOSPHORUS, OR BOSPORUS, The.

The word means literally an 'ox-ford,' and the Greeks derived

it as a name from the legend of Io, who, driven by a gad-fly,

swam across the straits from Europe into Asia. They gave the

name particularly to that channel, on which Constantinople

lies, but applied it also to other similar straits, such as

the Cimmerian Bosporus, opening the Sea of Azov.

BOSPHORUS:

The city and kingdom.

"Respecting Bosporus, or Pantikapæum (for both names denote

the same city, though the former name often comprehends the

whole annexed dominion) founded by Milesian settlers on the

European side of the Kimmerian Bosporus (near Kertsch) we

first hear, about the period when Xerxes was repulsed from

Greece (480-479 B. C.) It was the centre of a dominion

including Phanagoria, Kepi, Hermonassa, and other Greek cities

on the Asiatic side of the strait; and it is said to have been

governed by what seems to have been an oligarchy--called the

Archæanaktidæ--for forty-two years (480--438 B. C.) After them

we have a series of princes standing out individually by name,

and succeeding each other in the same family, [438-284 B. C.].

... During the reigns of these princes, a connexion of some

intimacy subsisted between Athens and Bosporus; a connexion

not political, since the Bosporanic princes had little

interest in the contentions about Hellenic hegemony--but of

private intercourse, commercial exchange and reciprocal good

offices. The eastern corner of the Tauric Chersonesus, between

Pantikapæum and Theodosia, was well suited for the production

of corn; while plenty of fish, as well as salt, was to be had

in or near the Palus Mæotis. Corn, salted fish and meat, hides

and barbaric slaves in considerable numbers, were in demand

among all Greeks round the Ægean, and not least at Athens,

where Scythian slaves were numerous; while oil and wine, and

other products of more southern regions, were acceptable in

Bosporus and the other Pontic ports.

{299}

This important traffic seems to have been mainly carried on in

ships and by capital belonging to Athens and other Ægean

maritime towns, and must have been greatly under the

protection and regulation of the Athenians, so long as their

maritime empire subsisted. Enterprising citizens of Athens

went to Bosporus (as to Thrace and the Thracian Chersonesus),

to push their fortunes. ... We have no means of following [the

fortunes of the Bosporanic princes] in detail; but we know

that, about a century B. C., the then reigning prince,

Parisades IV. found himself so pressed and squeezed by the

Scythians, that he was forced (like Olbia and the Pentapolis)

to forego his independence, and to call in, as auxiliary or

master, the formidable Mithridates Eupator of Pontus; from

whom a new dynasty of Bosporanic kings began--subject,

however, after no long interval, to the dominion and

interference of Rome."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 98.

ALSO IN:

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 7.

See MITHRIDATIC WARS, and ROME: B. C. 47-46.

Acquisition by the Goths.

See GOTHS, ACQUISITION OF BOSPHORUS.

BOSPHORUS: A. D. 565-574.

Capture by the Turks.

"During the reign of Justin [A. D. 565-574] the city of

Bosporus, in Tauris, had been captured by the Turks, who then

occupied a considerable portion of the Tauric Chersonesus. The

city of Cherson alone continued to maintain its independence

in the northern regions of the Black Sea."

G. Finlay, Greece under the Romans, chapter 4, section 8.

See TURKS: SIXTH CENTURY.

----------BOSPHORUS: End----------

BOSSISM.

The "Spoils System" in American politics [see SPOILS SYSTEM]

developed enormously the influence and power of certain

leaders and managers of party organizations, in the great

cities and some of the states, who acquired the names of

"Bosses," while the system of politics which they represented

was called "Bossism." The notorious William H. Tweed, of the

New York "Tammany Ring" [see NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871] seems

to have been the first of the species to be dubbed "Boss

Tweed" by his "heelers," or followers, and the title passed

from him to others of like kind.

BOSTON: A. D. 1628-1630.

The first white inhabitant.

The founding and naming of the city.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1622-1628, and 1630.

BOSTON: A. D. 1631-1651.

The Puritan Theocracy.

Troubles with Roger Williams, Anne Hutchinson and the

Presbyterians.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636, to 1646-1651.

BOSTON: A. D. 1656-1661.

The persecution of Quakers.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.

BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.

The Halfway Covenant and the founding of the Old South Church.

"In Massachusetts after 1650 the opinion rapidly gained ground

that all baptised persons of upright and decorous lives ought

to be considered, for practical purposes, as members of the

church, and therefore entitled to the exercise of political

rights, even though unqualified for participation in the

Lord's Supper. This theory of church membership, based on what

was at that time stigmatized as the Halfway Covenant, aroused

intense opposition. It was the great question of the day. In

1657 a council was held in Boston, which approved the

principle of the Halfway Covenant; and as this decision was

far from satisfying the churches, a synod of all the clergymen

in Massachusetts was held five years later, to reconsider the

great question. The decision of the synod substantially

confirmed the decision of the council, but there were some

dissenting voices. Foremost among the dissenters, who wished

to retain the old theocratic regime in all its strictness, was

Charles Chauncey, the president of Harvard College, and

Increase Mather agreed with him at the time, though he

afterward saw reason to change his opinion and published two

tracts in favour of the Halfway Covenant. Most bitter of all

toward the new theory of church-membership was, naturally

enough, Mr. Davenport of New Haven. This burning question was

the source of angry contentions in the First Church of Boston.

Its teacher, the learned and melancholy Norton, died in 1663,

and four years later the aged pastor, John Wilson, followed

him. In choosing a successor to Wilson the church decided to

declare itself in opposition to the liberal decision of the

synod, and in token thereof invited Davenport to come from New

Haven to take charge of it. Davenport, who was then seventy

years old, was disgusted at the recent annexation of his

colony to Connecticut. He accepted the invitation and came to

Boston, against the wishes of nearly half of the Boston

congregation, who did not like the illiberal principle which

he represented. In little more than a year his ministry at

Boston was ended by death; but the opposition to his call had

already proceeded so far that a secession from the old church

had become inevitable. In 1669 the advocates of the Halfway

Covenant organized themselves into a new society under the

title of the 'Third Church in Boston.' A wooden meeting-house

was built on a lot which had once belonged to the late

governor Winthrop, in what was then the south part of the

town, so that the society and its meeting-house became known

as the South Church; and after a new church founded in Summer

Street in 1717 took the name of the New South, the church of

1669 came to be further distinguished as the Old South. As

this church represented a liberal idea which was growing in

favour with the people, it soon became the most flourishing

church in America. After sixty years its numbers had increased

so that the old meeting-house could not contain them; and in

1729 the famous building which still stands was erected on the

same spot,--a building with a grander history than any other

on the American continent, unless it be that other plain brick

building in Philadelphia where the Declaration of Independence

was adopted and the Federal Constitution framed."

J. Fiske, The Beginnings of New England, chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

H. M. Dexter, The Congregationalism of the last 300

years, lecture 9.

B. B. Wisner, History of the Old South Church, sermon 1.

W. Emerson, Historical Sketch of the First Church in

Boston, section 4-7.

BOSTON: A. D. 1674-1678.

King Philip's War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678.

BOSTON: A. D. 1689.

The rising for William and Mary and the downfall of Andros.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1686-1689.

{300}

BOSTON: A. D. 1697.

Threatened attack by the French.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1692-1697.

BOSTON: A. D. 1704.

The first newspaper.

See PRINTING, &c.: A. D. 1704-1729.

BOSTON: A. D. 1740-1742.

The origin of Faneuil Hall.

See FANEUIL HALL.

BOSTON: A. D. 1761.

The question of the Writs of assistance and James Otis's

speech.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 176l.

BOSTON: A. D. 1764-1767.

Patriotic self-denials.

Non-importation agreements.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764-1767.

BOSTON: A. D. 1765-1767.

The doings under the Liberty Tree.

See LIBERTY TREE.

BOSTON: A. D. 1768.

The seizure of the sloop "Liberty."

Riotous patriotism.

"For some years these officers [of the customs] had been

resisted in making seizures of uncustomed goods, which were

frequently rescued from their possession by interested

parties, and the determination of the commissioners of customs

to break up this practice frequently led to collisions; but no

flagrant outbreak occurred until the seizure of John Hancock's

sloop 'Liberty' (June 10, 1768), laden with a cargo of Madeira

wine. The officer in charge, refusing a bribe, was forcibly

locked up in the cabin, the greater part of the cargo was

removed, and the remainder entered at the custom-house as the

whole cargo. This led to seizure of the vessel, said to have

been the first made by the commissioners, and for security she

was placed under the guns of the 'Romney,' a man-of-war in the

harbor. For this the revenue officers were roughly handled by

the mob. Their boat was burned, their houses threatened, and

they, with their alarmed families, took refuge on board the

'Romney,' and finally in the Castle. These proceedings

undoubtedly led to the sending additional military forces to

Boston in September. The General Court was in session at the

time, but no effectual proceedings were taken against the

rioters. Public sympathy was with them in their purposes if

not in their measures."

M. Chamberlain, The Revolution Impending (Narrative and

Critical History of America, volume 6, chapter 1).

BOSTON: A. D. 1768.

The quartering of British troops.

"Before news had reached England of the late riot in Boston,

two regiments from Halifax had been ordered thither. When news

of that riot arrived, two additional regiments were ordered

from Ireland. The arrival of an officer, sent by Gage from New

York, to provide quarters for these troops, occasioned a town

meeting in Boston, by which the governor was requested to

summon a new General Court, which he peremptorily refused to

do. The meeting then recommended a convention of delegates

from all the towns in the province to assemble at Boston in

ten days; 'in consequence of prevailing apprehensions of a war

with France'--such was the pretence--they advised all persons

not already provided with fire-arms to procure them at once;

they also appointed a day of fasting and prayer, to be

observed by all the Congregational societies. Delegates from

more than a hundred towns met accordingly at the day appointed

[Sept. 22], chose Cushing, speaker of the late House, as their

chairman, and petitioned Bernard to summon a General Court.

The governor not only refused to receive their petition, but

denounced the meeting as treasonable. In view of this charge,

the proceedings were exceedingly cautious and moderate. All

pretensions to political authority were expressly disclaimed.

In the course of a four days' session a petition to the King

was agreed to, and a letter to the agent, De Berdt, of which

the chief burden was to defend the province against the charge

of a rebellious spirit. Such was the first of those popular

conventions, destined within a few years to assume the whole

political authority of the colonies. The day after the

adjournment the troops from Halifax arrived. There was room in

the barracks at the castle, but Gage, alarmed at the accounts

from Massachusetts, had sent orders from New York to have the

two regiments quartered in the town. The council were called

upon to find quarters, but, by the very terms of the

Quartering Act, as they alleged, till the barracks were full

there was no necessity to provide quarters elsewhere. Bernard

insisted that the barracks had been reserved for the two

regiments expected from Ireland, and must, therefore, be

considered as already full. The council replied, that, even

allowing that to be the case, by the terms of the act, the

provision of quarters belonged not to them, but to the local

magistrates. There was a large building in Boston belonging to

the province, known as the 'Manufactory House,' and occupied

by a number of poor families. Bernard pressed the council to

advise that this building be cleared and prepared for the

reception of the troops; but they utterly refused. The

governor then undertook to do it on his own authority. The

troops had already landed, under cover of the ships of war, to

the number of a thousand men. Some of them appeared to demand

an entrance into the Manufactory House; but the tenants were

encouraged to keep possession; nor did the governor venture to

use force. One of the regiments encamped on the common; for a

part of the other regiment, which had no tents, the temporary

use of Faneuil Hall was reluctantly yielded; to the rest of

it, the Town House, used also as a State House, all except the

council chamber, was thrown open by the governor's order. It

was Sunday. The Town House was directly opposite the

meeting-house of the First Church. Cannon were planted in

front of it; sentinels were stationed in the streets; the

inhabitants were challenged as they passed. The devout were

greatly aggravated and annoyed by the beating of drums and the

marching of the troops. Presently Gage came to Boston to urge

the provision of quarters. The council directed his attention

to the terms of the act, and referred him to the selectmen. As

the act spoke only of justices of the peace, the selectmen

declined to take any steps in the matter. Bernard then

constituted what he called a Board of Justices, and required

them to find quarters; but they did not choose to exercise a

doubtful and unpopular authority. Gage was finally obliged to

quarter the troops in houses which he hired for the purpose,

and to procure out of his own military chest the firing,

bedding, and other articles mentioned in the Quartering Act,

the council having declined to order any expenditure for those

purposes, on the ground that the appropriation of money

belonged exclusively to the General Court."

R. Hildreth, History of the U. S., chapter 29 (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

R. Frothingham, Life and Times of Joseph Warren, chapter 6.

T. Hutchinson, History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay,

1749-1774, pages 202-217.

{301}

BOSTON: A. D. 1769.

The patriots threatened and Virginia speaking out.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1769.

BOSTON: A. D. 1770.

Soldiers and citizens in collision.

The "Massacre."

Removal of the troops.

"As the spring of the year 1770 appeared, the 14th and 29th

regiments had been in Boston about seventeen months. The 14th

was in barracks near the Brattle Street Church; the 29th was

quartered just south of King Street; about midway between

them, in King Street, and close at hand to the town-house, was

the main guard, whose nearness to the public buildings had

been a subject of great annoyance to the people. ... One is

forced to admit ... that a good degree of discipline was

maintained; no blood had as yet been shed by the soldiers,

although provocations were constant, the rude element in the

town growing gradually more aggressive as the soldiers were

never allowed to use their arms. Insults and blows with fists

were frequently taken and given, and cudgels also came into

fashion in the brawls. Whatever awe the regiments had inspired

at their first coming had long worn off. In particular the

workmen of the rope-walks and ship-yards allowed their tongues

the largest license and were foremost in the encounters. About

the 1st of March fights of unusual bitterness had occurred

near Grey's rope-walk, not far from the quarters of the 29th,

between the hands of the rope-walk and soldiers of that

regiment, which had a particularly bad reputation. The

soldiers had got the worst of it, and were much irritated.

Threats of revenge had been made, which had called out

arrogant replies, and signs abounded that serious trouble was

not far off. From an early hour on the evening of the 5th of

March the symptoms were very ominous. ... At length an

altercation began in King Street between a company of lawless

boys and a few older brawlers on the one side, and the

sentinel, who paced his beat before the custom-house, on the

other. ... The soldier retreated up the steps of the

custom-house and called out for help. A file of soldiers was

at once despatched from the main guard, across the street, by

Captain Preston, officer of the guard, who himself soon

followed to the scene of trouble. A coating of ice covered the

ground, upon which shortly before had fallen a light snow. A

young moon was shining; the whole transaction, therefore, was

plainly visible. The soldiers, with the sentinel, nine in

number, drew up in line before the people, who greatly

outnumbered them. The pieces were loaded and held ready, but

the mob, believing that the troops would not use their arms

except upon requisition of a civil magistrate, shouted coarse

insults, pressed upon the very muzzles of the pieces, struck

them with sticks, and assaulted the soldiers with balls of

ice. In the tumult precisely what was said and done cannot be

known. Many affidavits were taken in the investigation that

followed, and, as always at such times, the testimony was most

contradictory. Henry Knox, afterwards the artillery general,

at this time a bookseller, was on the spot and used his

influence with Preston to prevent a command to fire. Preston

declared that he never gave the command. The air, however, was

full of shouts, daring the soldiers to fire, some of which may

have been easily understood as commands, and at last the

discharge came. If it had failed to come, indeed, the

forbearance would have been quite miraculous. Three were

killed outright, and eight were wounded, only one of whom,

Crispus Attucks, a tall mulatto who faced the soldiers,

leaning on a stick of cordwood, had really taken any part in

the disturbance. The rest were bystanders or were hurrying

into the street, not knowing the cause of the tumult. ... A

wild confusion ... took possession of the town. The

alarm-bells rang frantically; on the other hand the drums of

the regiments thundered to arms. ... What averted a fearful

battle in the streets was the excellent conduct of

Hutchinson"--the lieutenant-governor, who made his way

promptly to the scene, caused the troops to be sent back to

their barracks, ordered the arrest of Captain Preston and the

nine soldiers who had done the firing, and began an

investigation of the affair the same night. The next day a

great town meeting was held, and, as crowds from the

surrounding towns pressed in, it was adjourned from Faneuil

Hall to the Old South Church, and overflowed in the

neighboring streets. A formal demand for the removal of the

troops was sent to the governor and council by a committee

which had Samuel Adams at its head. Governor Hutchinson

disclaimed authority over the troops; but their commanding

officer, Colonel Dalrymple, proposed to compromise by sending

away the 29th regiment and retaining the 14th. As the

committee returned to the meeting with this proposal, through

the crowd, Adams dropped right and left the words, "Both

regiments or none."--"Both regiments or none." So he put into

the mouths of the people their reply, which they shouted as

with one voice when the report of the committee was made to

them. There was a determination in the cry which overcame even

the obstinacy of Governor Hutchinson, and the departure of

both regiments was ordered that same day. "In England the

affair was regarded as a 'successful bully' of the whole power

of the government by the little town, and when Lord North

received details of these events he always referred to the

14th and 29th as the 'Sam Adams regiments.'"

J. K. Hosmer, Samuel Adams, chapter 11.

ALSO IN:

R. Frothingham, Life and Times of Joseph Warren, chapter

6.

R. Frothingham, The Sam Adams Regiments (Atlantic

Monthly, volume 9, 10, and 12; 1862-63).

J. Q. Adams, Life of John Adams, chapter 3 (volume l).

T. Hutchinson, History of the Province of Mass. Bay,

1749-1774, pages 270-280.

H. Niles, Principles and Acts of the Revolution

(Centennial edition), pages 15-79.

F. Kedder, History of the Boston Massacre.

BOSTON: A. D. 1770.

The fair trial of the soldiers.

"The episode [of the affray of March 5th] had ... a sequel

which is extremely creditable to the American people. It was

determined to try the soldiers for their lives, and public

feeling ran so fiercely against them that it seemed as if

their fate was sealed. The trial, however, was delayed for

seven months, till the excitement had in some degree subsided.

Captain Preston very judiciously appealed to John Adams, who

was rapidly rising to the first place both among the lawyers

and the popular patriots of Boston, to undertake his defence.

Adams knew well how much he was risking by espousing so

unpopular a cause, but he knew also his professional duty,

and, though violently opposed to the British government, he

was an eminently honest, brave, and humane man.

{302}

In conjunction with Josiah Quincy, a young lawyer who was also

of the patriotic party, he undertook the invidious task, and he

discharged it with consummate ability. ... There was abundant

evidence that the soldiers had endured gross provocation and

some violence. If the trial had been the prosecution of a

smuggler or a seditious writer, the jury would probably have

decided against evidence, but they had no disposition to shed

innocent blood. Judges, counsel, and jurymen acted bravely and

honourably. All the soldiers were acquitted, except two, who

were found guilty of manslaughter, and who escaped with very

slight punishment. It is very remarkable that after Adams had

accepted the task of defending the incriminated soldiers, he

was elected by the people of Boston as their representative in

the Assembly, and the public opinion of the province appears

to have fully acquiesced in the verdict. In truth, although no

people have indulged more largely than the Americans in

violent, reckless, and unscrupulous language, no people have

at every period of their history been more signally free from

the thirst for blood, which in moments of great political

excitement has been often shown both in England and France."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th Century,

chapter 12 (volume 3).

ALSO IN:

J. Adams, Autobiography (Works, volume 2, page 230).

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England,

1713-1783, volume 5, page 269.

BOSTON: A. D 1773.

The Tea Party.

"News reached Boston in the spring of this year [1773] that

the East India Company, which was embarrassed by the

accumulation of tea in England, owing to the refusal of the

Americans to buy it, had induced parliament to permit its

exportation to America without the payment of the usual duty

[See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772-1773]. This was

intended to bribe the colonists to buy; for there had been a

duty both in England and in America. That in England was six

pence a pound, that in America three pence. Ships were laden

and sent to Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston,

and they were now expected to arrive in a short time. ... On

the 28th of November, 1773, which was Sunday, the first

tea-ship (the 'Dartmouth ') entered the harbor [of Boston].

The following morning the citizens were informed by placard

that the 'worst of plagues, the detested tea,' had actually

arrived, and that a meeting was to be held at nine in the

morning, at Faneuil Hall, for the purpose of making 'a united

and successful resistance to this last, worst, and most

destructive measure of administration.' The Cradle of Liberty

was not large enough to contain the crowd that was called

together, Adams rose and made a stirring motion expressing

determination that the tea should not be landed, and it was

unanimously agreed to. The meeting then adjourned to the Old

South meeting-house, where the motion was repeated, and again

adopted without an opposing voice. The owner of the ship

protested in vain that the proceedings were illegal; a watch

of twenty-five persons was set, to see that the intentions of

the citizens were not evaded, and the meeting adjourned to the

following morning. The throng at that time was as great as

usual, and while the deliberations were going on, a message

was received from the governor, through the sheriff, ordering

them to cease their proceedings. It was voted not to follow

the advice, and the sheriff was hissed and obliged to retreat

discomfited. It was formally resolved that any person

importing tea from England should be deemed an enemy to his

country, and it was declared that at the risk of their lives

and properties the landing of the tea should be prevented, and

its return effected. It was necessary that some positive

action should be taken in regard to the tea within twenty days

from its arrival, or the collector of customs would confiscate

ships and cargoes. ... The twenty days would expire on the

16th of December. On the fourteenth a crowded meeting was held

at the Old South, and the importer was enjoined to apply for a

clearance to allow his vessel to return with its cargo. He

applied, but the collector refused to give an answer until the

following day. The meeting therefore adjourned to the 16th,

the last day before confiscation would be legal, and before

the tea would be placed under protection of the ships of war

in the harbor. There was another early morning meeting, and

7,000 people thronged about the meeting-house, all filled with

a sense of the fact that something notable was to occur. The

importer appeared and reported that the collector refused a

clearance. He was then directed to ask the governor for a pass

to enable him to sail by the Castle. Hutchinson had retreated

to his mansion at Milton, and it would take some time to make

the demand. The importer started out in the cold of a New

England winter, apologized to his Excellency for his visit,

but assured him that it was involuntary. He received a reply

that no pass could be given him. ... It was six o'clock before

the importer returned, and a few candles were brought in to

relieve the fast-increasing darkness. He reported the

governor's reply, and Samuel Adams rose and exclaimed: 'This

meeting can do nothing more to save the country!' In an

instant there was a shout on the porch; there was a war-whoop

in response, and forty or fifty of the men disguised as

Indians rushed out of the doors, down Milk Street towards

Griffin's (afterwards Liverpool) Wharf, where the vessels lay.

The meeting was declared dissolved, and the throng followed

their leaders, forming a determined guard about the wharf. The

'Mohawks' entered the vessel; there was tugging at the ropes;

there was breaking of light boxes; there was pouring of

precious tea into the waters of the harbor. For two or three

hours the work went on, and three hundred and forty-two chests

were emptied. Then, under the light of the moon, the Indians

marched to the sound of fife and drum to their homes, and the

vast throng melted away, until not a man remained to tell of

the deed. The committee of correspondence held a meeting next

day, and Samuel Adams and four others were appointed to

prepare an account of the affair to be posted to other places.

Paul Revere, who is said to have been one of the 'Mohawks,'

was sent express to Philadelphia with the news, which was

received at that place on the 26th. It was announced by

ringing of bells, and there was every sign of joy. ... The

continent was universally stirred at last."

A. Gilman, The Story of Boston, chapter 23.

ALSO IN:

E. G. Porter, The Beginning of the Revolution (Memorial

History of Boston, volume 3, chapter 1).

B. J. Lossing, Field Book of the Revolution, volume 1, chapter

21.

T. Hutchinson, History of the Province of

303

Mass. Bay, 1749-1774, pages 429-440.

Same, Diary and Letters, page 138.

G. Bancroft, History of the U. S. (Author's last

revision), volume 3, chapter 34.

J. Kimball, The 100th Anniversary of the Destruction of

Tea (Essex Inst. Hist. Coll., volume 12, number 3).

BOSTON: A. D. 1774.

The Port Bill and the Massachusetts Act.

Commerce interdicted.

Town Meetings forbidden.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (MARCH-APRIL).

BOSTON: A. D. 1774.

The enforcement of the Port Bill and its effects.

Military occupation of the city by General Gage.

"The execution of this measure [the Port Bill] devolved on

Thomas Gage, who arrived at Boston May 13, 1774, as Captain

General and Governor of Massachusetts. He was not a stranger

in the colonies. He had exhibited gallantry in Braddock's

defeat. ... He had married in one of the most respectable

families in New York, and had partaken of the hospitalities of

the people of Boston. His manners were pleasing. Hence he

entered upon his public duties with a large measure of

popularity. But he took a narrow view of men and things about

him. ... General Gage, on the 17th of May, landed at the Long

Wharf and was received with much parade. ... On the first day

of June the act went into effect. It met with no opposition

from the people, and hence, there was no difficulty in

carrying it into rigorous execution. 'I hear from many,' the

governor writes, 'that the act has staggered the most

presumptuous; the violent party men seem to break, and people

to fall off from them.' Hence he looked for submission; but

Boston asked assistance from other colonies, and the General

Court requested him to appoint a day of fasting and prayer.

The loyalists felt uneasy at the absence of the army. ...

Hence a respectable force was soon concentrated in Boston. On

the 4th of June, the 4th or king's own regiment, and on the

15th the 43d regiment, landed at the Long Wharf and encamped

on the common." The 5th and 38th regiments arrived on the 4th

and 5th of July; the 59th regiment was landed at Salem August

6, and additional troops were ordered from New York, the

Jerseys and Quebec. "The Boston Port Bill went into operation

amid the tolling of bells, fasting and prayer. ... It bore

severely upon two towns, Boston and Charlestown, which had

been long connected by a common patriotism. Their laborers

were thrown out of employment, their poor were deprived of

bread, and gloom pervaded their streets. But they were cheered

and sustained by the large contributions sent from every

quarter for their relief, and by the noble words that

accompanied them. ... The excitement of the public mind was

intense; and the months of June, July, and August, were

characterized by varied political activity. Multitudes signed

a solemn league and covenant against the use of British goods.

The breach between the whigs and loyalists daily became wider.

Patriotic donations from every colony were on their way to the

suffering towns. Supplies for the British troops were refused.

... It was while the public mind was in this state of

excitement that other acts arrived which General Gage was

instructed to carry into effect." These were the acts which

virtually annulled the Massachusetts charter, which forbade

town meetings, and which provided for the sending of accused

persons to England or to other colonies for trial. "Should

Massachusetts submit to the new acts? Would the other colonies

see, without increased alarm, the humiliation of

Massachusetts? This was the turning-point of the Revolution.

It did not find the patriots unprepared. They had an

organization beyond the reach alike of proclamations from the

governors, or of circulars from the ministry. This was the

Committees of Correspondence, chosen in most of the towns in

legal town-meetings, or by the various colonial assemblies,

and extending throughout the colonies. ... The crisis called

for all the wisdom of these committees. A remarkable circular

from Boston addressed to the towns (July, 1774), dwelt upon the

duty of opposing the new laws; the towns, in their answers,

were bold, spirited, and firm and echoed the necessity of

resistance. Nor was this all. The people promptly thwarted the

first attempts to exercise authority under them. Such

councillors as accepted their appointments were compelled to

resign, or, to avoid compulsion, retired into Boston." General

Gage now began (in September) movements to secure the cannon

and powder in the neighborhood. Some 250 barrels of powder

belonging to the province were stealthily removed by his

orders from a magazine at Charlestown and two field-pieces

were carried away from Cambridge. "The report of this affair,

spreading rapidly, excited great indignation. The people

collected in large numbers, and many were in favor of

attempting to recapture the powder and cannon. Influential

patriots, however, succeeded in turning their attention in

another direction. ... Meantime the fact of the removal of the

powder became magnified into a report that the British had

cannonaded Boston, when the bells rang, beacon-fires blazed on

the hills, the neighbor colonies were alarmed, and the roads

were filled with armed men hastening to the point of supposed

danger. These demonstrations opened the eyes of the governor

to the extent of the popular movement. ... General Gage saw no

hope of procuring obedience but by the power of arms; and the

patriot party saw no safety in anything short of military

preparation. Resistance to the acts continued to be manifested

in every form. On the 9th of September the memorable Suffolk

resolves [drawn by Joseph Warren] were adopted [by a

convention of Suffolk county, which embraced Boston] ... and

these were succeeded by others in other counties equally bold

and spirited. These resolves were approved by the Continental

Congress, then in session. Everywhere the people either

compelled the unconstitutional officers to resign, or opposed

every attempt to exercise authority, whether by the governor

or constable. They also made every effort to transport

ammunition and stores to places of security. Cannon and

muskets were carried secretly out of Boston. The guns were

taken from an old battery at Charlestown, where the navy yard

is, ... silently, at night. ... General Gage immediately began

to fortify Boston Neck. This added intensity to the

excitement. The inhabitants became alarmed at so ominous a

movement; and, on the 5th of September, the selectmen waited

on the general, represented the public feeling, and requested

him to explain his object. The governor stated in reply that

his object was to protect his majesty's troops and his

majesty's subjects; and that he had no intention to stop up

the avenue, or to obstruct the free passage over it, or to do

anything hostile against the inhabitants. He went on with the

works and soon mounted on them two twenty-four pounders and

eight nine pounders."

R. Frothingham, History of the Siege of Boston, chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

R. Frothingham, Life and Times of Joseph Warren, chapter 11,

and appendix 1 (giving text of the Suffolk Resolves).

W. V. Wells, Life of Samuel Adams, volume 2, pages 164-232.

W. Tudor, Life of James Otis, chapter 27-29.

{304}

BOSTON: A. D. 1775.

The beginning of war.

Lexington.

Concord.

The British troops beleaguered in the city.

Battle of Bunker Hill.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

BOSTON: A. D. 1775-1776.

The siege directed by Washington.

Evacuation of the city by the British.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1776.

----------BOSTON: End----------

BOSWORTH, Battle of (A. D. 1485).

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1483-1485.

BOTANY BAY.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D, 1601-1800.

BOTHWELL BRIDGE, Battle of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1679 (JUNE).

BOTOCUDOS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI.

BOUCHAIN, Marlborough's capture of (1711).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1710-1712.

BOUIDES, The.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 815-945;

Also, TURKS (THE SELJUKS): A. D. 1004-1063;

Also, SAMANIDES.

BOULANGER, General, The intrigues of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

BOULE, The.

The Council of Chiefs in Homeric Greece.

G. Grote, History of Greece, chapter 20.

See, also, AREOPAGUS.

BOULOGNE: Origin.

See GESORIACUM.

BOULOGNE: A. D. 1801.

Bonaparte's preparations for the invasion of England.

Nelson's attack.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

BOULON, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).

BOUQUET'S EXPEDITION.

See PONTIAC'S WAR.

BOURBON, The Constable:

His treason and his attack on Rome.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1520-1523, 1523-1525, 1525-1526;

And ITALY: A. D. 1523-1527, 1527.

BOURBON:

Origin of the name.

See BOIANS;

also ROME: B. C. 390-347.

BOURBON, The House of:

Its origin.

From King Louis IX. (St. Louis), of France, "through his last

male child, Robert de France, Comte de Clermont, sprang the

House of Bourbon. An ancient barony, the inheritance of

Béatrix, wife of this prince, was erected into a dukedom in

favour of Louis, his son, and gave to his descendants the name

which they have retained, that of France being reserved for

the Royal branch. ... The House which had the honour of

supplying sovereigns to our country was called 'France.' But

our kings, jealous of that great name, reserved it for their

own sons and grandsons. Hence the designation 'fils' and

'petit-fils de France.' The posterity of each 'fils de France'

formed a cadet branch which took its name from the title borne

by its head, Valois, Artois, Bourbon, &c. At the time of the

accession of Henry IV. the name of Bourbon remained with those

younger branches of Condé and Montpensier, which had sprung

from the main branch before the death of Henry III. But Henry

IV.'s children, those of Louis XIII., and those of their

successors in the throne, were surnamed 'de France'; whilst in

conformity with the law the descendants of Louis XIII.'s

second son received the surname d' Orleans, from the title

borne by their grandfather. ... Possessors of vast territories

which they [the Bourbons] owed more to family alliances than to

the generosity of kings, they had known how to win the

affection of their vassals. Their magnificent hospitality drew

around them a numerous and brilliant nobility. Thus the

'hôtel' of those brave and august princes, the 'gracieux ducs

de Bourbon,' as our ancient poet called them, was considered

the best school in which a young nobleman could learn the

profession of arms. The order of the Écu, instituted by one of

them, had been coveted and worn by the bravest warriors of

France. Sufficiently powerful to outshine the rank and file of

the nobility, they had at the same time neither the large

estates nor the immense power which enabled the Dukes of

Bourgogne, of Bretagne, and other great vassals, to become the

rivals or the enemies of the royal authority." The example of

the treason of the Constable Bourbon [see FRANCE: A. D.

1520-1523] "was not followed by any of the princes of his

House. ... The property of the Connétable was definitely

alienated from his House, and Vendôme [his brother] did not

receive the hereditary possessions of the Dukes d' Alençon, to

which his wife was entitled. He died on the 25th of March,

1538, leaving but a scanty patrimony to his numerous

descendants. ... Five only of his sons obtained their

majority. ... Two of these princes founded families: Antoine

[Duc de Vendôme and afterwards King of Navarre through his

marriage with Jeanne d' Albret, see NAVARRE: A. D. 1528-1563],

father of Henry IV., who was the ancestor of all the Bourbons

now living, and Louis [Prince de Condé, born 1530], who was

the root of the House of Condé and all its branches."

Duc d' Aumale, History of the Princes of the House of

Condé, book 1, chapter 1, and foot-note.

See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1327.

BOURBON: The Spanish House.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1698-1700, and 1701-1702.

BOURBON FAMILY COMPACT,

The First.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733.

The Second.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1743 (OCTOBER).

The Third.

See FRANCE: A. D: 1761 (AUGUST).

BOURGEOIS.--BOURG.

In France, "the word Bourg originally meant any aggregation of

houses, from the greatest city to the smallest hamlet. But ...

the word shifted its meaning, and came to signify an

assemblage of houses surrounded with walls. Secondly, the word

Bourgeois also was at first used as synonymous with the

inhabitant of a bourg. Afterward, when corporate franchises

were bestowed on particular bourgs, the word acquired a sense

corresponding with that of the English designation Burgess;

that is a person entitled to the privileges of a municipal

corporation. Finally, the word Bourgeoisie, in its primitive

sense, was the description of the burgesses when spoken of

collectively. But, in its later use, the word would be best

rendered into English by our term citizenship; that is, the

privilege of franchise of being a burgess."

Sir J. Stephen, Lectures on the History of France, lecture 5.

{305}

BOURGES,

Origin of.

The city of Bourges, France, was originally the capital city

of the Gallic tribe of the Bituriges, and was called Avaricum.

"As with many other Gaulish towns, the original name became

exchanged for that of the people, i. e., Bituriges, and thence

the modern Bourges and the name of the province, Berri."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 12.

See, also, ÆDUI,

and GAUL: B. C. 58-51.

BOUVINES, Battle of (A. D. 1214).

The battle of Bouvines, fought at Bouvines, in Flanders, not

far from Tournay, on the 27th of August, A. D. 1214, was one

of the important battles of European history. On one side were

the French, led by their king Philip Augustus, and fighting

ostensibly as the champions of the Pope and the church. On the

other side was an allied army of English, under king John, of

Germans, under Otho, the Guelf--one of two rival claimants of

the imperial crown--and of Flemings and Lotharingians, led by

their several lords. Philip Augustus had expelled the English

king from his Norman dukedom and caused a court of the peers

of France to declare the title forfeit. From that success his

ambition rose so high that he had aspired to the conquest of

the English crown. A terrible pope--Innocent III.--had

approved his ambition and encouraged it; for John, the

miserable English king, had given provocations to the church

which had brought the thunders of the Vatican upon his head.

Excommunicated, himself, his kingdom under interdict,--the

latter offered itself a tempting prey to the vigorous French

king, who posed as the champion of the pope. He had prepared a

strong army and a fleet for the invasion of England; but fate

and papal diplomacy had baffled his schemes. At the last

moment, John had made a base submission, had meekly

surrendered his kingdom to the pope and had received it back

as a papal fief. Whereupon the victorious pope commanded his

French champion to forego his intended attack. Philip, under

these circumstances, determined to use the army he had

assembled against a troublesome and contumacious vassal, the

count of Flanders. The pope approved, and Flanders was

overrun. King John led an English force across the channel to

the help of the Flemish count, and Otho, the German king or

emperor, who was king John's nephew, joined the coalition, to

antagonize France and the pope. The battle of Bouvines was the

decisive conflict of the war. It humbled, for the time, the

independent spirit of Flanders, and several remoter

consequences can be traced to it. It was "the first real

French victory. It roused the national spirit as nothing else

could have roused it; it was the nation's first taste of

glory, dear above all things to the French heart. ... The

battle somewhat broke the high spirit of the barons: the

lesser barons and churches grouped themselves round the king;

the greater lords came to feel their weakness in the presence

of royalty. Among the incidental consequences of the day of

Bouvines was the ruin of Otho's ambition. He fled from the

field into utter obscurity. He retired to the Hartz mountains,

and there spent the remaining years of his life in private.

King John, too, was utterly discredited by his share in the

year's campaign. To it may partly be traced his humiliation

before his barons, and the signing of the Great Charter in the

following year at Runnymede."

G. W. Kitchin, History of France,

book 3, chapter 7, section 4.

"The battle of Bouvines was not the victory of Philip Augustus

alone, over a coalition of foreign princes; the victory was

the work of king and people, barons, burghers, and peasants,

of Ile de France, of Orleanness, of' Picardy, of Normandy, of

Champagne, and of Burgundy. ... The victory of Bouvines marked

the commencement of the time at which men might speak, and

indeed did speak, by one single name, of 'the French.' The

nation in France and the kingship in France on that day rose

out of and above the feudal system."

F. P. Guizot, Popular History of France, chapter 18.

See, also,

ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250,

and ENGLAND: A. D. 1205-1213, and 1215.

BOVATE, OR OXGANG.

"Originally as much as an ox-team could plough in a year.

Eight Bovates are usually said to have made a Carucate, but

the number of acres which made a Bovate are variously stated

in different records from 8 to 24."

N. H. Nicolas, Notitia Historica, page 134.

BOVIANUM, Battle of (B. C. 88).

See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

BOWIDES, The.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 815-945;

also, SAMANIDES;

also, TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1004-1063.

BOYACA, Battle of (1819).

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

BOYARS.

"In the old times, when Russia was merely a collection of

independent principalities, each reigning prince was

surrounded by a group of armed men, composed partly of Boyars,

or large landed proprietors, and partly of knights, or

soldiers of fortune. These men, who formed the Noblesse of the

time, were to a certain extent under the authority of the

Prince, but they were by no means mere obedient, silent

executors of his will. The Boyars might refuse to take part in

his military expeditions. ... Under the Tartar domination this

political equilibrium was destroyed. When the country had been

conquered, the princes became servile vassals of the Khan, and

arbitrary rulers towards their own subjects. The political

significance of the nobles was thereby greatly diminished."

D. M. Wallace, Russia, chapter 17.

BOYNE, Battle of the (1690).

See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

BOYS IN BLUE.--BOYS IN GRAY.

Soldier nicknames of the American Civil War.

"During the first year of the war [of the Rebellion, in the

United States] the Union soldiers commonly called their

opponents 'Rebs' and 'Secesh'; in 1862, 'Confeds'; in 1863,

'Gray-backs' and 'Butternuts'; and in 1864, 'Johnnies.' The

nickname 'Butternuts' was given the Confederates on account of

their homespun clothes, dyed reddish-brown with a dye made of

butternut bark. The last name, 'Johnnies,' is said to have

originated in a quarrel between two pickets, which began by

the Union man's saying that the Confederates depended on

England to get them out of their scrape. ... The Union man ...

said that a 'Reb' was no better than a Johnny Bull, anyhow.

... The name stuck, and in the last part of the war the

Confederate soldiers were almost universally called

'Johnnies.' Throughout the war the Confederates dubbed all the

Union soldiers 'Yankees' and 'Yanks,' without any reference to

the part of the country they came from. ... Other nicknames

for Union soldiers, occasionally used, were 'Feds,' 'Blue

Birds' and 'Blue Bellies.' Since the war the opponents have

been commonly called 'Boys in Blue' and 'Boys in Gray.'"

J. D. Champlin, Jr., Young Folks' History of the War for

the Union, page 137.

{306}

BOZRA.

See CARTHAGE: DIVISIONS, &c.

BOZZARIS, Marco, The death of.

See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

BRABANT: Mythical Explanation of the name.

See ANTWERP.

BRABANT: 4th century.

First settlement of the Franks.

See TOXANDRIA.

BRABANT: 9th century.

Known as Basse Lorraine.

See LORRAINE: A. D. 843-870.

BRABANT: A. D. 1096-1099.

Duke Godfrey de Bouillon in the First Crusade, and his kingdom

of Jerusalem.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099;

and JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.

BRABANT: 12th to 15th centuries.

The county and duchy.

From the beginning of the 12th century, the county, afterwards

the duchy, of Brabant, existed under its own counts and dukes,

until the beginning of the 15th century, when it drifted under

the influences which at that time were drawing all the

Netherland States within the sphere of the sovereignty of the

Burgundian dukes.

BRABANT: A. D. 1430.

Acquisition by the House of Burgundy.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1428-1430.

----------BRABANT: End----------

BRACCATI, The.

See ROME: B. C. 275.

BRACHYCEPHALIC MEN.

See DOLICHOCEPHALIC.

BRADDOCK'S DEFEAT.

See Ohio (VALLEY): A. D. 1755.

BRADFORD, Governor, and the Plymouth Colony.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1621, and after.

BRADFORD'S PRESS.

See PRINTING, &c.: A. D. 1535-1709, 1704-1729,

and PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1692-1696.

BRAGANZA, The House of: A. D. 1640.

Accession to the throne of Portugal.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.

BRAGG, General Braxton.

Invasion of Kentucky.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER:

TENNESSEE--KENTUCKY).

The Battle of Stone River.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862-1863

(DECEMBER-JANUARY: TENNESSEE).

The Tullahoma Campaign.

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

TENNESSEE).

Chickamauga.

The Chattanooga Campaign.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER,

and OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

BRAHMANISM.

See INDIA: THE IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE AHYAS.

BRAHMANS.

See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.

Also, INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

BRANCHIDÆ, The.

See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 928-1142.

Beginnings of the Margravate.

"A. D. 928, Henry the Fowler, marching across the frozen bogs,

took Brannibor, a chief fortress of the Wends; first mention

in human speech of the place now called Brandenburg: Bor or

'Burg of the Brenns' (if there ever was any Tribe of

Brenns,--Brennus, there as elsewhere, being name for King or

Leader); 'Burg of the Woods,' say others,--who as little know.

Probably, at that time, a town of clay huts, with ditch and

palisaded sod-wall round it; certainly 'a chief fortress of

the Wends,'--who must have been a good deal surprised at sight

of Henry on the rimy winter morning near a thousand years ago.

... That Henry appointed due Wardenship in Brannibor was in

the common course. Sure enough, some Murkgraf must take charge

of Brannibor,--he of the Lausitz eastward, for example, or he

of Salzwedel westward:--that Brannibor, in time, will itself

be found the fit place, and have its own Markgraf of

Brandenburg; this, and what in the next nine centuries

Brandenburg will grow to, Henry is far from surmising. ... In

old books are lists of the primitive Markgraves of

Brandenburg, from Henry's time downward; two sets, Markgraves

of the Witekind race,' and of another: but they are altogether

uncertain, a shadowy intermittent set of Markgraves, both the

Witekind set and the Non-Witekind; and truly, for a couple of

centuries, seem none of them to have been other than subaltern

Deputies, belonging mostly to Lausitz or Salzwedel; of whom

therefore we can say nothing here, but must leave the first

two hundred years in their natural gray state,--perhaps

sufficiently conceivable by the reader. ... The

Ditmarsch-Stade kindred, much slain in battle with the

Heathen, and otherwise beaten upon, died out, about the year

1130 (earlier perhaps, perhaps later, for all is shadowy

still); and were succeeded in the Salzwedel part of their

function by a kindred called 'of Ascanien and Ballenstadt';

the Ascanier or Anhalt Margraves; whose History, and that of

Brandenburg, becomes henceforth articulate to us. ... This

Ascanien, happily, has nothing to do with Brute of Troy or the

pious Æneas's son; it is simply the name of a most ancient

Castle (etymology unknown to me, ruins still dimly traceable)

on the north slope of the Hartz Mountains; short way from

Aschersleben,--the Castle and Town of Aschersleben are, so to

speak, a second edition of Ascanien. ... The kindred, called

Grafs and ultimately Herzogs (Dukes) of 'Ascanien and

Ballenstädt,' are very famous in old German History,

especially down from this date. Some reckon that they had

intermittently been Markgrafs, in their region, long before

this; which is conceivable enough; at all events it is very

plain they did now attain the Office in Salzwedel (straightway

shifting it to Brandenburg); and held it continuously, it and

much else that lay adjacent, for centuries, in a highly

conspicuous manner. In Brandenburg they lasted for about

two-hundred years."

T. Carlyle, Frederick the Great, book 2, chapter 3-4.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1142-1152.

The Electorate.

"He they call 'Albert the Bear (Albrecht der Bär),' first of

the Ascanien Markgraves of Brandenburg;--first wholly

definite Markgrave of Brandenburg that there is; once a very

shining figure in the world, though now fallen dim enough

again, ... got the Northern part of what is still called

Saxony, and kept it in his family; got the Brandenburg

Countries withal, got the Lausitz; was the shining figure and

great man of the North in his day. The Markgrafdom of

Salzwedel (which soon became of Brandenburg) he very naturally

acquired (A. D. 1142 or earlier); very naturally, considering

what Saxon and other honours and possessions he had already

got hold of. We can only say, it was the luckiest of events

for Brandenburg, and the beginning of all the better destinies

it has had.

{307}

A conspicuous Country ever since in the world, and which grows

ever more so in our late times. ... He transferred the

Markgrafdom to Brandenburg, probably as more central in his

wide lands; Salzwedel is henceforth the led Markgrafdom or

Marck, and soon falls out of notice in the world. Salzwedel is

called henceforth ever since the 'Old Marck (Alte Marck,

Altmarck)'; the Brandenburg countries getting the name of 'New

Marck.' ... Under Albert the Markgrafdom had risen to be an

Electorate withal. The Markgraf of Brandenburg was now

furthermore the Karfürst of Brandenburg: officially

'Arch-treasurer of the Holy Roman Empire'; and one of the

Seven who have a right (which became about this time an

exclusive one for those Seven) to choose, to 'kieren' the

Romish Kaiser; and who are therefore called 'Kur-Princes,'

Kurfürste or Electors, as the highest dignity except the

Kaiser's own."

T. Carlyle, Frederick the Great, book 2, chapter 4.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1168-1417.

Under the Ascanian, the Bavarian and the Luxemburg lines, to

the first of the Hohenzollern.

Albert the Bear was succeeded in 1168 by his son Otho. "In

1170, as it would appear, the name of Brandenburg was

substituted for that of North Mark, which had ceased to

describe more than the original nucleus of the colony, now one

of the several districts into which it was divided. The city

and territory of Brandenburg were not probably included in the

imperial grant, but were inherited from the Wendish prince,

Pribislaw, whom Albert had converted to Christianity. ...

Under Otho II., brother of the preceding, the family

inheritance was sorely mismanaged. The Margrave becoming

involved in some quarrel with the See of Magdeburg, the

Archbishop placed him under the ban; and as the price of

release Otho was required to accept the Suzerainty of the

prelate for the older and better part of his dominions. His

brother and successor, Albert II., was also unfortunate in the

beginning of his career: but recovered the favor of the

Emperor, and restored the prestige of his house before his

death. ... Very important acquisitions were made during the

reign of these two princes. The preoccupations of the King of

Denmark gave them a secure foothold in Pomerania, which the

native nobility acknowledged; the frontiers were pushed

eastward to the Oder, where the New Mark was organized, and

the town of Frankfort was laid out; purchase put them in

possession of the district of Lebus; and the bride of Otho

III., a Bohemian princess, brought him as her dowry an

extensive region on the Upper Spree with several thriving

villages--all this in spite of the division of power and

authority. ... Otho III. died in 1267, John one year later;

and a new partition of the estate was made between their

several sons, the oldest, Otho IV., receiving, however, the

title and prerogatives of head of the house." The last

margrave of the Ascanian line, Waldemar, died in 1310. "His

cousin and only heir, Henry, was a minor, and survived him but

a year." Then "a host of claimants arose for the whole or

parts of the Mark. The estates showed at first a gallant

devotion to the widow, and intrusted the reins of authority to

her; but she repaid this fidelity by hastily espousing the

Duke of Brunswick, and transferring her rights to him. The

transaction was not, however, ratified by the estates, and the

Duke failed to enforce it by arms. Pomerania threw off the

yoke which it had once unwillingly accepted; Bohemia reclaimed

the wedding portion of Otho's bride; the Duke of Liegnitz

sought to recover Lebus, although it had once been regularly

sold; and in the general scramble the Church, through its

local representatives, fought with all the energy of mere

worldly robbers. But in this crisis the Emperor forgot neither

the duties of his station nor the interests of his house.

Louis II. of Bavaria then wore the purple. By feudal law a

vacant fief reverted to its suzerain. ... It was not therefore

contrary to law, nor did it shock the moral sense of the age,

when Louis drew the Mark practically into his own possession

by conferring it nominally upon his minor son. ... During the

minority of Louis the Margrave, the province was administered

by Louis the Emperor, and with some show of vigor." But

troubles so thickened about the Emperor, in his conflict with

the House of Austria, on the one hand, and with the Pope on

the other [see GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1317], that he could not

continue the protection of his son. The Mark of Brandenburg

was invaded by the King of Poland, and its Margrave "watched

the devastation in helpless dismay." The people defended

themselves. "The young city of Frankfort was the leader in the

tardy but successful uprising. The Poles were expelled; the

citizens had for the time saved the Mark. ... The Margrave

finally wearied even of the forms of authority, and sold his

unhappy dominions to his two brothers, another Louis and Otho.

In the meantime his father had died. The Electors--or five of

them--had already deposed him and chosen in his place Charles

of Moravia, a prince of the house of Luxemburg, as his

successor. He became respectably and even creditably known in

history as Charles IV. ... Although he failed in the attempt

to subdue by arms the Margrave of Brandenburg, who had

naturally espoused his father's cause, he was persistent and

ingenious in diplomatic schemes for overthrowing the House of

Bavaria and bringing the Mark under his own sceptre. ... From

Louis he procured ... a treaty of succession, by which he

should acquire Brandenburg in case of the death of that

Margrave and his brother Otho without heirs. His intrigues

were finally crowned with complete success. Louis died

suddenly in 1365. Otho, thenceforth alone in the charge,

vacillated between weak submission to the Emperor's will, and

spurts of petulant but feeble resistance; until Charles put an

end to the farce by invading the Mark, crushing the army of

the Margrave, and forcing him to an abject capitulation. In

1371, after a nominal rule of half a century, and for the

price of a meagre annuity, the Bavarian line transferred all

its rights to the family of Charles IV." Charles died in 1378.

His son Wenzel, "for whom the Mark had been destined in the

plans of Charles, acquired, meanwhile, the crown of Bohemia, a

richer prize, and Brandenburg passed to the next son,

Sigismond. The change was a disastrous one." Sigismond pawned

the Mark to his kinsman, Jobst, of Moravia, and it fell into

great disorder. "Imperial affairs during this period were in

scarcely less confusion. Wenzel of Bohemia had been chosen

emperor, and then deposed for obvious unfitness. Rupert, Count

Palatine, had next been ejected, and had died. Again the post

was vacant, and Sigismond, still the real Elector of

Brandenburg, ... issued successfully from the contest. His

good fortune was due in a conspicuous degree to the influence

and the money of Frederic, Burggrave of Nuremberg [see

HOHENZOLLERN, RISE OF THE HOUSE OF]; and it is to the credit

of Sigismond that he did not add ingratitude to his other

vices, but on his election as emperor hastened [1411] to make

his patron statthalter, or viceroy of the Mark." Six years

later, in 1417, Frederic was formally invested with the

sovereignty of the Mark, as Margrave and Elector.

H. Tuttle, History of Prussia to the Accession of

Frederick the Great, chapter 1 and 3.

{308}

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1355.

Declared an integral part of the Kingdom of Bohemia.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1355.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1417-1640.

Rising importance of the Hohenzollern family.

Acquisition of the Duchy of Prussia.

On being invested with the Electorate of Brandenburg,

Frederick of Nuremberg sold the office of Burggrave to the

Nurembergers and devoted himself to his new province.

"Temperate, just, and firm in his dealings, he succeeded in

reducing Brandenburg from anarchy to order. Already as deputy

for Sigismund he had begun the task. ... During the reign of

his son and successor, characteristically known as Frederick

Ironteeth [1440-1472], the strong hand was not relaxed; and

Brandenburg became thenceforward tamed to law and order. The

Electorate, which during the preceding century had been

curtailed by losses in war and by sales, began again to

enlarge its borders. The New March, which had been sold in the

days of Sigismund to the Teutonic Knights, was now [1455]

bought back from them in their need. ... Albert Achilles, the

brother and successor of Frederick II., was a man as powerful

and as able as his predecessor. By his accession the

principalities of Baireuth and Anspach, which had been

separated from the Electorate for the younger sons of

Frederick I., were reunited to it; and by a scheme of

cross-remainders new plans were laid for the acquisition of

territory. ... It was already understood that the Electorate

was to descend according to the law of primogeniture; but

Anspach and Baireuth were still reserved as appanages for

younger sons; and upon the death of Albert Achilles, in 1484,

his territories were again divided, and remained so for more

than a hundred years. The result of the division, however, was

to multiply and not to weaken the strength of the House. The

earlier years of the 16th century saw the Hohenzollerns rising

everywhere to power. Albert Achilles had been succeeded [1486]

by John, of whom little is known except his eloquence, and by

Joachim [1499], who was preparing to bear his part against the

Reformation. A brother of Joachim had become, in 1514, Elector

of Mentz; and the double vote of the family at the election of

Charles V. had increased their importance. The younger branch

was rising also to eminence. George of Brandenburg, Margrave

of Anspach, and grandson of Albert Achilles, was able in 1524

to purchase the Duchy of Jagerndorf in Silesia, and with it

the reversions to the principalities of Oppeln and Ratibor,

which eventually fell to him. His younger brother, Albert, had

been chosen in 1511 Grand Master of the Teutonic Order, and

was already converting his office into the hereditary Dukedom

of Prussia," which it became in 1525 (see POLAND: A. D.

1333-1572). "The Elector Joachim I. of Brandenburg is perhaps

the least prominent, but was not the least prudent, of his

family. Throughout his life he adhered to the old faith, and

preserved his dominions in tranquility. His son and successor,

Joachim II., to the joy of his people, adopted the new

religion [1539]; and found in the secularized bishoprics of

Brandenburg, Havelburg, and Lebus, some compensation for the

ecclesiastical Electorate which was about to pass, upon the

death of Albert of Mentz, from his family. But he also was

able to secure the continuance of peace. Distrustful of the

success of the League of Smalkald he refused to join in it,

and became chiefly known as a mediator in the struggles of the

time. The Electors John George [1571-1598] and Joachim

Frederick [1598-1608] followed the same policy of peace. ...

Peace and internal progress had characterized the 16th

century; war and external acquisitions were to mark the 17th.

The failure of the younger line in 1603 caused Bayreuth,

Anspach, and Jagerndorf to fall to the Elector Joachim

Frederick; but as they were re-granted almost at once to

younger sons, and never again reverted to the Electorate,

their acquisition became of little importance. The Margrave,

George Frederick, however, had held, in addition to his own

territories, the office of administrator for Albert Frederick,

second Duke of Prussia, who had become imbecile; and, by his

death, the Elector of Brandenburg became next of kin, and

claimed to succeed to the office. The admission of this claim

placed the Electors in virtual possession of the Duchy. By a

deed of co-infeoffment, which Joachim II. had obtained in 1568

from his father-in-law the King of Poland, they were heirs to

the Duchy upon failure of the younger line. ... Duke Albert

died in 1618; and Brandenburg and Prussia were then united

under the Elector John Sigismund. It was well that the Duchy

had been secured before the storm which was already gathering

over the Empire had burst. ... During the long struggle of the

Thirty Years' War, the history of Brandenburg is that of a

sufferer rather than an actor. ... George William, who died in

1640, bequeathed a desert to his successor. That successor was

Frederick William, to be known in history as the Great Elector."

C. F. Johnstone, Historical Abstracts, chapter 5.

ALSO IN: T. Carlyle, History of Frederick the Great.

book 3 (volume 1).

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1609.

The Jülich-Cleve contest.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1608-1618

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1627.

Occupied by Wallenstein and the Imperial army.

See GERMANY: 1627-1629.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1630-1631.

Compulsory alliance of the Elector with Gustavus Adolphus of

Sweden.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1630-1631, and 1631.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1632.

Refusal to enter the Union of Heilbronn.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1634.

Desertion of the Protestant cause.

Alliance with the Emperor.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

{309}

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.

The Great Elector.

His development of the strength of the Electorate.

His successful wars.

His acquisition of the complete sovereignty of Prussia.

Fehrbellin.

"Frederic William, known in history as the Great Elector, was

only twenty years old when he succeeded his father. He found

everything in disorder: his country desolate, his fortresses

garrisoned by troops under a solemn order to obey only the

mandates of the Emperor, his army to be counted almost on the

fingers. His first care was to conclude a truce with the

Swedes; his second to secure his western borders by an

alliance with Holland; his third--not in order of action, for

in that respect it took first place--to raise the nucleus of

an army; his fourth, to cause the evacuation of his

fortresses. ... To allay the wrath of the Emperor, he

temporised until his armed force had attained the number of

8,000. That force once under arms, he boldly asserted his

position, and with so much effect that in the discussions

preceding the Peace of Westphalia he could exercise a

considerable influence. By the terms of that treaty, the part

of Pomerania known as Hinter Pommern, the principalities of

Magdeburg and Halberstadt, and the bishoprics of Minden and

Kammin were ceded to Brandenburg. ... The Peace once signed,

Frederic William set diligently to work to heal the disorders

and to repair the mischief which the long war had caused in

his dominions. ... He specially cherished his army. We have

seen its small beginning in 1640-42. Fifteen years later, in

1655, or seven years after the conclusion of the Peace of

Westphalia, it amounted to 25,000 men, well drilled and well

disciplined, disposing of seventy-two pieces of cannon. In the

times in which he lived he had need of such an army. In 1654,

Christina, the wayward and gifted daughter of Gustavus

Adolphus, had abdicated. Her successor on the throne of Sweden

was her cousin, Charles Gustavus, Duke of Zweibrücken. ... The

right of Charles Gustavus to the succession was, however,

contested by John Casimir, King of Poland. ... War ensued. In

that war the star of Charles Gustavus was in the ascendant,

and the unfortunate John Casimir was forced to abandon his own

dominions and to flee into Silesia. The vicinity of the two

rivals to his own outlying territories was, however, too near

not to render anxious Frederic William of Brandenburg. To

protect Prussia, then held in fief from the King of Poland, he

marched with 8,000 men to its borders. But even with such a

force he was unable, or perhaps, more correctly, he was

prudently unwilling, to resist the insistence put upon him at

Königsberg by the victorious King of Sweden (1656) to transfer

to him the feudal overlordship of that province. Great results

followed from this compliance. Hardly had the treaty been

signed, when John Casimir, returning from Silesia with an

Imperial army at his back, drove the Swedes from Poland, and

recovered his dominions. He did not evidently intend to stop

there. Then it was that the opportunity arrived to the Great

Elector. Earnestly solicited by the King of Sweden to aid him

in a contest which had assumed dimensions so formidable,

Frederic William consented, but only on the condition that he

should receive the Polish palatinates (Woiwodshaften) of Posen

and Kalisch as the price of a victorious campaign. He then

joined the King with his army, met the enemy at Warsaw, fought

with him close to that city a great battle, which lasted three

days (28th to 30th July 1656), and which terminated then,

thanks mainly to the pertinacity of the Brandenburgers--in the

complete defeat of the Poles. The victory gained, Frederic

William withdrew his troops. ... Again did John Casimir

recover from his defeat; again, aided by the Imperialists, did

he march to the front, reoccupy Warsaw, and take up a

threatening position opposite to the Swedish camp. The King of

Sweden beheld in this action on the part of his enemy the

prelude to his own certain destruction, unless by any means he

could induce the Elector of Brandenburg once more to save him.

He sent, then, urgent messengers after him to beg him to

return. The messengers found Frederic William at Labian. There

the Elector halted and there, joined the next day, 20th

November 1656, by King Charles Gustavus, he signed a treaty,

by which, on condition of his material aid in the war, the

latter renounced his feudal overlordship over Prussia, and

agreed to acknowledge the Elector and his male descendants as

sovereign dukes of that province. In the war which followed,

the enemies of Sweden and Brandenburg multiplied on every

side. The Danes and Lithuanians espoused the cause of John

Casimir. Its issue seemed to Frederic William more than

doubtful. He asked himself, then, whether--the new enemies who

had arisen being the enemies of Sweden and not of himself--he

had not more to gain by sharing in the victories of the Poles

than in the defeats of the Swedes. Replying to himself

affirmatively, he concluded, 29th September 1657, through the

intermediation of the Emperor, with the Poles, at Wehlau, a

treaty whereby the dukedom of Prussia was ceded in absolute

sovereignty to the Elector of Brandenburg and his male issue,

with reversion to Poland in case of the extinction of the

family of the Franconian Hohenzollerns; in return, Frederic

William engaged himself to support the Poles in their war

against Sweden with a corps of 4,000 men. But before this

convention could be acted upon, fortune had again smiled upon

Charles Gustavus. Turning in the height of winter against the

Danes, the King of Sweden had defeated them in the open field,

pursued them across the frozen waters of the Belt to Fünen and

Seeland, and had imposed upon their king the humiliating peace

of Roeskilde (1658). He seemed inclined to proceed still

further in the destruction of the ancient rival of his

country, when a combined army of Poles and Brandenburgers

suddenly poured through Mecklenburg into Holstein, drove

thence the Swedes, and gave them no rest till they had

evacuated likewise Schleswig and Jutland (1659). In a battle

which took place shortly afterwards on the island of Fünen, at

Nyborg, the Swedes suffered a defeat. This defeat made Charles

Gustavus despair of success, and he had already begun to treat

for peace, when death snatched him from the scene (January

1660). The negotiations which had begun, however, continued,

and finally peace was signed on the 1st May 1660, in the

monastery of Oliva, close to Danzig. This peace confirmed to

the Elector of Brandenburg his sovereign rights over the duchy

of Prussia. From this epoch dates the complete union of

Brandenburg and Prussia--a union upon which a great man was

able to lay the foundation of a powerful North German

Kingdom!" During the next dozen years, the Great Elector was

chiefly busied in establishing his authority in his dominions

and curbing the power of the nobles, particularly in Prussia.

{310}

In 1674, when Louis XIV. of France provoked war with

the German princes by his attack on the Dutch, Frederic

William led 20,000 men into Alsace to join the Imperial

forces. Louis then called upon his allies, the Swedes, to

invade Brandenburg, which they did, under General Wrangel, in

January, 1675. "Plundering and burning as they advanced, they

entered Havelland, the granary of Berlin, and carried their

devastations up to the very gates of that capital." The

Elector was retreating from Alsace before Turenne when he

heard of the invasion. He paused for some weeks, to put his

army in good condition, and then he hurried northwards, by

forced marches. The enemy was taken by surprise, and attacked

while attempting to retreat, near Fehrbellin, on the 18th of

June. After two hours of a tremendous hand-to-hand conflict,

"the right wing of the Swedes was crushed and broken; the

centre and left wing were in full retreat towards Fehrbellin.

The victors, utterly exhausted--they had scarcely quitted

their saddles for eleven days--were too worn out to pursue. It

was not till the following morning that, refreshed and

recovered, they followed the retreating foe to the borders of

Mecklenburg. ... The Great Elector promptly followed up his

victory till he had compelled the Swedes to evacuate all

Pomerania. Three years later, when they once more crossed the

border from Livonia, he forced them again to retreat; and

although in the treaty signed at St. Germain in 1670 he was

forced to renounce his Pomeranian conquests, he did not the

less establish the ultimate right of the State of which he was

the real founder to those lands on the Baltic for which he had

so hardly struggled at the negotiations which preceded the

Peace of Westphalia. When he died (9th May 1688) he left the

Kingdom already made in a position of prosperity sufficient to

justify his son and successor in assuming, thirteen years

later, on the anniversary of the victory of FehrbeIlin, the

title of King."

G. B. Malleson, The Battle Fields of Germany, chapter 8.

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

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1648.

The Peace of Westphalia.

Loss of part of Pomerania.

Compensating acquisitions.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1672-1679.

In the Coalition against Louis XIV.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674, and 1674-1678;

also NIMEGUEN, PEACE OF.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1689-1696.

The war of the Grand Alliance against Louis XIV.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, to 1695-1696.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1697.

The Treaty of Ryswick.

Restitutions by France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1700.

The Elector made King of Prussia.

See PRUSSIA: A. D. 1700.

----------BRANDENBURG: End----------

BRANDY STATION, OR FLEETWOOD. Battle of,

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JUNE: VIRGINIA).

BRANDYWINE, Battle of the (A. D. 1777).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777

(JANUARY-DECEMBER).

BRANKIRKA, Battle of (1518).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.

BRANT, CHIEF, and the Indian warfare of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER),

and (JULY).

BRASIDAS IN CHALKIDIKE.

See GREECE: B. C. 424-421.

BRAZIL:

Origin of the name.

"As the most valuable part of the cargo which Americus

Vespucius carried back to Europe was the well-known dye-wood,

'Cæsalpina Braziliensis,'--called in the Portuguese language

'pau brazil,' on account of its resemblance to 'brazas,'

'coals of fire,'--the land whence it came was termed the 'land

of the brazil-wood'; and finally this appellation was

shortened to Brazil, and completely usurped the names Vera

Cruz, or Santa Cruz."

J. C. Fletcher and D. P. Kidder, Brazil and the

Brazilians, chapter 3.

See, also, AMERICA: A. D. 1500-1514.

BRAZIL:

The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI.--GUARANI.--TUPUYAS;

also GUCK or Coco GROUP.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1500-1504.

Discovery, exploration of the coast and first settlement.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1499-1500, 1500-1514, and 1503-1504.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1510-1661.

Portuguese colonization and agriculture.

Introduction of Slavery.

The coming of the Jesuits.

Conquests of the Dutch, and the Portuguese recovery of them.

"Brazil, on which the Portuguese ships had been cast by

accident, had been found to unite in itself the capabilities

of every part of the world in which Europeans have settled,

though happily gold and silver had not yet been discovered,

and the colonists betook themselves from the first to

agriculture. 'The first permanent settlements on this coast

were made by Jews, exiled by the persecution of the

Inquisition; and the government supplemented these by sending

out criminals of all kinds. But gradually the consequence of

Brazil became recognized, and, as afterwards happened in New

England, the nobility at home asked to share the land among

themselves. Emmanuel would not countenance such a claim, but

this great prince died in 1521, and his successor, John III.,

extended to Brazil the same system which had been adopted in

Madeira and the Azores. The whole sea-coast of Brazil was

parcelled out by feudal grants. It was divided into

captaincies, each 50 leagues in length, with no limits in the

interior; and these were granted out as male fiefs, with

absolute power over the natives, such as at that time existed

over the serfs who tilled the soil in Europe. But the native

Brazilians were neither so easy a conquest as the Peruvians,

nor so easily induced to labour; and the Portuguese now began

to bring negros from the Guinea coast. This traffic in human

flesh had long been vigorously pursued in various parts of

Europe; the Portuguese now introduced it to America. The

settlers of Brazil were, properly speaking, the first European

colonists. For they sold their own possessions at home, and

brought their households with them to the new country. Thus

they gradually formed the heart of a new nation, whereas the

chief Spaniards always returned home after a certain tenure of

their offices, and those who remained in the colony descended

to the rank of the conquered natives. Many of those who came

to Brazil had already served in the expeditions to the East;

and they naturally perceived that the coast of America might

raise the productions of India. Hence Brazil early became a

plantation colony, and its prosperity is very much due to the

culture of the sugar cane.

{311}

The Portuguese were greatly assisted, both in

the East and the West, by the efforts of the newly founded

order of the Jesuits. ... John III. in [1549] sent out six of

the order with the first governor of Brazil. ... The Dutch,

made bold by their great successes in the East, now sought to

win the trade of Brazil by force of arms, and the success of

the East India Company encouraged the adventurers who

subscribed the funds for that of the West Indies, incorporated

in 1621. The Dutch Admiral, Jacob Willekens, successfully

assaulted San Salvador [Bahia] in 1624, and though the capital

was afterwards retaken by the intrepid Archbishop Texeira, one

half of the coast of Brazil submitted to the Dutch. Here, as

in the East, the profit of the company was the whole aim of

the Dutch, and the spirit in which they executed their design

was a main cause of its failure. ... But ... the profits of

the company ... rose at one time to [cent?] per cent. The

visions of the speculators of Amsterdam became greater; and

they resolved to become masters of all Brazil. ... The man

whom they despatched [1637] to execute this design was Prince

John Maurice of Nassau. ... In a short time he had greatly

extended the Dutch possessions. But the Stad-houder was

subject, not to the wise and learned men who sat in the

States-General, but to the merchants who composed the courts

of the company. They thought of nothing but their dividends;

they considered that Maurice kept up more troops and built

more fortresses than were necessary for a mercantile

community, and that he lived in too princely a fashion for one

in their service. Perhaps they suspected him of an intention

of slipping into that royal dignity which the feudal frame of

Brazilian society seemed to offer him. At any rate, in 1643,

they forced him to resign. A recent revolution had terminated

the subjection of Portugal to Spain, and the new king of

Portugal concluded a truce for ten years with Holland. War was

therefore supposed to be out of the question. ... But the

recall of Maurice was the signal for an independent revolt in

Brazil. Though the mother countries were at peace, war broke

out between the Dutch and the Portuguese of Brazil in 1645.

The Jesuits had long preached a crusade against the heretic

Dutch. ... John Ferdinand de Vieyra, a wealthy merchant of

Pernambuco, led a general uprising of the Brazilians, and

although the Dutch made a stubborn resistance, they received

no assistance from home; they were driven from one post after

another, until, in 1654, the last of the company's servants

quitted Brazil. The Dutch declared war against Portugal; but

in 1661 peace was made, and the Dutch sold their claims for

8,000,000 florins, the right of trading being secured to them.

But after the expulsion of the Dutch, the trade of Brazil came

more and more into the hands of the English."

E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, chapter 2-3.

ALSO IN:

R. G. Watson, Spanish and Portuguese South America, volume

1, chapter 9 and 15; volume 2, chapter 1-4.

R. Southey, History of Brazil, volume 1-2.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1524.

Conceded to Portugal.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1531-1641.

The Republic of St. Paul.

The Paulistas or Mamelukes.

"The celebrated republic of St. Paul, as it is usually

denominated, had its rise about the year 1531, from a very

inconsiderable beginning. A mariner of the name of Ramalho,

having been shipwrecked on this part of the coast, was

received among a small Indian tribe called the Piratininga,

after the name of their chief. Here he was found by De Sousa

some years afterwards, and, contrary to the established policy

of permitting no settlement excepting immediately on the

sea-coast, he allowed this man to remain, on account of his

having intermarried and having a family. The advantages of

this establishment were such, that permission was soon after

given to others to settle here, and as the adventurers

intermarried with the natives, their numbers increased

rapidly. ... A mixed race was formed, possessing a compound of

civilized and uncivilized manners and customs. The Jesuits

soon after established themselves with a number of Indians

they had reclaimed, and exerted a salutary influence in

softening and harmonizing the growing colony. In 1581, the

seat of government was removed from St. Vincent on the coast

to St. Pauls; but its subjection to Portugal was little more

than nominal. ... The mixture produced an improved race, 'the

European spirit of enterprise,' says Southey, 'developed

itself in constitutions adapted to the country.' But it is

much more likely that the free and popular government which

they enjoyed produced the same fruits here as in every other

country. ... They soon quarreled with the Jesuits [1581], on

account of the Indians whom they had reduced to slavery. The

Jesuits declaimed against the practice; but as there were now

many wealthy families among the Paulistas, the greater part of

whose fortunes consisted in their Indians, it was not heard

with patience. The Paulistas first engaged in war against the

enemies of their allies, and afterwards on their own account,

on finding it advantageous. They established a regular trade

with the other provinces whom they supplied with Indian

slaves. They by this time acquired the name of Mamelukes, from

the peculiar military discipline they adopted, bearing some

resemblance to the Mamelukes of Egypt. The revolution in

Portugal, when Philip II. of Spain placed himself on its

throne, cast the Paulistas in a state of independence, as they

were the only settlers in Brazil which did not acknowledge the

new dynasty. From the year 1580 until the middle of the

following century, they may be regarded as a republic, and it

was during this period they displayed that active and

enterprising character for which they were so much celebrated.

... While a Spanish king occupied the throne of Portugal, they

attacked the Spanish settlements on the Paraguay, alleging

that the Spaniards were encroaching on their territory. ...

They attacked the Jesuit missions [1629]. ... As they had

fixed themselves east of the Parana, the Paulistas laid hold

of this as a pretext. They carried away upwards of 2,000 of

their Indians into captivity, the greater part of whom were

sold and distributed as slaves. The Jesuits complained to the

king of Spain and to the pope; the latter fulminated his

excommunication. The Paulistas attacked the Jesuits in their

college, and put their principal to death, expelled the

remainder, and set up a religion of their own; at least no

longer acknowledged the supremacy of the pope. In consequence

of the interruption of the African trade during the Dutch war,

the demand for Indian slaves was very much increased. The

Paulistas redoubled their exertions, and traversed every part

of the Brazils in armed troops. ... The foundation was laid of

enmity to the Portuguese, which continues to this day,

although a complete stop was put to the infamous practice in

the year 1756. ... When the house of Braganza, in 1640,

ascended the throne, the Paulistas, instead of acknowledging

him, conceived the idea of electing a king for themselves.

They actually elected a distinguished citizen of the name of

Bueno, who persisted in refusing to accept, upon which they

were induced to acknowledge Joam IV. [1641]. It was not

until long afterwards that they came under the Portuguese

government."

H. M. Brackenridge, Voyage to South America,

volume 1, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: R. Southey, History of Brazil,

chapter 23 (volume 2).

{312}

BRAZIL: A. D. 1540-1541.

Orellana's voyage down the Amazons.

See AMAZONS RIVER.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1555-1560.

Attempted Huguenot colony on the Bay of Rio Janeiro.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1654-1777.

The Portuguese policy of exclusion and restriction.-Boundary

disputes with Spain.

"The period of peace which followed these victories [over the

Dutch] ... was used by the Portuguese government only to get

up a kind of old Japanese system of isolation, by which it was

intended to keep the colony in perpetual tutelage. In

consequence of this even now, after the lapse of half a

century since it violently separated itself, Brazilians

generally entertain a bitter grudge against the mother

country. All the trade to and from Brazil was engrossed by

Portugal; every functionary, down to the last clerk, was

Portuguese. Any other European of scientific education was

looked at with suspicion; and particularly they sought to

prevent by all means the exploration of the interior, as they

feared not only that the eyes of the natives might be opened

to their mode of administration, but also that such travellers

might side with the Spaniards in their long dispute regarding

the boundaries of the two nations, as the French astronomer,

La Condamine, had done. This question, which arose shortly

after the discovery, and was hushed up only during the short

union of both crowns (from 1581-1640), broke out with renewed

vigor now and then, maugre the Treaty of Tordesilhas in 1494

[see AMERICA: A. D. 1494]. ... By the Treaty of Sao Ildefonso,

in 1777, both parties having long felt how impracticable the

old arrangements were--at least, for their American

colonies--the boundaries were fixed upon the principle of the

'uti possidetis,' at any rate so far as the imperfect

knowledge of the interior allowed; but this effort also proved

to be vain. ... The unsolved question descended as an evil

heritage to their respective heirs, Brazil and the South

American Republics. A few years ago it gave rise to the

terrible war with Paraguay; and it will lead to fresh

conflicts between Brazil and the Argentine Republic."

F. Keller, The Amazon and Madeira Rivers, pages 23-24.

ALSO IN: R. Southey, History of Brazil, volume 3.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1713.

The Portuguese title confirmed.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1759.

Expulsion of the Jesuits.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1757-1773.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1808-1822.

Becomes the asylum of Portuguese royalty.

The founding of the independent Empire.

"While anarchy and ruin ... overspread the greater part of the

beautiful continent of South America, the Empire of Brazil won an

independent existence without bloodshed, and kept it with

credit. The Dutch conquest of Brazil, and its reconquest by

the Portuguese, has been mentioned in a former chapter. The

country long remained under the close and oppressive monopoly

imposed upon it by the Portuguese; but in 1808 [1807] when

Napoleon invaded Portugal, the regent embarked [see PORTUGAL:

A. D. 1807], with the royal insignia, for Brazil, which at

once assumed the dignity of an integral part of the kingdom.

The ports were opened to the commerce of the world; the

printing-press was introduced; learning was encouraged; the

enormous resources of the country were explored; foreign

settlers were invited to establish themselves; embassies were

sent to European powers of the first rank, and diplomatic

agents received. New towns and harbours were planned; new life

was breathed into every department of the state. After a few

years, the state of affairs in Europe compelled King John VI.

to return to Europe, as the only chance of preserving the

integrity of the monarchy. The Cortes of Lisbon invited their

sovereign to revisit his ancient capital, and deputies from

Brazil were summoned to attend the sittings of the National

Assembly. But before the deputies could arrive, the Cortes had

resolved that Brazil should be again reduced to absolute

dependence on Portugal. A resolution more senseless or more

impracticable can hardly be imagined. The territory of Brazil

was as large as all Europe put together; Portugal was a little

kingdom, isolated and without influence among the monarchies

of the Old World; yet it was deliberately decreed that all the

monopolies of the exploded colonial system should be revived,

and that England should be deprived of her free trade to

Brazil. The king appointed his eldest son, Dom Pedro, Regent

of the new kingdom, and soon after took his departure for

Lisbon, with many of the emigrant nobility. Dom Pedro assumed

the government under the perplexing circumstances of an empty

treasury, a heavy public debt, and the provinces almost in

revolt. Bahia disavowed his authority, and the Cortes withheld

their support from him. The regent reduced his expenditure to

the monthly sum allowed to his princess for pin money; he

retired to a country house, and observed the most rigid

economy. By great exertions he reduced the public expenditure

from $50,000,000 to $15,000,000; but the northern and internal

provinces still withheld their taxes; the army became

mutinous, and the ministers of his father, who still remained

in power, were unpopular; the regent in despair demanded his

recall. But the Brazilians were at length disarmed by his

noble conduct; they recognized his activity, his beneficence,

his assiduity in the affairs of government, and the habitual

feelings of affection and respect for the House of Braganza,

which had for a moment been laid asleep by distrust, were

reawakened with renewed strength. It was fortunate that the

quarrels which disturbed Brazil were accommodated before the

arrival of intelligence from Portugal. Hardly had the king

arrived in Lisbon when he found himself obliged to assent to a

constitution which treated his Brazilian subjects as mere

colonists; succeeding mails brought orders more and more

humiliating to the Brazilians.

{313}

The design of declaring Brazil an independent kingdom, grew

more and more in public favour; but the prince was unwilling

to place himself in direct rebellion to the crown of Portugal,

and steadily adhered to his determination to leave America. At

length, it is related, a despatch was delivered to the regent,

which he declined to show to any of his ministers, but which

evidently excited in his mind no ordinary emotions of anger:

he crushed the paper in his hand, and moved away to a window,

where he stood for a few moments in thought; at length he

turned to his council with the words 'Independencia ou

morte':--the exclamation was received with tumultuous cheers,

and was adopted as the watchword of the Revolution. The

Portuguese troops were sent back to Europe. The Cortes of

Lisbon were now anxious to recall their obnoxious decrees; to

admit the deputies from Brazil; to make any concession that

might be demanded. But it was too late: the independence of

Brazil was formally proclaimed in August, 1822, and in

December of the same year, Dom Pedro was crowned Emperor of

Brazil. This is the first, and as yet the only instance of a

modern colony achieving its independence, and separating

itself completely from its metropolis without bloodshed."

Viscount Bury, Exodus of the Western Nations,

volume 2, chapter 11.

ALSO IN:

J. Armitage, History of Brazil, chapter 1-7.

See, also, PORTUGAL: A. D. 1820-1824.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1825-1865.

Wars with the Argentines.

Abdication of Dom Pedro I,

The Guerra dos Cabanos.

"In 1825, chiefly through the mediation of England, Brazil was

acknowledged as an independent empire. But the inner

commotions continued, and were not even soothed by a new

Constitution, drawn up in 1823, and sworn to by the Emperor in

1824. New revolts in Pernambuco, and some of the other

Northern provinces, and a war of three years with the

Argentine Republic, which ended in 1828 by Brazil giving up

Banda Oriental, annexed only eleven years before, disturbed

and weakened the land. The foreign soldiers, enlisted for this

war, and retained after its conclusion to keep down the

Opposition, and the extravagant private life of the Emperor,

who recklessly trampled down the honour of respectable

families, provoked dissatisfaction and murmurs, which rose to

the highest pitch when he insisted upon carrying on a most

unpopular war in Portugal to defend the rights of his

daughter, Dona Maria da Gloria (in whose favour he had

abdicated the Portuguese Crown), against his brother. Don

Miguel [see PORTUGAL: A. D. 1824-1889]. In April, 1831, Dom

Pedro I., so enthusiastically raised to the Brazilian throne

only nine years before, was forced to abdicate it, deserted

and betrayed by everyone, in behalf of his younger son, Pedro.

The next period was the most disturbed one that the young

Empire had yet witnessed. Slave revolts at Bahia, a civil war

in the South, which almost cost it the province of Rio Grande

do Sul, and the bloody rebellion known as the Guerra dos

Cabanos, in Pará and Amazon, from 1835 to 1837, followed each

other quickly. In this last revolt, the Brazilians had stirred

up the Indians and mestizoes against the abhorred Portuguese,

without considering that they should not be able to quench the

fire, they had themselves kindled. In a short time, the fury

of the whole colored population turned against all whites,

Brazilians and Portuguese alike, without any distinction.

More than 10,000 persons are said to have perished in this

Guerra dos Cabanos; and, to the present day, those terrible

times and the barbarous cruelties committed by the Indians,

half-castes, and mulattoes, continue to be talked of with awe

in the two provinces. A revolution in Minas, got up by the

personal ambitions of a few political leaders, rather than

emanating from the spirit of the people, and the war against

Rosas, the Dictator of the Argentine Republic, passed over

Brazil without leaving deep traces, at least when compared

with the last war against Paraguay; which, besides the

stimulus of the old differences about boundaries, was

occasioned by the endless vexations and restrictions with

which the Dictator Lopez strove to ruin the Brazilian trade on

the Paraguay, and to prejudice the province of Mato Grosso."

F. Keller, The Amazon and Madeira Rivers, pages 25-26.

ALSO IN: J. Armitage, History of Brazil, 1808-1831.

See, also, ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1865-1870.

The war with Paraguay,

See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1608-1873.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1871-1888.

Emancipation of Slaves.

The Brazilian act of emancipation, known as the Law of Rio

Branco (taking that name from the Minister who carried it

through) was passed on the 28th of September, 1871, "and from

that date it was enacted 'that children henceforth born of

slave women shall be considered of free condition.' ... Such

children are not to be actually free, but are 'bound to serve

the owners of their mothers for a term of 21 years, under the

name of 'apprentices.' These must work, under severe

penalties, for their hereditary masters; but if the latter

inflict on them excessive bodily punishment, they are allowed

to bring suit in a criminal court, which may declare their

freedom. A provision was also made for the emancipation of

government slaves; and there was a clause which insured a

certain sum, to be annually set aside from fines, which was to

aid each province in emancipating by purchase a certain number

of slaves. ... The passage of this law did not prove merely

prospective in its effects. In a very short time the sums

placed aside for emancipating slaves by purchase resulted in

the freedom of many bondmen. And more than this, there seemed

to be a generous private rivalry in the good work, from

motives of benevolence and from religious influence. Many

persons in various parts of Brazil liberated their slaves

without compensation. ... I am happy to say that the number

liberated, either by the provisions of the State or by private

individuals, is always in an increasing ratio. When the writer

first went to Brazil [1852] ... it was estimated that there

were 3,000,000 in slavery. ... There were at the beginning of

1875, when the law of emancipation had been but a little more

than three years in operation, 1,476,567 slaves."

J. C. Fletcher and D. P. Kidder, Brazil and the

Brazilians, chapter 28.

"On the 25th of March, 1884, slavery was abolished in the

province of Ceará. The Rio News says, 'The movement began only

15 months ago, the first municipality liberating its slaves on

the 1st of January, 1883. The new tax law of last November

greatly accelerated this progress, because it made

slave-holding impossible, the value of the slave being less

than the tax.'" On the 28th of September, 1885, the

impatience of the Brazilians to rid themselves of slavery

expressed itself in a new Emancipation Act, known as the

Saraiva law. It provided for facilitating and hastening the

extension of freedom, by increasing the public fund

appropriated to it, by defining the valuation of slaves, and

by other effective provisions, so that "within ten years [from

its date] it is supposed that slavery will have ceased to

exist in Brazil."

H. C. Dent, A Year in Brazil, pages 281-296.

{314}

"On March 30, 1887, the official return gave the number of

slaves in Brazil as 723,419, of the legal value of

$485,225,212. On May 13, 1888, the Crown Princess, as regent,

gave the royal assent to a short measure of two clauses, the

first declaring that slavery was abolished in Brazil from the

day of the promulgation of the law, and the second repealing

all former Acts on the subject. Both Chambers refused to

consider the claim for compensation made by the slave owners."

Statesman's Year-Book, 1890, page 391.

BRAZIL: A. D. 1889-1891.

Revolution.

Overthrow of the Empire.

Establishment of the Republic of the United States of Brazil.

Religious freedom declared

"The sudden collapse of the Imperial Government in November

[1889], resulting in the downfall of Dom Pedro and his

banishment, caused universal surprise. For some time the

Government had been credited by the Republican journals with

the wish and intention to disperse the army throughout the

provinces and along the frontier, so that, with the assistance

of the newly-organised National Guard, the succession of the

Princess Imperial to the throne might be secured in the event

of the death or incapacity through old age of the Emperor Dom

Pedro. An infantry battalion, ordered to embark for a distant

province, mutinied and refused to go. The War Department

resolved to compel them by force to depart." The result was a

general mutiny (November 15, 1889), which soon became a

revolution. "The organiser of the mutiny was Colonel Benjamin

Constant Botelho de Magalhaes, an officer of exceptional

ability and Professor in the Military Academy. The movement

seemed directed at first only against the obnoxious Ouro Preto

Ministry; but the enthusiasm of the Republicans, under the

leadership of a popular agitator, Jose de Patrocinio, was so

very pronounced, that at a meeting held in the city hall, in

the afternoon of November 15, a resolution proclaiming the

Republic was passed by acclamation. About the same hour, a

self-constituted committee, consisting of General Deodoro [da

Fonseca], Benjamin Constant, and Quintino Bocayuva, met and

organised a Provisional Government," with Marshal Deodoro da

Fonseca for its Chief, Colonel Botelho de Magalhaes for

Minister of War. "A formal decree was issued declaring a

federal Republic, the several provinces of the late Empire

constituting the States and each State arranging its own

constitution and electing its deliberative bodies and local

governments. On the morning of the 16th the deposed Emperor

received intimation that he and his family must leave the

country within twenty-four hours:--'Between 2 and 3 o'clock on

the morning of the 17th an officer appeared at the palace and

informed the Emperor that he must at once embark, with all the

members of his family. The wretched old man protested that he

was not a fugitive, and that he preferred to embark by day;

but after listening to the officer's explanation that a

conflict might occur and blood might be shed, he finally

yielded, protesting that in such a crisis his old grey head

was the only one that was cool. And so at the dead hour of

night, with no one to say a farewell and bid him God-speed,

the aged Emperor, with his devoted wife and children, went

down to the Caes Pharonx, where a launch was waiting to convey

them out to the small gunboat Parnahyba. About 10 o'clock the

gunboat steamed out of the harbour and went down to Ilha

Grande to wait for the merchant steamer Alagoas, which had

been chartered to convey the exiles to Europe'. ... It was

said that the Imperial Ministry, principally through the

instrumentality of Ouro Preto, had arranged with Dom Pedro to

abdicate at the end of January, 1890, in favour of his

daughter, the Countess d'Eu. But the Countess, with her

husband, was extremely unpopular with the army and navy, and

from these the feeling of disloyalty spread rapidly among the

people. By decree of the Provisional Government, the provinces

of Brazil, united by the tie of federation, were to be styled

the 'United States of Brazil,' and general elections were to

take place in August, 1890, to confirm the establishment of

the Republic. A counter-revolution broke out in Rio on December

18. A number of soldiers, sailors, and civilians took part in

it, and troops had to be ordered out to disperse them. It was

not until the 20th that the disturbance was finally quelled."

Annual Register, 1889, part 1, pages 444-448.

"The revolution was the work of leaders who were not only

conscious of their power, but also confident that the nation

would inevitably condone their temporary acts of usurpation.

There were no signs of weakness, vacillation or uncertainty in

their action. ... A coalition of the army officers and the

constitution-makers and political dreamers of the League would

have been impracticable if the leaders had not known that the 20

provinces of the Empire were profoundly disaffected and would

readily acquiesce in a radical change of government. ... The

Emperor of Brazil has enjoyed the reputation of being one of

the most enlightened and progressive sovereigns of his time.

... He was a ruler with many fascinating and estimable traits,

who endeared himself to his people. This and much more may be

said in praise of the deposed and banished Emperor; but when

the record of his public services and of his private virtues

is complete, the fact remains that he stood for a system of

centralization that practically deprived the great series of

federated provinces of their autonomy and his subjects of the

privileges of self-government. Dom Pedro II. was not a

constitutional reformer. The charter which he had received

from his father was not modified in any essential respect

during his long reign."

New York Tribune Extra, volume 1, number 12 (1889).

"A new Constitution ... was ratified by the first National

Congress, convened on November 15, 1890. By this instrument the

Brazilian nation constituted itself into a federal republic,

under the name of the United States of Brazil. Each of the old

provinces was declared a self-governing state, to be

administered under a republican form of government, with power

to impose taxes, and subject to no interference from the

Central Government, except for purposes of national defense or

the preservation of internal order or for the execution of

Federal laws.

{315}

Legislation relating to customs, paper currency, and postal

communications is reserved to the Federal Government. The

right of suffrage is secured to all male citizens over 21

years old, with the exception of beggars, persons ignorant of

the alphabet, soldiers in actual service, and persons under

monastic vows, registration being the only prerequisite. The

executive authority is vested in the President ... elected by

the people directly for the term of six years, and .... not

eligible for the succeeding term. ... Senators are elected by

the Legislatures of the States for nine years, three from each

State, one retiring and his successor being chosen every three

years. ... The Chamber of Deputies has the initiative in all

laws relating to taxation. Deputies are elected for three

years by direct popular vote in the proportion of one to every

70,000 inhabitants. ... It is declared that no sect or church

shall receive aid from the National or State governments." In

1891, differences arose between the President and Congress, at

first over financial measures passed by the Chambers and

vetoed by the President and schemes recommended by the

President that were voted down by Congress. In November the

President published a decree dissolving Congress, closed the

Chambers by force, proclaimed himself Dictator on the

invitation of officers of the army, and convoked a new

Congress, to be charged with the revision of the constitution.

The State of Rio Grande do Sul led off in a revolt against

this usurpation, and on the 23d of November, after some shots

had been fired into the city of Rio de Janeiro by a naval

squadron acting against him, President Fonseca resigned.

"Floriano Peixoto was immediately installed by the

revolutionary committee as President in his stead ... and the

country soon settled down under the new government."--

Appleton's Annual Cyclopædia 1891, pages 91-96.

"When Deodoro, after struggling for twelve months with the

factions in Congress, closed the doors of São Christovão

Palace and proclaimed a dictatorship, he had recourse to a

familiar expedient of Latin-American civilization. The speedy

collapse of his administration, when it was wholly dependent

upon military force, was a good augury for the future of

Brazil. ... In the early days of the Republic, the Provisional

Ministry were unable to agree upon the radical policy of

disestablishing the Church. ... Fortunately for Brazil there

was no compromise of the disestablishment question. ... Under

the Constitution no religious denomination was permitted to

hold relations of dependence upon, or alliance with, the

federal or State governments. ... Every church was made free

in the free State. Civil marriage was recognized as essential.

... Perhaps the most hopeful sign for the cause of progress

and religion is the adoption of educational suffrage."

I. N. Ford, Tropical America, chapter 4.

See CONSTITUTION OF BRAZIL.

----------BRAZIL: End----------

BREAD AND CHEESE WAR.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.

BRECKINRIDGE, John C.

Defeat in Presidential election.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

BREDA: A. D. 1575.

Spanish-Dutch Congress.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

BREDA: A. D. 1590.

Capture by Prince Maurice of Nassau-Orange.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1588-1593.

BREDA: A. D. 1624-1625.

Siege and capture by the Spaniards.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

BREDA: A. D. 1637.

Taken by the Prince of Orange.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

BREDA: A. D. 1793.

Taken and lost by the French.

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

----------BREDA: End----------

BREDA, Declaration from.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1658-1660.

BREDA, Treaty of (1666).

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1665-1666.

BREED'S HILL (Bunker Hill), Battle of.

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

BREHON LAWS.

"The portion of the Irish tribe system which has attracted

most attention is the mode in which the judicial authority was

withdrawn from the chief and appropriated by the hereditary

caste of the Brehons, and also the supposed anomalous

principles which they applied to the decision of the cases

which came before them. The earlier English writers found no

terms too strong to express their abhorrence and contempt of

these native judges, and their contempt for the principles

upon which they proceeded. On the other hand, Irish writers

attributed to these professional arbitrators advanced

principles of equity wholly foreign to an early community. ...

The translation of the existing vast mass of Brehon law books,

and the translation [publication?] of the most important of

them by the order of the government, have disposed of the

arguments and assertions on both sides. It is now admitted,

that the system and principles of the Brehon jurisprudence

present no characteristics of any special character, although

in them primitive ideas of law were elaborated in a manner not

found elsewhere; ... the laws which existed among the native

Irish were in substance those which are found to have

prevailed among other Aryan tribes in a similar stage of

social progress; as the social development of the nation was

prematurely arrested, so also were the legal ideas of the same

stage of existence retained after they had disappeared in all

other nations of Europe. This legal survival continued for

centuries the property of an hereditary caste, who had

acquired the knowledge of writing, and some tincture of

scholastic philosophy and civil law. ... The learning of the

Brehons consisted (1) in an acquaintance with the minute

ceremonies, intelligible now only to an archæologist, and not

always to him, by which the action could be instituted, and

without which no Brehon could assume the role of arbitrator;

and (2) in a knowledge of the traditions, customs and

precedents of the tribe, in accordance with which the dispute

should be decided."

A. G. Richey, Short History of the Irish People, chapter 3.

ALSO IN: Sir H. Maine, Early History of Institutions,

lecture 2.

BREISACH: A. D. 1638.

Siege and capture by Duke Bernhard.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

BREISACH: A. D. 1648.

Cession to France.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

BREITENFELD,

Battle of (or first battle of Leipsic).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631.

The second battle of (1642).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

{316}

BREMEN: 13th-15th Centuries.

In the Hanseatic League.

See HANSA TOWNS.

BREMEN: A. D. 1525

Formal establishment of the Reformed Religion.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1522-1525.

BREMEN: A. D. 1648.

Cession of the Bishoprick to Sweden.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

BREMEN: A. D. 1720.

The Duchy ceded to the Elector of Hanover.

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

BREMEN: A. D. 1801-1803.

One of six free cities which survive the Peace of Luneville.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

BREMEN: A. D. 1810.

Annexed to France.

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

BREMEN: A. D. 1810-1815.

Loss and recovery of autonomy as a "free city."

See CITIES, IMPERIAL AND FREE, OF GERMANY.

BREMEN: A. D. 1815.

Once more a Free City and a member of the Germanic

Confederation.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

BREMEN: A. D. 1888.

Surrender of free privileges.

Absorption in the Zollverein and Empire.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1888.

----------BREMEN: End----------

BREMI: A. D. 1635-1638.

Taken by the French.

Recovered by the Spaniards.

See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

BRÊMULE, Battle of (1119).

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.

BRENHIN, The Cymric title.

See ROME: B. C. 390-347.

BRENNI, The.

See RHÆTIANS.

BRENTFORD, Battle of.

Fought and won by Edmund Ironsides in his contest with Cnut,

or Canute, for the English throne A. D. 1016.

BRESCIA: A. D. 1512.

Capture and pillage by the French.

See ITALY: A. D. 1510-1513.

BRESCIA: A. D. 1849.

Bombardment, capture and brutal treatment by the Austrian

Haynau.

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

----------BRESCIA: End----------

BRESLAU: A. D. 1741-1760.

In the wars of Frederick the Great.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (MAY-JUNE); 1742 (JANUARY-MAY);

1742 (JUNE); GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER), and 1760.

BREST: A. D. 1694.

Repulse of the English fleet.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1694.

BRETAGNE.

See BRITTANY.

BRETHREN OF THE COMMON LOT OR COMMON LIFE.

"The Societies of the Beguines, Beghards, and Lollards [see

BEGUINES], which from the first laboured under various defects

and imperfections, had in course of time degenerated, and by

their own fault, either fallen to pieces of themselves, or

been suppressed. The two things, however, still existed, viz.,

the propensity to religious association, ... and, likewise,

the outward condition, which required and rendered practicable

the efforts of benevolence and charity, strengthened by

cooperation. The last was particularly the case in the

Netherlands, and most in the northern provinces. ... Here,

then, the Institute of the Common Lot takes its rise. ... The

first author of this new series of evolutions was Gerhard

Groot (Geert Groete or de Groot, Gerhardus Magnus), a man of

glowing piety and great zeal in doing good, a powerful popular

orator and an affectionate friend of youth [1340-1384]. ...

His affection for Holy Scripture and the ancient Fathers

kindled in Gerhard's bosom the liveliest zeal for collecting

the records of Christian antiquity. ... Hence, he had long

before employed young men, under his oversight, as copyists,

thereby accomplishing the threefold end of multiplying these

good theological works, giving profitable employment to the

youths, and obtaining an opportunity of influencing their

minds. This he continued more and more to do. The circle of

his youthful friends, scholars, and transcribers, became from

day to day larger, and grew at length into a regular society.

Having thus in part owed its origin to the copying of the

Scriptures and devotional books, the Society from the outset,

and through its whole continuance, made the Holy Scripture and

its propagation, the copying, collecting, preserving, and

utilizing of good theological and ascetical books, one of its

main objects. ... The members were called 'Brethren of the

Common Lot,' [or of the Common Life] or 'Brethren of Good

Will,' 'Fratres Collationarii,' 'Jeronymians,' and

'Gregorians.' ... Imitating the Church at Jerusalem, and

prompted by brotherly affection, they mutually shared with

each other their earnings and property, or consecrated also

their fortune, if they possessed any, to the service of the

community. From this source, and from donations and legacies

made to them, arose the 'Brother-houses,' in each of which a

certain number of members lived together, subjected, it is

true, in dress, diet, and general way of life, to an appointed

rule, but yet not conventually sequestered from the world,

with which they maintained constant intercourse, and in such a

way as, in opposition to Monachism [monasticism], to preserve

the principle of individual liberty."

C. Ullmann, Reformers before the Reformation,

volume 2, part 2, chapter l.

"Through the wonderful activity of that fraternity of

teachers, begun about 1360, called the Brethren of the Common

Life, the Netherlands had the first system of common schools

in Europe. These schools flourished in every large town and

almost in every village, so that popular education was the

rule."

W. E. Griffis, The Influence of the Netherlands, page 3.

ALSO IN: S. Kettlewell, Thomas à Kempis and the Brothers

of Common Life, chapter 5-6 (volume 1).

BRETHREN OF THE FREE SPIRIT.

See BEGUINES.

BRETIGNY, Treaty of.

The treaty, called at the time "the great peace," concluded

May 8, 1360, between Edward III. of England and John II. of

France, in which Edward renounced his pretensions to the

French crown, released for a ransom King John, then a prisoner

in his hands, and received the full sovereignty of Guienne,

Poitou and Ponthieu in France, besides retaining Calais and

Guisnes.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360.

BRETWALDA.

A title given to some of the early English kings. "Opinions

differ as to the meaning of the word Bretwalda. Palgrave and

Lappenberg take it as equivalent to 'ruler of Britain': Kemble

construes it 'broad-ruling,' and sees in it a dignity without

duty, hardly more than an accidental predominance.' (Saxons in

England, ii., 18.) The list of those who obtained this

'ducatus' includes Ethelbert of Kent, who broke the power of

the petty kings as far as the Humber, Redbald of East Anglia,

who obtained it by some means even in the lifetime of

Ethelbert, and the three great Northumbrian kings, Edwin,

Oswold and Oswy, whose supremacy however did not extend to

Kent."

O. Elton, Origins of English History, page 392, note.

ALSO IN:

E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest of

England, volume 1, appendix B.

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527,

and ENGLAND: 7TH CENTURY.

{317}

BREWSTER, William, and the Plymouth Pilgrims.

See INDEPENDENTS: A. D. 1604-1617,

and MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620, and after.

BREYZAD.

The people and the language of Brittany, or Bretagne.

See BRITTANY: A. D. 818-912.

BRIAN BORU,

The reign in Ireland of.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1014.

BRIDGE, Battle of the.

A serious reverse suffered by the Arab followers of Mahomet in

their early movements against the Persians, A. D. 634. A force

of 9,000 or 10,000 having crossed the Euphrates by a bridge of

boats were beaten back, their bridge destroyed and half of

them slain or drowned.

G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter

26.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

BRIDGEWATER, OR LUNDY'S LANE, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

BRIDGEWATER, Storming of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

BRIENNE, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

BRIGANTES, The.

One of the strongest and fiercest of the tribes of ancient

Britain, believed by some historians to have been the original

pre-Celtic inhabitants of the island. At the time of the Roman

conquest they held the whole interior northward from the

Humber and Mersey to the Forth and Clyde. They were subdued by

Agricola.

E. Guest, Origines Celticæ, volume 1, chapter 1.

See, also, BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES,

and A. D. 43-53;

also, IRELAND, TRIBES of EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

BRIGANTINE.--BERGANTIN.

See CARAVELS.

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

See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

BRILL, The capture of.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1572.

BRISBANE.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840, and 1859.

BRISSOT DE WARVILLE AND THE GIRONDISTS.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER), to 1793

(SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

BRISSOTINS.

The party of the Girondists, in the French Revolution, was

sometimes so called, after Brissot de Warville, one of its

leaders.

BRISTOE STATION, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863

(JULY-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

BRISTOL: 12th Century.

Its slave trade and other commerce.

"Within its comparatively narrow limits Bristol must have been

in general character and aspect not unlike what it is

to-day--a busy, bustling, closely-packed city, full of the

eager, active, surging life of commercial enterprise. Ostmen

from Waterford and Dublin, Northmen from the Western Isles and

the more distant Orkneys, and even from Norway itself, had

long ago learnt to avoid the shock of the 'Higra,' the mighty

current which still kept its heathen name derived from the

sea-god of their forefathers, and make it serve to float them

into the safe and commodious harbour of Bristol, where a

thousand ships could ride at anchor. As the great trading

centre of the west Bristol ranked as the third city in the

kingdom, surpassed in importance only by Winchester and

London. The most lucrative branch of its trade, however,

reflects no credit on its burghers. All the eloquence of S.

Wulfstan and all the sternness of the Conqueror had barely

availed to check for a while their practice of kidnapping men

for the Irish slave-market; and that the traffic was in full

career in the latter years of Henry I. we learn from the

experiences of the canons of Laon."

K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings, volume 1, chapter

1.

BRISTOL: A. D. 1497.

Cabot's voyage of discovery.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1497.

BRISTOL: A. D. 1645.

The storming of the city by Fairfax.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

BRISTOL: A. D. 1685.

The commerce and wealth of the city.

"Next to the capital, but next at an immense distance, stood

Bristol, then the first English seaport. ... Pepys, who

visited Bristol eight years after the Restoration, was struck

by the splendour of the city. But his standard was not high;

for he noted down as a wonder the circumstance that, in

Bristol, a man might look round him and see nothing but

houses. ... A few churches of eminent beauty rose out of a

labyrinth of narrow lanes built upon vaults of no great

solidity. If a coach or cart entered those alleys, there was

danger that it would be wedged between the houses, and danger

also that it would break in the cellars. Goods were therefore

conveyed about the town almost exclusively in trucks drawn by

dogs; and the richest inhabitants exhibited their wealth, not

by riding in carriages, but by walking the streets with trains

of servants in rich liveries and by keeping tables loaded with

good cheer. The hospitality of the city was widely renowned,

and especially the collations with which the sugar refiners

regaled their visitors. ... This luxury was supported by a

thriving trade with the North American Plantations and with

the West Indies. The passion for colonial traffic was so

strong that there was scarcely a small shopkeeper in Bristol

who had not a venture on board of some ship bound for Virginia

or the Antilles. Some of these venturers indeed were not of

the most honourable kind. There was, in the Transatlantic

possessions of the crown, a great demand for labour; and this

demand was partly supplied by a system of crimping and

kidnapping at the principal English seaports. Nowhere was this

system in such active and extensive operation as at Bristol.

... The number of houses appears, from the returns of the

hearth-money, to have been, in the year 1685, just 5,300. ...

The population of Bristol must therefore have been about

29,000."

Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter 3 (volume 1).

BRISTOL: A. D. 1831.

The Reform Bill Riots.

The popular excitement produced in England in 1831 by the

action of the House of Lords in rejecting the Reform Bill, led

to riots in several places, but most seriously at Bristol.

"The Bristol mobs have always been noted for their brutality;

and the outbreak now was such as to amaze and confound the the

whole kingdom. ...

{318}

The lower parts of the city were the harbourage of probably a

worse seaport populace than any other place in England, while

the police was ineffective and demoralised. There was no city

in which a greater amount of savagery lay beneath a society

proud, exclusive, and mutually repellent, rather than

enlightened and accustomed to social co-operation. These are

circumstances which go far to account for the Bristol riots

being so fearfully bad as they were. Of this city, Sir Charles

Wetherell--then at the height of his unpopularity as a

vigorous opponent of the Reform Bill--was recorder; and there

he had to go, in the last days of October, in his judicial

capacity. ... The symptoms of discontent were such as to

induce the mayor, Mr. Pinney, to apply to the home-office for

military aid. Lord Melbourne sent down some troops of horse,

which were quartered within reach, in the neighbourhood of the

city. ... Sir Charles Wetherell could not be induced to

relinquish his public entry, though warned of the danger by

the magistrates themselves. ... On Saturday, October 29, Sir

Charles Wetherell entered Bristol in pomp; and before he

reached the Mansion House at noon, he must have been pretty

well convinced, by the hootings and throwing of stones, that

he had better have foregone the procession. For some hours the

special constables and the noisy mob in front of the Mansion

House exchanged discourtesies of an emphatic character, but

there was no actual violence till night. At night, the Mansion

House was attacked, and the Riot Act was read; but the

military were not brought down, as they ought to have been, to

clear the streets. The mayor had 'religious scruples,' and was

'humane'; and his indecision was not overborne by any aid from

his brother-magistrates. When the military were brought in, it

was after violence had been committed, and when the passions

of the mob were much excited. Sir Charles Wetherell escaped

from the city that night. During the dark hours, sounds were

heard provocative of further riot; shouts in the streets, and

the hammering of workmen who were boarding up the lower

windows of the Mansion House and the neighbouring dwellings.

On the Sunday morning, the rioters broke into the Mansion

House without opposition; and from the time they got into the

cellars, all went wrong. Hungry wretches and boys broke the

necks of the bottles, and Queen Square was strewed with the

bodies of the dead-drunk. The soldiers were left without

orders, and their officers without that sanction of the

magistracy in the absence of which they could not act, but

only parade; and in this parading, some of the soldiers

naturally lost their tempers, and spoke and made gestures on

their own account, which did not tend to the soothing of the

mob. This mob never consisted of more than five or six

hundred. ... The mob declared openly what they were going to

do; and they went to work unchecked--armed with staves and

bludgeons from the quays, and with iron palisades from the

Mansion House--to break open and burn the bridewell, the jail,

the bishop's palace, the custom-house, and Queen Square. They

gave half an hour's notice to the inhabitants of each house in

the square, which they then set fire to in regular succession,

till two sides, each measuring 550 feet, lay in smoking ruins.

The bodies of the drunken were seen roasting in the fire. The

greater number of the rioters were believed to be under twenty

years of age, and some were mere children; some Sunday

scholars, hitherto well conducted, and it may be questioned

whether one in ten knew anything of the Reform Bill, or the

offences of Sir Charles Wetherell. On the Monday morning,

after all actual riot seemed to be over, the soldiery at last

made two slaughterous charges. More horse arrived, and a

considerable body of foot soldiers; and the constabulary

became active; and from that time the city was in a more

orderly state than the residents were accustomed to see it.

... The magistrates were brought to trial, and so was Colonel

Brereton, who was understood to be in command of the whole of

the military. The result of that court-martial caused more

emotion throughout the kingdom than all the slaughtering and

burning, and the subsequent executions which marked that

fearful season. It was a year before the trial of the

magistrates was entered upon. The result was the acquittal of

the mayor, and the consequent relinquishment of the

prosecution of his brother-magistrates."

H. Martineau, A History of the Thirty Years' Peace,

book 4, chapter 4 (volume 2).

----------BRISTOL: End----------

BRITAIN, Count and Duke of.

The military commanders of Roman Britain.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337,

also ARTHUR, KING.

BRITAIN, The name.

See BRITANNIA.

BRITAIN: Celtic Tribes.

"It appears that the southeastern part of the island, or the

district now occupied by the county of Kent, was occupied by

the Cantii, a large and influential tribe, which in Cæsar's

time, was divided among four chiefs or kings. To the west, the

Regni held the modern counties of Sussex and Surrey, from the

sea-coast to the Thames. Still farther west, the Belgæ

occupied the country from the southern coast to the Bristol

Channel, including nearly the whole of Hampshire, Wiltshire

and Somersetshire. The whole of the extensive district

extending from the Belgæ to the extreme western point of the

island, then called Antivestæum or Bolerium (now the Land's

End) including Devonshire and Cornwall, was occupied by the

Dumnonii, or Damnonii. On the coast between the Dumnonii and

the Belgæ the smaller tribe of the Durotriges held the modern

county of Dorset. On the other side of the Thames, extending

northwards to the Stour, and including the greater part of

Middlesex as well as Essex, lay the Trinobantes. To the north

of the Stour dwelt the Iceni, extending over the counties of

Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridge and Huntingdon. The Coritavi

possessed the present counties of Northampton, Leicester,

Rutland, Derby, Nottingham and Lincoln; and the south-eastern

part of Yorkshire was held by the Parisi. Between the tribes

last enumerated, in the counties of Buckingham, Bedford and

Hertford, lay the tribe called by Ptolemy the Catyeuchlani,

and by others Catuvellani. Another name, apparently, for this

tribe, or for a division of it, was the Cassii. West of these

were the Atrebates, in Berkshire; and still further west were

the Dobuni, in the counties of Oxford and Gloucester. ... The

interior of the island northward was occupied by the

Brigantes, who held the extensive districts, difficult of

approach on account of their mountains and woods, extending

from the Humber and the Mersey to the present borders of

Scotland. This extensive tribe appears to have included

several smaller ones [the Voluntii, the Sestuntii, the

Jugantes and the Cangi].

{319}

The Brigantes are believed to have been the original

inhabitants of the island, who had been driven northward by

successive invasions. ... Wales, also, was inhabited by a

primitive population. The northern counties ... was the

territory of the Ordovices. The southeastern counties ... were

held by the Demetae. The still more celebrated tribe of the

Silures inhabited the modern counties of Hereford, Radnor,

Breeknoek, Monmouth and Clamorgan. Between these and the

Brigantes lay the Cornabii or Carnabii. The wilder parts of

the island of Britain, to the north of the Brigantes, were

inhabited by a great number of smaller tribes, some of whom

seem to have been raised in the scale of civilization little

above savages. Of these we have the names of no less than

twenty-one. Bordering on the Brigantes were the Otadeni,

inhabiting the coast from the Tyne to the Firth of Forth. ...

Next to them were the Gadeni. ... The Selgovæ inhabited

Annandale, Nithsdale and Eskdale, in Dumfriesshire, with the

East of Galloway. The Novantes inhabited the remainder of

Galloway. The Damnii, a larger tribe, held the country from

the chain of hills separating Galloway from Carrick, northward

to the river Ern. These tribes lay to the south of the Forth

and Clyde. Beyond the narrow boundary formed by these rivers

lay [the Horestii, the Venricones or Vernicomes, the Taixali

or Taexali, the Vacomagi, the Albani, the Cantæ, the Logi, the

Carnabii, the Catini, the Mertæ, the Carnonacæ, the Creones,

the Cerones, and the Epidii]. The ferocious tribe of the

Attacotti inhabited part of Argyleshire, and the greater part

of Dumbartonshire. The wild forest country of the interior,

known as the Caledonia Sylva (or Forest of Celyddon), extended

from the ridge of mountains between Inverness and Perth,

northward to the forest of Balnagowan, including the middle

parts of Inverness and Ross, was held by the Caledonii, which

appears to have been at this time [of the conquests of

Agricola] the most important and powerful of all the tribes

north of the Brigantes."

T. Wright, The Celt, the Roman and the Saxon, chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

J. Rhys, Celtic Britain.

J. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, book 1, chapter 2.

BRITAIN: B. C. 55-54.

Cæsar's invasions.

Having extended his conquests in Gaul to the British Channel

and the Strait of Dover (see GAUL: B. C. 58-51), Cæsar crossed

the latter, in August, B. C. 55, and made his first landing in

Britain, with two legions, numbering 8,000 to 10,000 men.

Portus Itius, from which he sailed, was probably either

Wissant or Boulogne, and his landing place on the British

coast is believed to have been near Deal. The Britons disputed

his landing with great obstinacy, but were driven back, and

offered to submit; but when a few days afterwards, Cæsar's

fleet suffered greatly from a storm, they reconsidered their

submission and opened hostilities again. Routed in a second

battle, they once more sued for peace, and gave hostages;

whereupon Cæsar reembarked his troops and returned to the

continent, having remained in Britain not more than three

weeks and penetrated the island a short distance only. The

following summer he crossed to Britain again, determined on

making a thorough conquest of the country. This time he had

five legions at his back, with two thousand horse, and the

expedition was embarked on more than eight hundred ships. He

sailed from and landed at the same points as before. Having

established and garrisoned a fortified camp, he advanced into

the country, encountering and defeating the Britons, first, at

a river, supposed to be the Stour which flows past Canterbury.

A storm which damaged his fleet then interrupted his advance,

compelling him to return to the coast. When the disaster had

been repaired he marched again, and again found the enemy on

the Stour, assembled under the command of Cassivelaunus, whose

kingdom was north of the Thames. He dispersed them, after much

fighting, with great slaughter, and crossed the Thames, at a

point, it is supposed, near the junction of the Wey. Thence he

pushed on until he reached the "oppidum" or stronghold of

Cassivelaunus, which is believed by some to have been on the

site of the modern town of St. Albans,--but the point is It

disputed one. On receiving the submission of Cassivelaunus,

and of other chiefs, or kings, fixing the tribute they should

pay and taking hostages, Cæsar returned to the coast,

reembarked his army and withdrew. His stay in Britain on this

occasion was about sixty days.

Cæsar, Gallic War, book 4, chapter 20-36,

and book 7, chapter 7-33.

ALSO IN:

H. M. Scarth, Roman Britain, chapter 2.

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 4, chapter 9 and

11-12.

T. Lewin, Invasion of Britain by Cæsar.

F. T. Vine, Cæsar in Kent.

E. Guest, Origines Celticæ, volume 2.

BRITAIN: A. D. 43-53.

Conquests of Claudius.

Nearly a hundred years passed after Cæsar's hasty invasion of

Britain before the Romans reappeared on the island, to enforce

their claim of tribute. It was under the fourth of the

imperial successors of Julius Cæsar, the feeble Claudius, that

the work of Roman conquest in Britain was really begun. Aulus

Plautius, who commanded in Gaul, was sent over with four

legions, A. D. 43, to obtain a footing and to smooth the way

for the Emperor's personal campaign. With him went one,

Vespasian, who began in Britain to win the fame which pushed

him into the imperial seat and to a great place in Roman

history. Plautius and Vespasian made good their occupation of

the country as far as the Thames, and planted their forces

strongly on the northern bank of that river; before they

summoned the Emperor to their aid. Claudius came before the

close of the military season, and his vanity was gratified by

the nominal leading of an advance on the chief oppidum, or

stronghold of the Britons, called Camulodunum, which occupied

the site of the modern city of Colchester. The Trinobantes,

whose capital it was, were beaten and the place surrendered.

Satisfied with this easy victory, the Emperor returned to

Rome, to enjoy the honors of a triumph; while Vespasian, in

command of the second legion, fought his way, foot by foot,

into the southwest of the island, and subjugated the obstinate

tribes of that region. During the next ten years, under the

command of Ostorius Scapula, who succeeded Plautius, and

Avitus Didius Gallus, who succeeded Ostorius, the Roman power

was firmly settled in southern Britain, from the Stour, at the

East, to the Exe and the Severn at the West. The Silures, of

South Wales, who had resisted most stubbornly, under

Caractacus, the fugitive Trinobantine prince, were subdued and

Caractacns made captive. The Iceni (in Suffolk, Norfolk and

Cambridge-shire) were reduced from allies to sullen

dependents. The Brigantes, most powerful of all the tribes,

and who held the greater part of the whole north of modern

England, were still independent, but distracted by internal

dissensions which Roman influence was active in keeping alive.

This, stated briefly, was the extent to which the conquest of

Britain was carried during the reign of Claudius, between A.

D. 43 and 54.

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 51.

ALSO IN:

E. Guest, Origines Celticæ, volume 2, part 2, chapter 13.

H. M. Scarth, Roman Britain, chapter 4.

See, also, COLCHESTER, ORIGIN OF.

{320}

BRITAIN: A. D. 61.

Campaigns of Suetonius Paulinus.

From A. D. 50 to 61, while Didius Gallus and his successor

Veranius commanded in Britain, nothing was done to extend the

Roman acquisitions. In the latter year, Suetonius Paulinus

came to the command, and a stormy period of war ensued. His

first movement was to attack the Druids in the isle of Mona,

or Anglesey, into which they had retreated from Gaul and

Britain, in successive flights, before the implacable

hostility of Rome. "In this gloomy lair, secure apparently,

though shorn of might and dignity, they still persisted in the

practice of their unholy superstition. ... Here they retained

their assemblies, their schools, and their oracles; here was

the asylum of the fugitives; here was the sacred grove, the

abode of the awful deity, which in the stillest noon of night

or day the priest himself scarce ventured to enter lest he

should rush unwittingly into the presence of its lord." From

Segontium (modern Caernarvon) Suetonius crossed the Menai

Strait on rafts and boats with one of his legions, the

Batavian cavalry swimming their horses. The landing was

fiercely disputed by women and men, priests and worshippers;

but Roman valor bore down all resistance. "From this moment

the Druids disappear from the page of history; they were

exterminated, we may believe, upon their own altars; for

Suetonius took no half measures." This accomplished, the Roman

commander was quickly called upon to meet a terrific outburst

of patriotic rage on the part of the powerful nation of the

Iceni, who occupied the region now forming the counties of

Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridge, and Huntingdon. They had been

allies of the Romans, first; then tributaries, under their own

king, and finally subjects, much oppressed. Their last king,

Prasutagus, had vainly hoped to win favor for his wife and

children, when he died, by bequeathing his kingdom to the

Roman State. But the widowed queen, Boudicea, or Boadicea, and

her daughters, were only exposed with more helplessness to the

insolence and the outrages of a brutal Roman officer. They

appealed to their people and maddened them by the exposure of

indescribable wrongs. The rising which ensued was fierce and

general beyond precedent. "The Roman officials fled, or, if

arrested, were slaughtered; and a vast multitude, armed and

unarmed, rolled southward to overwhelm and extirpate the

intruders. To the Colne, to the Thames, to the sea, the

country lay entirely open." The colony at Camulodunum

(Colchester), was destroyed; Verulamium (St. Albans), and

Londinium (London), were sacked and burned; not less than

70,000 of the Romans in Britain were slaughtered without

mercy. Suetonius made haste to quit Anglesey when the dreadful

news reached him, and pressed, with all speed, along the great

highway of Watling Street--gathering up his forces in hand as

he went--to reach the awful scene of rage and terror. He had

collected but 10,000 men when he confronted, at last, the vast

swarm of the insurgents, on a favorable piece of ground that

he had secured, in the neighborhood of Camulodunum. But, once

more, the valor of undisciplined semi-barbarism wrecked itself

on the firm shields of the Roman cohorts, and 80,000 Britons

are said to have fallen in the merciless fight. The

insurrection was crushed and Roman authority in Britain

reaffirmed. But the grim Suetonius dealt so harshly with the

broken people that even Rome remonstrated, and he was,

presently, recalled, to give place to a more pacific

commander.

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 51.

ALSO IN: H. M. Scarth, Roman Britain, chapter 5.

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 5.

BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.

Campaigns of Agricola.

For seventeen years after the recall of Suetonius Paulinus (A.

D. 61) there was a suspension of Roman conquest in Britain.

The military power in the island suffered great

demoralization, resulting naturally from the chaos of affairs

at Rome, between Nero and Vespasian. These conditions ceased

soon after the accession of the Flavian Emperor, and he, who

had attained first in Britain the footing from which he

climbed to the throne, interested himself in the spreading of

his sovereignty over the whole of the British island. C. Julius

Agricola was the soldier and statesman--a great man in each

character--whom he selected for the work. Agricola was made

prefect or Governor of Britain, A. D. 78. "Even in his first

summer, when he had been but a few months in the island, and

when none even of his own officers expected active service,

Agricola led his forces into the country of the Ordovices, in

whose mountain passes the war of independence still lingered,

drove the Britains across the Menai Straits and pursued them

into Anglesey, as Suetonius had done before him, by boldly

crossing the boiling current in the face of the enemy. Another

summer saw him advance northward into the territory of the

Brigantes, and complete the organization of the district,

lately reduced, between the Humber and Tyne. Struck perhaps

with the natural defences of the line from the Tyne to the

Solway, where the island seems to have broken, as it were, in

the middle and soldered unevenly together, he drew a chain of

forts from sea to sea. ... In the third year of his command,

Agricola pushed forward along the eastern coast, and, making

good with roads and fortresses every inch of his progress,

reached, as I imagine, the Firth of Forth. ... Here he

repeated the operations of the preceding winter, planting his

camps and stations from hill to hill, and securing a new belt

of territory, ninety miles across, for Roman occupation." The

next two years were spent in strengthening his position and

organizing his conquest. In A. D. 83 and 84 he advanced beyond

the Forth, in two campaigns of hard fighting, the latter of

which was made memorable by the famous battle of the

Grampians, or Graupius, fought with the Caledonian hero

Galgacus. At the close of this campaign he sent his fleet

northward to explore the unknown coast and to awe the remoter

tribes, and it is claimed that the vessels of Agricola

circumnavigated the island of Britain, for the first time, and

saw the Orkneys and Shetlands. The further plans of the

successful prefect were interrupted by his sudden recall.

Vespasian, first, then Titus, had died while he pursued his

victorious course in Caledonia, and the mean Domitian was

envious and afraid of his renown.

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 61.

ALSO IN:

Tacitus, Agricola.

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 5.

{321}

BRITAIN: 2d-3d Centuries.

Introduction of Christianity.

See Christianity: A. D. 100-312.

BRITAIN: A. D. 208-211.

Campaigns of Severus.

A fresh inroad of the wild Caledonians of the north upon Roman

Britain, in the year 208, caused the Emperor Severus to visit

the distant island in person, with his two worthless sons,

Caracalla and Geta. He desired, it is said, to remove those

troublesome youths from Rome and to subject them to the

wholesome discipline of military life. The only result, so far

as they were concerned, was to give Caracalla opportunities

for exciting mutiny among the troops and for making several

attempts against his father's life. But Severus persisted in

his residence in Britain during more than two years, and till

his death, which occurred at Eboracum (York) on the 4th of

February, A. D. 211. During that time he prosecuted the war

against the Caledonians with great vigor, penetrating to the

northern extremity of the island, and losing, it is said;

above 50,000 men, more by the hardships of the climate and the

march than by the attacks of the skulking enemy. The

Caledonians made a pretence of submission, at last, but were

soon in arms again. Severus was then preparing to pursue them

to extermination, when he died.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 6.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

ALSO IN: T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 5.

BRITAIN: A. D. 288-297.

Rebellion of Carausius.

"During the reign of Gallienus [A. D. 260-268] ... the pirate

fleets of the Franks infested the British seas, and it became

needful to have a fleet to protect the coast. The command of

this fleet had been conferred on Carausius, a Menapian by

birth; but he was suspected of conniving at piracy, in order

that he might enrich himself by becoming a sharer in their

booty, when they returned laden with plunder. To save himself,

therefore, from punishment, he usurped the imperial power, A.

D. 288, and reigned over Britain for seven years. A vast

number of his coins struck in Britain have been preserved, so

many that the history of Carausius has been written from his

medals. He was slain at length by his minister Allectus, who

usurped his power. The Franks [as allies of Allectus] had

well-nigh established their power over the south portion of

Britain when it was broken by Constantius, the father of

Constantine the Great, who defeated Allectus in a decisive

battle, in which that usurper was slain. ... Allectus held the

government of Britain for three years. Many of his coins are

found."

H. M. Scarth, Roman Britain, chapter 10.

ALSO IN: T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 4.

BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337.

Constantine's Organization.

Under the scheme of government designed by Diocletian and

amended by Constantine, "Britain formed part of a vast

pro-consulate, extending from Mount Atlas to the Caledonian

deserts, and was governed by the Gallic prefect, through a

'vicar' or deputy at York. The island was divided into five

new provinces. ... Britain was under the orders of the Count

of Britain, assisted by the subordinate officers. The Duke of

Britain commanded in the north. The Count of the Saxon Shore,

governed the 'Maritime Tract' and provided for the defence of

the southeastern coast. The Saxon Shore on the coast of

Britain must not be mistaken for the Saxon Shore on the

opposite coast of France, the headquarters of which were the

harbour of Boulogne. The names of the several provinces into

which Britain was divided are given in the 'Notitia,' viz:--

1. Britannia Prima, which included all the south and west of

England, from the estuary of the Thames to that of the Severn.

2. Britannia Secunda, which included the Principality of

Wales, bounded by the Severn on the east and the Irish Channel

on the west.

3. Flavia Cæsariensis,--all the middle portion of Britain,

from the Thames to the Humber and the· estuary of the Dee.

4. Maxima Cæsariensis,--the Brigantian territory, lying

between the estuaries of the Humber and Dee, and the Barrier

of the Lower Isthmus.

5. Valentia,--the most northern portion, lying between the

barrier of Hadrian and that of Antoninus."

H. M. Scarth. Roman Britain, chapter 10.

Britain: A. D. 367-370.

Deliverance By Theodosius.

The distracted condition of affairs in the Roman Empire that

soon followed the death of Constantine, which was relieved by

Julian for a brief term, and which became worse at his death,

proved especially ruinous to Roman Britain. The savage tribes

of Caledonia--the Picts, now beginning to be associated with

the Scots from Ireland--became bolder from year to year in

their incursions, until they marched across the whole extent

of Britain. "Their path was marked by cruelties so atrocious,

that it was believed at the time and recorded by St. Jerome

that they lived on human flesh. London, even, was threatened

by them, and the whole island, which, like all the other

provinces of the Empire, had lost every spark of military

virtue, was incapable of opposing any resistance to them.

Theodosius, a Spanish officer, and father of the great man of

the same name who was afterwards associated in the Empire, was

charged by Valentinian with the defence of Britain. He forced

the Scots to fall back (A. D. 367-370), but without having

been able to bring them to an engagement."

J. C. L. de Sismondi, Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 5.

"The splendour of the cities and the security of the

fortifications were diligently restored by the paternal care

of Theodosius, who with a strong hand confined the trembling

Caledonians to the northern angle of the island, and

perpetuated, by the name and settlement of the new province of

Valentia, the glories of the reign of Valentinian."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 25.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

BRITAIN: A. D. 383-388.

Revolt of Maximus.

In 383, four years after Theodosius the Great had been

associated in the Roman sovereignty by the young Emperor

Gratian, and placed on the throne of the East, the generous

Gratian lost his own throne, and his life, through a revolt

that was organized in Britain. "One Maximus, a Spaniard by

birth, occupying a high official position in that province,

forced on step by step into insurrection, by a soldiery and a

people of whom he appears to have been the idol, raised the

standard of revolt in the island, and passed over into Gaul,

attended by a large multitude,--130,000 men and 70,000 women,

says Zosimus, the Byzantine historian. This colony, settling

in the Armorican peninsula, gave it the name of Brittany,

which it has since retained. The rebel forces were soon

victorious over the two Emperors who had agreed to share the

Roman throne [Gratian and his boy-brother Valentinian who

divided the sovereignty of the West between them, while

Theodosius ruled the East]. Gratian they slew at Lyons;

Valentinian they speedily expelled from Italy. ... Theodosius

adopted the cause of his brother Emperor" and overthrew

Maximus (see ROME: A. D. 379-395).

J. G. Sheppard, Fall of Rome, lecture 5.

ALSO IN:

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 27.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

{322}

BRITAIN: A. D. 407.

The Usurpation Of Constantine.

"The Roman soldiers in Britain, seeing that the Empire was

falling to pieces under the feeble sway of Honorius, and

fearing lest they, too, should soon he ousted from their

dominion in the island (part of which was already known as the

Saxon Shore) clothed three usurpers successively with the

imperial purple [A. D. 407], falling, as far as social

position was concerned, lower and lower in their choice each

time. The last and least ephemeral of these rulers was a

private soldier named Constantine, and chosen for no other

reason but his name, which was accounted lucky, as having been

already borne by a general who had been carried by a British

army to supreme dominion."

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 1, chapter 5.

The usurper Constantine soon led his legions across the

channel into Gaul, then ravaged by the Vandals, Sueves, Alans

and Burgundians who passed the Rhine in 406. He was welcomed

with joy by the unhappy people who found themselves abandoned

to the barbarians. Some successes which the new Constantine

had, in prudent encounters with detached parties of the German

invaders, were greatly magnified, and gave prestige to his

cause. He was still more successful, for a time, in buying the

precarious friendship of some tribes of the enemy, and made,

on the whole, a considerable show of dominion in Gaul during

two or three years. The seat of his government was established

at Arles, to which city the offices and court of the Roman

Prefect of Gaul had retreated from Trèves in 402. With the

help of a considerable army of barbarian auxiliaries (a

curious mixture of Scots, Moors and Marcomanni) he extended

his sovereignty over Spain. He even extorted from the

pusillanimous court at Ravenna a recognition of his usurped

royalty, and promised assistance to Honorius against the

Goths. But the tide of fortune presently turned. The

lieutenant of Constantine in Spain, Count Gerontius, became

for some reason disaffected and crowned a new usurper, named

Maximus. In support of the latter he attacked Constantine and

shut him up in Arles. At the same time, the Emperor Honorius,

at Ravenna, having made peace with the Goths, sent his general

Constantius against the Gallo-British usurper. Constantius,

approaching Arles, found it already besieged by Gerontius. The

latter was abandoned by his troops, and fled, to be slain soon

afterwards. Arles capitulated to the representative of the

great name which Honorius still bore, as titular Imperator of

Rome. Constantine was sent to Ravenna, and put to death on the

way (A. D. 411).

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 31.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

ALSO IN:

P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul,

book 3, chapter 10.

BRITAIN: A. D. 410.

Abandoned By The Romans.

"Up to the moment ... when the Imperial troops quitted

Britain, we see them able easily to repel the attacks of its

barbarous assailants. When a renewal of their inroads left

Britain weak and exhausted at the accession of the Emperor

Honorius, the Roman general Stilicho renewed the triumphs

which Theodosius had won. The Pict was driven back afresh, the

Saxon boats chased by his galleys as far as the Orkneys, and

the Saxon Shore probably strengthened with fresh fortresses.

But the campaign of Stilicho was the last triumph of the

Empire in its western waters. The struggle Rome had waged so

long drew in fact to its end; at the opening of the fifth

century her resistance suddenly broke down; and the savage

mass of barbarism with which she had battled broke in upon the

Empire. ... The strength of the Empire, broken everywhere by

military revolts, was nowhere more broken than in Britain,

where the two legions which remained quartered at Richborough

and York set up more than once their chiefs as Emperors and

followed them across the channel in a march upon Rome. The

last of these pretenders, Constantine, crossed over to Gaul in

407 with the bulk of the soldiers quartered in Britain, and

the province seems to have been left to its own defence; for

it was no longer the legionaries, but 'the people of Britain'

who, 'taking up arms,' repulsed a new onset of the barbarians.

... They appealed to Honorius to accept their obedience, and

replace the troops. But the legions of the Empire were needed

to guard Rome itself: and in 410 a letter of the Emperor bade

Britain provide for its own government and its own defence.

Few statements are more false than those which picture the

British provincials as cowards, or their struggle against the

barbarian as a weak and unworthy one. Nowhere, in fact,

through the whole circuit of the Roman world, was so long and

so desperate a resistance offered to the assailants of the

Empire. ... For some thirty years after the withdrawal of the

legions the free province maintained an equal struggle against

her foes. Of these she probably counted the Saxons as still

the least formidable. .... It was with this view that Britain

turned to what seemed the weakest of her assailants, and

strove to find ... troops whom she could use as mercenaries

against the Pict."

J. R. Green, The Making of England, introduction.

ALSO IN:

J. M. Lappenberg, History of England under the

Anglo-Saxon Kings, volume 1, pages 57-66.

BRITAIN: A. D. 446.

The Last Appeal To Rome.

"Yet once again a supplicating embassy was sent to the Roman

general Ætius, during his third consulship, in the year 446.

... Ætius was unable to help them."

J. M. Lappenberg, History of England under the

Anglo-Saxon Kings, page 63.

"The date of the letters of appeal is fixed by the form of

their address: 'The groans of the Britons to Ætius for the

third time Consul. The savages drive us to the sea and the sea

casts us back upon the savages: so arise two kinds of

death, and we are either drowned or slaughtered.' The third

Consulate of Aetius fell in A. D. 446, a year memorable in the

West as the beginning of a profound calm which preceded the

onslaught of Attila. The complaint of Britain has left no

trace in the poems which celebrated the year of repose; and

our Chronicles are at any rate wrong when they attribute its

rejection to the stress of a war with the Huns. It is

possible, indeed, that the appeal was never made, and that the

whole story represents nothing but a rumour current in the

days of Gildas among the British exiles in Armorica."

C. Elton, Origins of English History, chapter 12.

{323}

BRITAIN: A. D. 449-633.

The Anglo-Saxon Conquest.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473, to 547-633.

BRITAIN: 6th CENTURY.

The Unsubdued Britons.

"The Britons were soon restricted to the western parts of the

island, where they maintained themselves in several small

states, of which those lying to the east yielded more and more

to Germanic influence; the others protected by their

mountains, preserved for a considerable time a gradually

decreasing independence. ... In the south-west we meet with

the powerful territory of Damnonia, the kingdom of Arthur,

which bore also the name of West Wales. Damnonia, at a later

period, was limited to Dyvnaint, or Devonshire, by the

separation of Cernau, or Cornwall. The districts called by the

Saxons those of the Sumorsætas, of the Thornsætas

(Dorsetshire). and the Wiltsætas were lost to the kings of

Dyvnaint at an early period; though for centuries afterwards a

large British population maintained itself in those parts

among the Saxon settlers, as well as among the Defnsætas, long

after the Saxon conquest of Dyvnaint, who for a considerable

time preserved to the natives of that shire the appellation of

the 'Welsh kind.' Cambria (Cymru), the country which at the

present day we call Wales, was divided into several states."

The chief of these early states was Venedotia (Gwynedd), the

king of which was supreme over the other states. Among these

latter were Dimetia (Dyved), or West Wales; Powys, which was

east of Gwynedd and Snowdon mountain; Gwent (Monmouthshire) or

South-east Wales, the country of the Silures. "The usages and

laws of the Cambrians were in all these states essentially the

same. An invaluable and venerable monument of them, although

of an age in which the Welsh had long been subject to the

Anglo-Saxons, and had adopted many of their institutions and

customs, are the laws of the king Howel Dda, who reigned in

the early part of the 10th century. ... The partition of

Cambria into several small states is not, as has often been

supposed, the consequence of a division made by king Rodri

Mawr, or Roderic the Great, among his sons. ... Of Dyfed,

during the first centuries after the coming of the Saxons, we

know very little; but with regard to Gwynedd, which was in

constant warfare with Northumbria and Mercia, our information

is less scanty: of Gwent, also, as the bulwark of Dimetia,

frequent mention occurs. On the whole we are less in want of a

mass of information respecting the Welsh, than of accuracy and

precision in that which we possess. ... An obscurity still

more dense than that over Wales involves the district lying to

the north of that country, comprised under the name of Cumbria."

J. M. Lappenberg, History of England under the

Anglo-Saxon Kings, volume 1, page 119-122.

See CUMBRIA AND STRATH-CLYDE.

BRITAIN: A. D. 635.

Defeat Of The Welsh By The English Of Bernicia.

See HEVENFIELD, BATTLE OF THE.

----------BRITAIN: End----------

BRITAIN, GREAT:

ADOPTION Of The Name For The United Kingdoms Of England And

Scotland.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1707.

BRITAIN, Roman Walls In.

See ROMAN WALLS IN BRITAIN.

BRITANNIA,

The Origin Of The Name.

"Many are the speculations which have been started as to the

etymology of the word Britannia, and among the later ones have

been some of the most extraordinary. Yet surely it is not one

of those philological difficulties which we need despair of

solving. Few persons will question that the name Britannia is

connected with the name Britanni, in the same way as Germania,

Gallia, Graecia, &c., with Germani, Galli, Graeci, &c., and it

is not unreasonable to assume that Britanni was originally

nothing more than the Latinized form of the Welsh word

Brython, a name which we find given in the Triads to one of

the three tribes who first colonized Britain. ... From the

Welsh 'brith' and Irish 'brit,' parti-coloured, may have come

Brython, which on this hypothesis would signify the painted

men. ... As far then as philology is concerned, there seems to

be no objection to our assuming Brython, and therefore also

Britanni, to signify the painted men. How this Celtic name

first came to denote the inhabitants of these islands is a

question, the proper answer to which lies deeper than is

generally supposed. ... The 'Britannic Isles' is the oldest

name we find given to these islands in the classical writers.

Under this title Polybius (3. 57) refers to them in connection

with the tin-trade, and the well-known work on the Kosmos (c.

3) mentions 'The Britannic Isles, Albion and Ierne.' ... But

in truth neither the authorship nor the age of this last-named

work has been satisfactorily settled, and therefore we cannot

assert that the phrase 'The Britannic Isles' came into use

before the second century B. C. The name Britannia first

occurs in the works of Cæsar and was not improbably invented

by him."

E. Guest, Origines Celticæ, volume 2, chapter 1.

The etymology contended for by Dr. Guest is scouted by Mr.

Rhys, on principles of Celtic phonology. He, on the contrary,

traces relations between the name Brython and "the Welsh

vocables 'bethyn,' cloth, and its congeners," and concludes

that it signified "a clothed or cloth-clad people."

J. Rhys, Celtic Britain, chapter 6.

BRITANNIA PRIMA AND SECUNDA.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 323-337.

BRITISH COLUMBIA: Aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

{324}

BRITISH COLUMBIA: A. D. 1858-1871.

Establishment of provincial government.

Union with the Dominion of Canada.

"British Columbia, the largest of the Canadian provinces,

cannot be said to have had any existence as a colony until

1858. Previous to that year provision had been made by a

series of Acts for extending the Civil and Criminal Laws of

the Courts of Lower and Upper Canada over territories not

within any province, but otherwise the territory was used as a

hunting ground of the Hudson's Bay Company. The disputes and

difficulties that arose from the influx of miners owing to the

gold discoveries in 1856, resulted in the revocation of the

licence of the Hudson's Bay Company, and the passing of the

Imperial Act 21 & 22 Vic., c. 99, to provide for the

government of British Columbia. ... Sir James Douglas was

appointed Governor and by his commission he was authorised to

make laws, institutions and ordinances for the peace, order

and good government of British Columbia, by proclamation

issued under the public seal of the colony. ... The Governor

continued to legislate by proclamation until 1864, when his

proclamations gave way to Ordinances passed by the Governor

with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council. ... Up

to this time the Governor of British Columbia was also

Governor of the neighbouring island of Vancouver. Vancouver's

Island is historically an older colony than British Columbia.

Though discovered in 1592 it remained practically unknown to

Europeans for two centuries, and it was not until 1849, when

the island was granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, that a

Governor was appointed. ... In 1865 the legislature of the

island adopted a series of resolutions in favour of union with

British Columbia, and by the Imperial Act 29 & 30 Vic. (i),

c. 67, the two colonies were united. ... By an Order in Council

dated the 16th day of May, 1871, British Columbia was declared

to be a province of the Dominion [see CANADA: A. D. 1867, and

1869-1873] from the 20th of July, 1871."

J. E. C. Munro, The Constitution of Canada, chapter 2.

ALSO IN: H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,

volume 27: British Columbia.

BRITISH COLUMBIA: A. D. 1872.

Settlement Of The San Juan Water Boundary Dispute.

See SAN JUAN OR NORTHWESTERN WATER BOUNDARY QUESTION.

----------BRITISH COLUMBIA: End----------

BRITISH EAST AFRICA AND SOUTH AFRICA COMPANIES.

See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1889.

BRITISH HONDURAS.

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

BRITONS, OR BRITHONS.

See CELTS; ALSO, BRITANNIA;

and BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.

BRITONS OF CUMBRIA AND STRATHCLYDE.

See CUMBRIA.

BRITTANY, OR BRITANNY:

In The Roman Period.

See ARMORICA;

also, VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

BRITTANY: A. D. 383.

Alleged Origin Of The British Settlement And Name.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 383-388.

BRITTANY: A. D. 409.

Independence Asserted.

At the time that the British island practically severed its

connection with the expiring Roman Empire (about 409) the

Britons of the continent,--of the Armorican province, or

modern Brittany,--followed the example. "They expelled the

Roman magistrates, who acted under the authority of the

usurper Constantine; and a free government was established

among a people who had so long been subject to the arbitrary

will of a master."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 31.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

"From this time, perhaps, we ought to date that isolation of

Brittany from the politics of the rest of France which has not

entirely disappeared even at the present day."

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 2, chapter 3.

The Armoricans, however, were found fighting by the side of

the Romans and the Goths, against the Huns, on the great day

at Chalons.

See HUNS: A. D. 451.

BRITTANY: A. D. 818-912.

The Breyzad Kingdom.

Subjection To The Norman Dukes.

"Charlemagne's supremacy over the Armoricans may be compared

to the dominion exercised by Imperial Russia amongst the

Caucasian tribes--periods during which the vassals dare not

claim the rights of independence, intercalated amongst the

converse periods when the Emperor cannot assert the rights of

authority; yet the Frank would not abandon the prerogative of

the Cæsars, whilst the mutual antipathy between the races

inflamed the desire of dominion on the one part, and the

determination of resistance on the other. Britanny is divided

into Bretagne Bretonnante and Bretagne Gallicante, according

to the predominance of the Breyzad and the Romane languages

respectively. The latter constituted the march-lands, and here

the Counts-marchers were placed by Charlemagne and his

successors, Franks mostly by lineage; yet one Breyzad,

Nominoë, was trusted by Louis-le-débonnaire [A. D. 818] with a

delegated authority. Nominoë deserved his power; he was one of

the new men of the era, literally taken from the plough. ...

The dissensions among the Franks enabled Nominoë to increase

his authority. Could there be any adversary of the Empire so

stupid as not to profit by the battle of Fontenay. ... Nominoë

assumed the royal title, vindicated the independence of his

ancient people, and enabled them, in the time of Rollo, to

assert with incorrect grandiloquence, pardonable in political

argument, that the Frank had never reigned within the proper

Armorican boundaries." Nominoë transmitted his crown to his

son Herispoë; but the latter reigned briefly, succumbing to a

conspiracy which raised his nephew, Solomon, to the throne.

Solomon was a vigorous warrior, sometimes fighting the Franks,

and sometimes struggling with the Normans, who pressed hard

upon his small kingdom. He extended his dominions

considerably, in Maine, Anjou, and the future Normandy, and

his royal title was sanctioned by Charles the Bald. But he,

too, was conspired against, blinded and dethroned, dying in

prison; and, about 912, the second duke of Normandy

established his lordship over the distracted country.

"Historical Britanny settled into four great counties, which

also absorbed the Carlovingian march-lands, Rennes, Nantes,

Vannes and Cornouailles, rivalling and jealousing, snarling

and warring against each other for the royal or ducal dignity,

until the supremacy was permanently established in Alan

Fergant's line, the ally, the opponent, the son-in-law of

William the Bastard. But the suzerainty or superiority of all

Britanny was vested in the Conqueror's and the Plantagenet's

lineage, till the forfeiture incurred by King John--an unjust

exercise of justice."

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England,

book 1, chapter 3.

BRITTANY: A. D. 992-1237.

The First Dukes.

"After the death of Solomon ... all these districts or

territories merged in the three dominations of Nantes, Rennes,

and Cornouaille. Amongst the Celts concord was impossible. In

early times Nomenoe, the Ruler of Cornouaille, had assumed, by

Papal authority, the royal style, but the Counts of Rennes

acquired the pre-eminence over the other chieftains. Regality

vanished. Geoffrey, son of Conan [A. D. 992-1008] ... must be

distinguished as the first Duke of Brittany. He constituted

himself Duke simply by taking the title. This assumption may

possibly have been sanctioned by the successor of Saint Peter;

and, by degrees, his rank in the civil hierarchy became

ultimately recognized. ... The Counts of Brittany, and the

Dukes in like manner, in later times, rendered homage 'en

parage' to Normandy in the first instance, and that same

homage was afterwards demanded by the crown of France. But the

Capetian monarchs refused to acknowledge the 'Duke,' until the

time of Peter Mauclerc, son of Robert, Count of Dreux, Earl of

Richmond [A. D. 1213-1237]."

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England.,

volume 3, page 165.

{325}

BRITTANY: A. D. 1341-1365.

The Long Civil War.

Montfort Against Blois.

Almost simultaneously with the beginning of the Hundred Years

War of the English kings in France, there broke out a

malignant and destructive civil war in Brittany, which French

and English took part in, on the opposing sides. "John III.

duke of that province, had died without issue, and two rivals

disputed his inheritance. The one was Charles de Blois,

husband of one of his nieces and nephew of the King of France;

the other, Montfort, ... younger brother of the last duke and

... disinherited by him. The Court of Peers, devoted to the

king, adjudged the duchy to Charles de Blois, his nephew.

Montfort immediately made himself master of the strongest

places, and rendered homage for Brittany to king Edward [III.

of England], whose assistance he implored. This war, in which

Charles de Blois was supported by France and Montfort by

England, lasted twenty-four years without interruption, and

presented, in the midst of heroic actions, a long course of

treacheries and atrocious robberies." The war was ended in

1365 by the battle of Auray, in which Charles de Blois was

slain, and Bertrand Du Guesclin, the famous Breton warrior,

was taken prisoner. This was soon followed by the treaty of

Guérande, which established Montfort in the duchy.

E. De Bonnechose, History of France,

volume 1, book 2, chapter 2 and 4.

ALSO IN:

Froissart (Johnes), Chronicles, book 1, chapter 64-227.

BRITTANY: A. D. 1491.

Joined By Marriage To The French Crown.

The family of Montfort, having been established in the duchy

of Brittany by the arms of the English, were naturally

inclined to English connections; "but the Bretons would seldom

permit them to be effectual. Two cardinal feelings guided the

conduct of this brave and faithful people; the one an

attachment to the French nation and monarchy in opposition to

foreign enemies; the other, a zeal for their own privileges,

and the family of Montfort, in opposition to the encroachments

of the crown. In Francis II., the present duke [at the time of

the accession of Charles VIII. of France, A. D. 1483], the

male line of that family was about to be extinguished. His

daughter Anne was naturally the object of many suitors, among

whom were particularly distinguished the duke of Orleans, who

seems to have been preferred by herself; the lord of Albret, a

member of the Gascon family of Foix, favoured by the Breton

nobility, as most likely to preserve the peace and liberties

of their country, but whose age rendered him not very

acceptable to a youthful princess; and Maximilian, king of the

Romans [whose first wife, Mary of Burgundy, died in 1482].

Britany was rent by factions and overrun by the armies of the

regent of France, who did not lose this opportunity of

interfering with its domestic troubles, and of persecuting her

private enemy, the duke of Orleans. Anne of Britany, upon her

father's death, finding no other means of escaping the

addresses of Albret, was married by proxy to Maximilian. This,

however, aggravated the evils of the country, since France was

resolved at all events to break off so dangerous a connexion.

And as Maximilian himself was unable, or took not sufficient

pains to relieve his betrothed wife from her embarrassments,

she was ultimately compelled to accept the hand of Charles

VIII. He had long been engaged by the treaty of Arras to marry

the daughter of Maximilian, and that princess was educated at

the French court. But this engagement had not prevented

several years of hostilities, and continual intrigues with the

towns of Flanders against Maximilian. The double injury which

the latter sustained in the marriage of Charles with the

heiress of Britany seemed likely to excite a protracted

contest; but the king of France, who had other objects in

view, and perhaps was conscious that he had not acted a fair

part, soon came to an accommodation, by which he restored

Artois and Franche-comté. ... France was now consolidated into

a great kingdom: the feudal system was at an end."

H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 1, part 2.

In the contract of marriage between Charles VIII. and Anne of

Brittany, "each party surrendered all separate pretensions

upon the Duchy, and one stipulation alone was considered

requisite to secure the perpetual union of Bretany with

France, namely, that in case the queen should survive her

consort, she should not remarry unless either with the future

king, or, if that were not possible, with the presumptive heir

of the crown."

E. Smedley, History of France, part 1, chapter 18.

ALSO IN:

F. P. Guizot, Popular History of France, chapter 26.

BRITTANY: A. D. 1532.

Final Reunion With The Crown Of France.

"Duprat [chancellor of Francis I. of France], whose

administration was ... shameful, promoted one measure of high

utility. Francis I. until then had governed Brittany only in

the quality of duke of that province; Duprat counselled him to

unite this duchy in an indissoluble manner with the crown, and

he prevailed upon the States of Brittany themselves to request

this reunion, which alone was capable of preventing the

breaking out of civil wars at the death of the king. It was

irrevocably voted by the States assembled at Vannes in 1532.

The king swore to respect the rights of Brittany, and not to

raise any subsidy therein without the consent of the States

Provincial."

E. de Bonnechose, History of France, book 1, chapter 2.

BRITTANY: A. D. 1793.

Resistance To The French Revolution.

The Vendean War.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-APRIL); (JUNE);

(JULY-DECEMBER).

BRITTANY: A. D. 1794-1796.

The Chouans.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.

----------BRITTANY: End----------

BRIXHAM CAVE.

A cavern near Brixham, Devonshire, England, in which noted

evidences of a very early race of men, contemporaneous with

certain extinct animals, have been found.

J. Geikie, Prehistoric Europe.

ALSO IN: W. B. Dawkins, Cave Hunting.

{326}

BROAD-BOTTOMED ADMINISTRATION, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1742-1745.

BROAD CHURCH, The.

See OXFORD OR TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT.

BROCK, General Isaac, and the War of 1812.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812

(JUNE-OCTOBER), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

BROMSEBRO, PEACE OF (1645).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645.

BRONKHORST SPRUIT, Battle of (1880).

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1880.

BRONZE AGE.

See STONE AGE.

BROOKLYN, New York: A. D. 1624.

The First Settlers.

"A few families of Walloons, in 1624, built their cottages on

Long Island, and began the cultivation of the lands they had

secured, the women working in the fields, while the men were

engaged in the service of the company [the Dutch West India

Company, controlling the colony of New Netherland]. These were

the first settlers of Brooklyn. They were joined in time by a

few others, until there were enough to be incorporated as a

village. The numbers were not large, for Brooklyn, nearly

forty years afterward, contained only 31 households and 134

souls."

G. V. Schuyler, Colonial New York, York, v 1,  page 27.

BROOKLYN: A. D. 1646.

The Town Named And Organized.

"The occupation of land within the limits of the present city

of Brooklyn ... had steadily progressed, until now (1646)

nearly the whole water-front, from Newtown Creek to the

southerly side of Gowanus Bay, was in the possession of

individuals who were engaged in its actual cultivation. ...

The village ... which was located on the present Fulton

Avenue, in the vicinity of the junction of Hoyt and Smith

streets with said avenue, and southeast of the present City

Hall, was called Breuckelen, after the ancient village of the

same name in Holland, some 18 miles from Amsterdam." The town

of Breuckelen was organized under a commission from the

Colonial Council in 1646, and two schepens appointed. The

following winter Jan Teunissen was commissioned as schout.

H. R. Stiles, History of Brooklyn, chapter 1.

BROOKLYN: A. D. 1776.

The Battle Of Long Island And Defeat Of The Americans.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:  A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).

----------BROOKLYN: End----------

BROTHERS.--BROTHERHOODS.

See BRETHREN.

BROTHERS' CLUB, The.

See CLUBS.

BROWN, GEORGE, AND THE CANADIAN "CLEAR GRITS."

See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867.

BROWN, GENERAL JACOB, AND THE WAR OF 1812.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812

(SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER); 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER);

1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

BROWN, John.

Attack On Harper's Ferry.

Trial And Execution.

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

BROWNISTS.

See INDEPENDENTS.

BROWNLOW, PARSON, AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF TENNESSEE.

See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866.

BRUCE, Robert, King of Scotland, A. D. 1305-1329.

BRUCHIUM, The.

See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246, and A. D. 273.

BRUCTERI, The.

"After the Tencteri [on the Rhine] came, in former days, the

Bructeri; but the general account now is, that the Chamavi and

Angrivarii entered their settlements, drove them out and

utterly exterminated them with the common help of the

neighbouring tribes, either from hatred of their tyranny, or

from the attractions of plunder, or from heaven's favourable

regard for us. It did not even grudge us the spectacle of the

conflict. More than 60,000 fell, not beneath the Roman arms

and weapons, but, grander far, before our delighted eyes."

"The original settlements of the Bructeri, from which they

were driven by the Chamavi and Angrivarii, seem to have been

between the Rhine and the Ems, on either side of the Lippe.

Their destruction could hardly have been so complete as

Tacitus represents, as they are subsequently mentioned by

Claudian."

Tacitus, Minor works, translated by Church and Brodribb:

The Germany, with geographical notes.

See, also, FRANKS.

BRUGES: 13th CENTURY.

The Great Fair.

See FLANDERS: 13th CENTURY.

BRUGES: A. D. 13th-15th CENTURIES.

Commercial Importance In The Hanseatic League.

See HANSA TOWNS.

BRUGES: A. D. 1302.

Massacre Of The French.

"The Bruges Matins."

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1299-1304.

BRUGES: A. D. 1341.

Made the Staple for English trade.

See STAPLE.

BRUGES: A. D. 1379-1381.

Hostilities With Ghent.

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1379-1381.

BRUGES: A. D. 1382.

Taken And Plundered By The People Of Ghent.

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1382.

BRUGES: A. D. 1482-1488.

At War With Maximilian.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1482-1493.

BRUGES: A. D. 1584.

Submission to Philip of Spain.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

BRUGES: A. D. 1745-1748.

Taken By The French, And Restored.

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

and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS, &c.

----------BRUGES: End----------

BRULÉ, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

BRUMAIRE, THE MONTH.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).

BRUMAIRE, THE EIGHTEENTH OF.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (NOVEMBER).

BRUNDISIUM:

Origin.

See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

BRUNDISIUM: B. C.49.

Flight of Pompeius before Cæsar.

See ROME: B. C. 50-49.

BRUNDISIUM: B. C. 40.

The Peace Of Antony And Octavius.

The peace which Antony and Octavius were forced by their own

soldiers to make at Brundisium, B. C. 40, postponed for ten

years the final struggle between the two chief Triumvirs. For

a much longer time it "did at least secure the repose of

Italy. For a period of three hundred and fifty years, except

one day's fighting in the streets of Rome, from Rhegium to the

Rubicon no swords were again crossed in war."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 27.

See also, ROME: B. C. 31.

----------BRUNDISIUM: End----------

BRUNKEBURG, Battle of the (1471).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1397-1527.

BRUNNABURGH, OR BRUNANBURH, BATTLE OF.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 938.

BRUNSWICK, THE CITY OF.

Origin And Name.

In the tenth century, a prince named Bruno, younger son of the

reigning duke of Bavaria, and grandson of the Emperor Henry

the Fowler, received as his patrimony the country about the

Ocker. "Having fixed his residence at a village established by

Charlemagne on the banks of that river, it became known as the

'Vicus Brunonis,' and, when enlarged and formed into a city,

afterwards gave its name to the principality of which it

formed the capital."

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

volume 1, book 4.

{327}

BRUNSWICK: IN THE HANSEATIC LEAGUE.

See HANSA TOWNS.

BRUNSWICK-LÜNEBURG, OR HANOVER.

See HANOVER.

BRUNSWICK-WOLFENBÜTTEL, OR BRUNSWICK:

Origin Of The House And Dukedom.

See SAXONY: THE OLD DUCHY,

and A. D. 1178-1183.

BRUNSWICK: THE GUELF CONNECTION.

See GUELF AND GHIBELLINE, AND ESTE, HOUSE OF.

BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1543.

Expulsion Of Duke Henry By

The League Of Smalcald.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1533-1546.

BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1546.

Final Separation From The Lüneburg Or Hanoverian Branch Of The

House.

See HANOVER: A. D. 1546.

BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1806.

The Duke's Dominions Confiscated By Napoleon.

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

BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1807.

Absorbed In The Kingdom Of Westphalia.

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

BRUNSWICK: A. D. 1830.

Deposition of the Duke.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1819-1847.

----------BRUNSWICK: End----------

BRUSSELS: A. D. 1577.

The Union Of The Patriots.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

BRUSSELS: A. D. 1585.

Surrender to the Spaniards.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

BRUSSELS: A. D. 1695.

BOMBARDMENT BY THE FRENCH.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1695-1696.

BRUSSELS: A. D. 1706.

Taken By Marlborough And The Allies.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

BRUSSELS: A. D. 1746-1748.

Taken By The French And Restored To Austria.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747,

and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS, &c.

BRUSSELS: A. D. 1815.

The Battle Of Waterloo.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1815 (JUNE).

BRUSSELS: A. D. 1830.

Riot And Revolution.

Dutch Attack On The City Repelled.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.

----------BRUSSELS: End----------

BRUTTII, The.

See SAMNITES.

BRUTUM FULMEN.

A phrase, signifying a blind thrust, or a stupid and

ineffectual blow, which was specially applied in a

contemporary pamphlet by Francis Hotman to the Bull of

excommunication issued by Pope Sixtus V. against Henry of

Navarre, in 1585.

H. M. Baird, The Huguenots and Henry of Navarre,

volume 1, page 369.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

BRUTUS, LUCIUS JUNIUS, AND THE EXPULSION OF THE TARQUINS.

See ROME: B. C. 510.

BRUTUS, MARCUS JUNIUS, AND THE ASSASSINATION OF CAESAR.

See ROME: B. C. 44 to 44-42.

BRYTHONS, The.

See CELTS, THE.

BUBASTIS.

"On the eastern side of the Delta [of the Nile], more than

half-way from Memphis to Zoan, lay the great city of

Pi-beseth, or Bubastis. Vast mounds now mark the site and

preserve the name; deep in their midst lie the shattered

fragments of the beautiful temple which Herodotus saw, and to

which in his days the Egyptians came annually in vast numbers

to keep the greatest festival of the year, the Assembly of

Bast, the goddess of the place. Here, after the Empire had

fallen, Shishak [Sheshonk] set up his throne, and for a short

space revived the imperial magnificence of Thebes."

R. S. Poole, Cities of Egypt, chapter 10.

BUCCANEERS, The.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.

BUCENTAUR, The.

See VENICE: 14TH CENTURY.

BUCHANAN, JAMES.

Presidential Election And Administration.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856 to 1861.

BUCHAREST, TREATY OF (1812).

See TURKS: A. D. 1789-1812;

also BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 14TH-19TH CENTURIES

(SERVIA).

BUCKINGHAM, ASSASSINATION OF.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1628.

BUCKINGHAM PALACE.

See ST. JAMES, THE PALACE AND COURT OF.

BUCKTAILS.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1819.

BUDA: A. D. 1526.

Taken And Plundered By The Turks.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1487-1526.

BUDA: A. D. 1529-1567.

Taken by the Turks.

Besieged by the Austrians.

Occupied by the Sultan.

Becomes the seat of a Pasha.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1526-1567.

BUDA: A. D. 1686.

Recovery from the Turks.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1687.

BUDA: A. D. 1849.

Siege And Capture By The Hungarians.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

----------BUDA: End----------

BUDA-PESTH: A. D. 1872.

Union Of The Cities.

Buda, on the right bank of the Danube, and Pesth, on the left,

were incorporated in 1872 into one city--Buda-Pesth.

BUDDHISM.

See INDIA: B. C. 312;

also LAMAS.--LAMAISM;

and CHINA: THE RELIGIONS.

BUDGET, The.

"The annual financial statement which the Chancellor of the

Exchequer makes in the House of Commons in a Committee of ways

and means. In making this statement the minister gives a view

of the general financial policy of the government, and at the

same time presents an estimate of the probable income and

expenditure for the following twelve months, and a statement

of what taxes it is intended to reduce or abolish, or what new

ones it may be necessary to impose.--To open the budget, to

lay before the legislative body the financial estimates and

plans of the executive government."

Imp. Dict.

Mr. Dowell in his History of Taxation (volume 1, chapter 5)   states that the phrase 'opening the Budget' came into use in

England during the reign of George III., and that it bore a

reference to the bougette, or little bag, in which the

chancellor of the exchequer kept his papers. The French, he

adds, adopted the term in the present century, about 1814. The

following, however, is in disagreement with Mr. Dowell's

explanation: "In the reign of George II. the word was used

with conscious allusion to the celebrated pamphlet which

ridiculed Sir R. Walpole as a conjuror opening his budget or

'bag of tricks.' Afterwards, it must, for a time, have been

current as slang; but, as it supplied a want, it was soon

taken up into the ordinary vocabulary."

Athenæum, February 14, 1891, page 213.

{328}

BUDINI, The.

A nomadic tribe which Herodotus describes as anciently

inhabiting a region between the Ural Mountains and the Caspian

Sea.

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 17.

BUELL, GENERAL DON CARLOS, CAMPAIGNS OF.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (JULY-NOVEMBER);

A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY: KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE);

A. D. 1862 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE);

A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

BUENA VISTA, BATTLE OF.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

BUENOS AYRES, VICEROYALTY AND REPUBLIC OF.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.

BUENOS AYRES, The City of: A. D. 1534.

First and unsuccessful founding of the city.

See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.

BUFFALO, New York:

The Aboriginal Occupants Of The Site.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, &c.

BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1764.

Cession Of The Four Mile Strip By The Senecas.

See PONTIAC'S WAR.

BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1779.

The Site Occupied By The Senecas After Sullivan's Expedition.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1799.

The founding and naming of the city.

See NEW YORK A. D. 1786-1799.

BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1812.

At The Opening Of The War.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812

(SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1813.

Destruction by British and Indians.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813 (DECEMBER).

BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1825.

Opening of the Erie Canal.

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

BUFFALO, New York: A. D. 1848.

The National Free-soil Convention.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.

BUFFALO, New York:  A. D. 1866.

The Fenian Invasion Of Canada.

See CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.

----------BUFFALO, New York: End----------

BUFFALO HILL, Battles of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861

(AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).

BUFFINGTON FORD, BATTLE OF.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).

BUGIA, CONQUEST BY THE SPANIARDS (1510).

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1505-1510.

BULGARIA.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

BULGARIANS, THE RELIGIOUS SECTARIES SO CALLED.

See PAULICIANS.

BULL "APOSTOLICUM," The.

See JESUITS: A. D. 1761-1769.

BULL "AUSCULTA FILI," The.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

BULL "CLERICIS LAICOS."

Published by Pope Boniface VIII. February 24, 1296, forbidding

"the clergy to pay and the secular powers to exact, under

penalty of excommunication, contributions or taxes, tenths,

twentieths, hundredths, or the like, from the revenues or the

goods of the churches or their ministers."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,

chapter 14.

ALSO IN: E. F. Henderson, Select Historical

Documents of the Middle Ages, book 4, number 6.

See, also, PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

BULL "DOMINUS REDEMPTOR NOSTER."

See JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871.

BULL "EXURGE DOMINE."

See PAPACY: A. D. 1517-1521.

BULL, Golden.

See GOLDEN BULL, BYZANTINE;

also GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1493.

and HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

BULL, "LAUDABILITER," The.

A papal bull promulgated in 1155 by Pope Adrian IV. (the one

Englishman who ever attained to St. Peter's seat) assuming to

bestow the kingdom of Ireland on the English King Henry II.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.

BULL, "SALVATOR MUNDI," THE.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

BULL "UNIGENITUS," THE.

See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1702-1715.

BULL RUN, OR MANASSAS, FIRST BATTLE OF.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.

1861 (JULY: VIRGINIA).

BULL RUN, SECOND BATTLE OF.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862

(AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: VIRGINIA).

BULLA, THE.

See TOGA.

BUMMERS, SHERMAN'S.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864

(NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).

BUND, BUNDESRATH, BUNDESPRESIDENT, BUNDESGERICHT, THE SWISS.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

BUNDES-STAAT.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.

BUNDSCHUH INSURRECTIONS.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1492-1514.

BUNKER HILL, BATTLE OF.

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

BURDIGALA.

The original name of the modern city of Bordeaux, which was a

town of the Gallic tribe called the Bituriges-Vivisci.

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 7.

BURGAGE TENURE.

See FEUDAL TENURES.

BURGESS.

See BOURGEOIS.

BURGH, OR BURGI, OR BURH.

See BOROUGH.

BURGOS, BATTLE OF.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

BURGOYNE, GENERAL JOHN, AND THE WAR OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY);

A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

BURGRAVES.

See PALATINE, COUNTS.

BURGUNDIANS:

Origin And Early History.

"About the middle of the fourth century, the countries,

perhaps of Lusace and Thuringia, on either side of the Elbe,

were occupied by the vague dominion of the Burgundians--a

warlike and numerous people of the Vandal race, whose obscure

name insensibly swelled into a powerful kingdom, and has

finally settled on a flourishing province. . . . The disputed

possession of some salt-pits engaged the Alemanni and the

Burgundians in frequent contests. The latter were easily

tempted by the secret solicitations and liberal offers of the

emperor [Valentinian, A. D. 371]; and their fabulous descent

from the Roman soldiers who had formerly been left to garrison

the fortresses of Drusus was admitted with mutual credulity,

as it was conducive to mutual interest. An army of fourscore

thousand Burgundians soon appeared on the banks of the Rhine,

and impatiently required the support and subsidies which

Valentinian had promised; but they were amused with excuses

and delays, till at length, after a fruitless expectation,

they were compelled to retire. The arms and fortifications of

the Gallic frontier checked the fury of their just

resentment."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 25.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

{329}

"We first hear of them [the Burgundians] as a tribe of

Teutonic stock, located between the Oder and the Vistula, on

either bank of the river Warta. When the Gepidæ descended

southward with the Goths, the Burgundians were compelled to

recoil before the advance of the former tribe: one portion of

them took refuge in Bornholm, an island of the Baltic; the

remainder turned westward, and made an attempt to enter Gaul.

They were repulsed by Probus, but permitted to settle near the

sources of the Main. Jovian showed them favour, and gave them

lands in the Germania Secunda. This was in the latter part of

the fourth century. Just at its close, they adopted

Christianity, but under an Arian form. Ammianus tells us that

they were a most warlike race."

J. G. Sheppard, The Fall of Rome, lecture 8.

"The other Teutonic people had very little regard for the

Burgundians; they accused them of having degenerated from the

valor of their ancestors, by taking in petty towns

(bourgades), whence their name Burgundii sprang; and they

looked upon them as being more suitable for the professions of

mechanics, smiths, and carpenters, than for a military life."

J. C. L. de Sismondi, The French under the

Merovingians, chapter 3.

"A document of A. D. 786, in noticing the high tract of lands

between Ellwangen and Anspach, has the following

expression,--'in Waldo, qui vocatur Virgunnia.' Grimm looks

for the derivation of this word in the Mœso-Gothic word

'fairguni,' Old High 'German 'fergunnd'=woody hill-range. ...

I have little doubt but that this is the name of the tract of

land from which the name Burgundi arose; and that it is the

one which fixes their locality. If so, between the Burgundian

and Suevic Germans, the difference, such as it was, was

probably, almost wholly political."

R. G. Latham, The Germania of Tacitus; Epilegomena,

section 12.

BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 406-409.

Invasion Of Gaul.

See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.

BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 443-451.

Their Savoyan Kingdom.

"In the south-east of Gaul, the Burgundians had, after many

wars and some reverses, established themselves (443) with the

consent of the Romans in the district then called Sapaudia and

now Savoy. Their territory was somewhat more extensive than

the province which was the cradle of the present royal house

of Italy, since it stretched northwards beyond the lake of

Neufchatel and southwards as far as Grenoble. Here the

Burgundian immigrants under their king Gundiok, were busy

settling themselves in their new possession, cultivating the

lands which they had divided by lot, each one receiving half

the estate of a Roman host or 'hospes' (for under such gentle

names the spoliation was veiled), when the news came that the

terrible Hun had crossed the Rhine [A. D. 451], and that all

hosts and guests in Gaul must unite for its defence."

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 2, chapter 3.

BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 451.

At The Battle Of Chalons.

See HUNS: A. D. 451.

BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 500.

Extension Of Their Kingdom.

"Their [the Burgundians] domain, considerably more extensive

than when we last viewed it on the eve of Attila's invasion,

now included the later provinces of Burgundy, Franche-Comté

and Dauphiné, besides Savoy and the greater part of

Switzerland--in fact the whole of the valleys of the Saone and

the Rhone, save that for the last hundred miles of its course

the Visigoths barred them from the right bank and from the

mouths of the latter river." At the time now spoken of (A. D.

500), the Burgundian kingdom was divided between two

brother-kings, Gundobad, reigning at Lyons and Vienne, and

Godegisel at Geneva. Godegisel, the younger, had conspired

with Clovis, the king of the Franks, against Gundobad, and in

this year 500 the two confederates defeated the latter, at

Dijon, driving him from the most part of his kingdom. But

Gundobad presently recovered his footing, besieged and

captured his treacherous brother at Vienne and promptly put

him to death--thereby reuniting the kingdom.

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 4, chapter 9.

BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 534.

Final Conquest By The Franks.

"I am impatient to pursue the final ruin of that kingdom [the

Burgundian] which was accomplished under the reign of

Sigismond, the son of Gundobald [or Gundobad]. The Catholic

Sigismond has acquired the honours of a saint and martyr; but

the hands of the royal saint were stained with the blood of

his innocent son. ... It was his humble prayer that Heaven

would inflict in this world the punishment of his sins. His

prayer was heard; the avengers were at hand; and the provinces

of Burgundy were overwhelmed by an army of victorious Franks.

After the event of an unsuccessful battle, Sigismond ... with

his wife and two children, was transported to Orleans and

buried alive in a deep well by the stern command of the sons

of Clovis, whose cruelty might derive some excuse from the

maxims and examples of their barbarous age. ... The rebellious

Burgundians, for they attempted to break their chains, were

still permitted to enjoy their national laws under the

obligation of tribute and military service; and the

Merovingian princes peaceably reigned over a kingdom whose

glory and greatness had been first overthrown by the arms of

Clovis."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 38.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

ALSO IN: W. C. Perry, The Franks, chapter 3.

----------BURGUNDIANS: End----------

BURGUNDY: A. D. 534-752.

The Merovingian Kingdom.

After the overthrow of the Burgundian monarchy by the sons of

Clovis, the territory of the Burgundians, with part of the

neighboring Frank territory added to it, became, under the

name of Burgundia or Burgundy, one of the three Frank kingdoms

(Austrasia and Neustria being the other two), into which the

Merovingian princes divided their dominion. It occupied "the

east of the country, between the Loire and the Alps, from

Provence on the south to the hill-ranges of the Vosges on the

north."

P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul, chapter 13.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.

Divisions of the early kingdom.

The later kingdoms of the south and the French dukedom of the

northwest.

By the treaty of Verdun, A. D. 843, which formally divided the

empire of Charlemagne between his three grandsons, a part of

Burgundy was taken to form, with Italy and Lorraine, the

kingdom of the Emperor Lothar, or Lothaire. In the further

dissolutions which followed, a kingdom of Burgundy or Provence

was founded in 877 by one Boso, a prince who had married

Irmingard, daughter of the Emperor Louis II., son of Lothaire.

It "included Provence, Dauphiné, the southern part of Savoy,

and the country between the Saone and the Jura," and is

sometimes called the kingdom of Cis-Jurane Burgundy. "The

kingdom of Trans-Jurane Burgundy, ... founded by Rudolf in A.

D. 888, recognized in the same year by the Emperor Arnulf,

included the northern part of Savoy, and all Switzerland

between the Reuss and the Jura."

J. Bryce, The Holy Roman Empire,

chapter 6, and appendix, note A.

{330}

"The kingdoms of Provence and Transjuran Burgundy were united,

in 933, by Raoul II., King of Transjuran Burgundy, and formed

the kingdom of Arles, governed, from 937 to 993, by Conrad le

Pacifique."

F. Guizot, History of Civilization, lecture 24.

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England,

book 1, chapter 4.

"Several of the greater and more commercial towns of France,

such as Lyons, Vienne, Geneva, Besançon, Avignon, Arles,

Marseille and Grenoble were situated within the bounds of his

[Conrad the Pacific's] states."

J. C. L. de Sismondi, France Under the Feudal

System, chapter 2.

"Of the older Burgundian kingdom, the northwestern part,

forming the land best known as the Duchy of Burgundy, was, in

the divisions of the ninth century, a fief of Karolingia or

the Western Kingdom. This is the Burgundy which has Dijon for

its capital, and which was held by more than one dynasty of

dukes as vassals of the Western kings, first at Laon, and then

at Paris. This Burgundy, which, as the name of France came to

bear its modern sense may be distinguished as the French

Duchy, must be carefully distinguished from the Royal

Burgundy" of the Cis-Jurane and Trans-Jurane kingdoms

mentioned above.

E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe,

chapter 6, section 1.

BURGUNDY: A. D, 888-1032.

The French Dukedom.

The Founding Of The First Capetian House.

Of the earliest princes of this northwestern fragment of the

old kingdom of Burgundy little seems to have been

discoverable. The fief and its title do not seem to have

become hereditary until they fell into the grasping hands of

the Capetian family, which happened just at the time when the

aspiring counts of Paris were rising to royal rank. In the

early years of the tenth century the reigning count or duke

was Richard-le-Justicier, whose distinguishing princely virtue

is recorded in his name. This Richard-le-Justicier was a

brother of that Boso, or Boson, son-in-law of the Emperor

Louis II., who took advantage of the confusions of the time to

fashion for himself a kingdom of Burgundy in the South

(Cis-Jurane Burgundy, or Provence,--see above). Richard's son

Raoul, or Rudolph, married Emma, the daughter of Robert, Count

of Paris and Duke of France, who was soon afterwards chosen

king, by the nobles who tired of Carlovingian misrule. King

Robert's reign was short; he fell in battle with the

Carlovingians, at Soissons, the next year (A. D. 923). His son

Hugh, called Le Grand, or The Great, found it more to his

taste to be king-maker than to be king. He declined the

proffered crown, and brought about the coronation of his

brother-in-law, the Burgundian Rudolph, who reigned for eleven

years. When he died, in 934, Hugh the Great still held the

crown at his disposal and still refused to wear it himself. It

now pleased this king-maker to set a Carlovingian prince on

the throne, in the person of Louis d'Outre Mer, a young son of

Charles the Simple, who had been reared in England by his

English mother. But, if Duke Hugh cared nothing for the name,

he cared much for the substance, of power. He grasped dominion

wherever it fell within his reach, and the Burgundian duchy

was among the states which he clutched. King Rudolph left no

son to inherit either his dukedom or his kingdom. He had a

brother, Hugh, who claimed the Duchy; but the greater Hugh was

too strong for him and secured, with the authority of the

young king, his protegé, the title of Duke of Burgundy and the

larger part of the domain. "In the Duchy of France or the

County of Paris Hugh-le-Grand had nothing beyond the

regalities to desire, and both in Burgundy and the Duchy he

now became an irremovable Viceroy. But the privileges so

obtained by Hugh-le-Grand produced very important political

results, both present and future. Hugh assumed even a loftier

bearing than before; Burgundy was annexed to the Duchy of

France, and passed with the Duchy; and the grant thereof made

by Hugh Capet to his son [brother?] Henri-le-Grand, severing

the same from the crown, created the premier Duchy of

Christendom, the most splendid appanage which a prince of the

third race [the Capetians] could enjoy--the rival of the

throne."

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England,

book 1, part 2, chapter 1-4.

Hugh-le-Grand died in 956. "His power, which, more than his

talents or exploits, had given him the name of Great, was

divided between his children, who were yet very young. ...

There is some doubt as to their number and the order of their

birth. It appears, however, that Otho was the eldest of his

three sons. He had given him his part of the duchy of

Burgundy, and had made him marry the daughter and heir of

Gislebert, duke of another part of Burgundy, to which Otho

succeeded the same year. The latter dying in 963 or 965, the

duchy of Burgundy passed to his third brother, sometimes named

Henry, sometimes Eudes. Hugues [Hugh], surnamed Capet, who

succeeded to the county of Paris and the duchy of France, was

but the second son."

J. C. L. de Sismondi, The French under the

Carlovingians, chapter 15.

In 987 Hugh Capet became king of France and founded the

lasting dynasty which bears his name. His elder brother Henry

remained Duke of Burgundy until his death, in 1002, when his

royal nephew, Robert, son and successor of Hugh, annexed the

Duchy to the Crown. It so remained until 1032. Then King Henry

I., son of Robert, granted it as an appanage to his brother

Robert, who founded the first Capetian House of Burgundy.

E. de Bonnechose, History of France,

book 1, chapter 2.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032.

The Last Kingdom.

Its Union With Germany, And Its Dissolution.

The last kingdom which bore the name of Burgundy--though more

often called the kingdom of Arles--formed, as stated above,

by the union of the short-lived kingdoms of Provence and

Transjurane Burgundy, became in 1032 nominally united to the

dominions of the Emperor-King of Germany. Its last independent

king was Rudolf III., son of Conrad the Pacific, who was uncle

to the Emperor Henry II. Being childless, he named Henry his

heir. The latter, however, died first, in 1024, and Rudolf

attempted to cancel his bequest, claiming that it was made to

Henry personally, not as King of the Germans. When, however,

the Burgundian king died, in 1032, the then reigning Emperor,

Conrad the Salic, or the Franconian, formally proclaimed the

union of Burgundy with Germany. "But since Burgundy was ruled

almost exclusively by the great nobility, the sovereignty of

the German Emperors there was never much more than nominal.

Besides, the country, from the Bernese Oberland to the

Mediterranean, except that part of Allemannia which is now

German Switzerland, was inhabited by a Romance people, too

distinct in language, customs and laws from the German empire

ever really to form a part of it. ... Yet Switzerland was

thenceforth connected forever with the development of Germany,

and for 500 years remained a part of the empire."

C. T. Lewis, History of Germany, book 2, chapter 6-7.

{331}

"The weakness of Rodolph-le-Fainéant [Rodolph III., who made

Henry II. of Germany his heir, as stated above], gave the

great lords of the kingdom of Arles an opportunity of

consolidating their independence. Among these one begins to

remark Berchtold and his son, Humbert-aux-Blanches-Mains (the

White-handed), Counts of Maurienne, and founders of the House

of Savoy; Otto William, who it is pretended was the son of

Adalbert, King of Italy, and heir by right of his mother to

the county of Burgundy, was the founder of the sovereign house

of Franche-Comté [County Palatine of Burgundy]; Guigue, Count

of Albon, founder of the sovereign house of the dauphins of

Viennois; and William, who it is pretended was the issue of a

brother of Rodolph of Burgundy, King of France, and who was

sovereign count of Provence. These four lords had, throughout

the reign of Rodolph, much more power than he in the kingdom

of Arles; and when at his death his crown was united to that

of the Empire, the feudatories who had grown great at his

expense became almost absolutely independent. On the other

hand, their vassals began on their side to acquire importance

under them; and in Provence can be traced at this period the

succession of the counts of Forcalquier and of Venaissin, of

the princes of Orange, of the viscounts of Marseille, of the

barons of Baux, of Sault, of Grignau, and of Castellane. We

can still follow the formation of a great number of other

feudatory or rather sovereign houses. Thus the counts of

Toulouse, those of Rouergue, the dukes of Gascony, the counts

of Foix, of Beam, and of Carcassone, date least from this

epoch; but their existence is announced to us only by their

diplomas and their wills."

J. C. L. de Sismondi, France under

the Feudal System, chapter 2.

See, also, PROVENCE: A. D. 943-1092, AND FRANCHE COMTÉ.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1127-1378.

The Franco-Germanic Contest For The Valley Of The Rhone.

End Of The Kingdom Of Arles.

"As soon as the Capetian monarchs had acquired enough strength

at home to be able to look with safety abroad, they began to

make aggressions on the tempting and wealthy dependencies of

the distant emperors. But the Rhone valley was too important

in itself, and of too great strategical value as securing an

easy road to Italy, to make it possible for the emperors to

acquiesce easily in its loss. Hence a long conflict, which

soon became a national conflict of French and Germans, to

maintain the Imperial position in the 'middle kingdom' of the

Rhone valley. M. Fournier's book ['Le Royaume d' Arles et de

Vienne (1138-1178)'; par Paul Fournier] aims at giving an

adequate account of this struggle. ... From the times of the

mighty Barbarossa to the times of the pretentious and cunning

Charles of Luxemburg [see GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268, and A. D.

1347-1493], nearly every emperor sought by constant acts of

sovereignty to uphold his precarious powers in the Arelate.

Unable to effect much with their own resources, the emperors

exhausted their ingenuity in finding allies and inventing

brilliant schemes for reviving the Arelate, which invariably

came to nothing. Barbarossa won the hand of the heiress of the

county of Burgundy, and sought to put in place of the local

dynasties princes on whom he could rely, like Berthold of

Zäringen, whose father had received in 1127 from Conrad III.

the high-sounding but meaningless title of Hector of the

Burgundies. But his quarrel with the church soon set the

clergy against Frederick, and, led by the Carthusian and

Cistercian orders, the Churchmen of the Arelate began to look

upon the orthodox king of the French as their truest protector

from a schismatic emperor. But the French kings of the period

saw in the power of Henry of Anjou [Henry II., of England--see

ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189] a more real and pressing danger than

the Empire of the Hohenstaufen. The result was an alliance

between Philip Augustus and his successors and the Swabian

emperors, which gave Frederick and his successors a new term

in which they could strive to win back a real hold over

Burgundy. Frederick II. never lost sight of this object. His

investiture of the great feudal lord William of Baux with the

kingdom of Arles in 1215; his long struggle with the wealthy

merchant city of Marseilles; his alliance with Raymond of

Toulouse and the heretical elements in Provence against the

Pope and the French; his efforts to lead an army against

Innocent IV. at Lyons, were among the chief phases of his

constant efforts to make the Imperial influence really felt in

the valley of the Rhone. But he had so little success that the

French crusaders against the Albigenses waged open war within

its limits, and destroyed the heretic city of Avignon [see

ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229], while Innocent in his exile

could find no surer protection against the emperor than in the

Imperial city of Lyons. After Frederick's death the policy of

St. Louis of France was a complete triumph. His brother,

Charles of Anjou, established himself in Provence, though in

later times the Angevin lords of Provence and Naples became so

strong that their local interests made them enemies rather

than friends of the extension of French power on their

borders. The subsequent efforts of the emperors were the

merest shams and unrealities. Rudolf of Hapsburg acquiesced

without a murmur in the progress of Philip the Fair, who made

himself master of Lyons, and secured the Free County of

Burgundy for his son [see FRANCHE-COMTÉ]. . . . The residence

of the Popes at Avignon was a further help to the French

advance. ... Weak as were the early Valois kings, they were

strong enough to push still further the advantage won by their

greater predecessors. The rivalry of the leading states of the

Rhone valley, Savoy and Dauphiny, facilitated their task.

Philip VI. aspired to take Vienne as Philip IV. had obtained

Lyons. The Dauphin, Humbert II., struggled in vain against

him, and at last accepted the inevitable by ceding to the

French king the succession to all his rights in Dauphiny,

henceforth to become the appanage of the eldest sons of the

French kings. At last, Charles of Luxemburg, in 1378, gave the

French aggressions a legal basis by conferring the Vicariat of

Arles on the Dauphin Charles, subsequently the mad Charles VI.

of France. From this grant Savoy only was excepted. Henceforth

the power of France in the Rhone valley became so great that

it soon became the fashion to despise and ignore the

theoretical claims of the Empire."

The Athenæum, Oct. 3, 1891, reviewing "Le Royaume

d'Arles et de Vienne," par Paul Fournier.

{332}

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1207-1401.

Advance Of The Dominions Of The House Of Savoy Beyond Lake

Geneva.

See SAVOY: 11TH-15TH CENTURIES.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1364.

The French Dukedom.

The Planting Of The Burgundian Branch Of The House Of Valois.

The last Duke of Burgundy of the Capetian house which

descended from Robert, son of King Robert, died in December,

1361. He was called Philip de Rouvre, because the Château de

Rouvre, near Dijon, had been his birth-place, and his

residence. He was still in his youth when he died, although he

had borne the ducal title for twelve years. It fell to him at

the age of four, when his father died. From his mother and his

grandmother he inherited, additionally, the county of Burgundy

(Franche Comté) and the counties of Boulogne, Auvergne and

Artois. His tender years had not prevented the marriage of the

young duke to Margaret, daughter and heiress of the Count of

Flanders. John II. King of France, whose mother was a

Burgundian princess, claimed to be the nearest relative of the

young duke, when the latter died, in 1361, and, although his

claim was disputed by the King of Navarre, Charles the Bad,

King John took possession of the dukedom. He took it by right

of succession, and not as a fief which had lapsed, the

original grant of King Robert having contained no reversionary

provision. Franche Comté, or the county of Burgundy, together

with Artois, remained to the young widow, Margaret of

Flanders, while the counties of Boulogne and Auvergne passed

to John of Boulogne, Count de Montfort. A great opportunity

for strengthening the crown of France, by annexing to it the

powerful Burgundian dukedom, was now offered to King John; but

he lacked the wisdom to improve it. He preferred to grant it

away as a splendid appanage for his favorite son--the

fourth--the spirited lad Philip, called the Fearless, who had

stood by his father's side in the disastrous battle of

Poitiers, and who had shared his captivity in England. By a

deed which took effect on King John's death, in 1364, the

great duchy of Burgundy was conferred on Philip the Fearless

and on his heirs. Soon afterwards, Philip's marriage with the

young widow of his predecessor, Philip de Rouvre, was brought

about, which restored to their former union with the dukedom

the Burgundian County (Franche Comté) and the county of

Artois, while it gave to the new duke prospectively the rich

county of Flanders, to which Margaret was the heiress. Thus

was raised up anew the most formidable rival which the royal

power in France had ever to contend with, and the magnitude of

the blunder of King John was revealed before half a century

had passed.

Froissart (Johnes) Chronicles, book 1, chapter 216.

ALSO IN: F. P. Guizot, Popular History of France, chapter 22.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1383.

Flanders Added To The Ducal Dominions.

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1405-1453.

Civil war with the Armagnacs.

Alliance with the English.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415; 1415-1419;

1417-1422; 1429-1431; 1431-1453.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1430.

Holland, Hainault And Friesland Absorbed By The Dukes.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND AND HAINAULT): A. D. 1417-1430.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467.

Charles The Bold.

His Position, Between Germany And France.

His Antagonism To Louis Xi.

The "Middle Kingdom" Of His Aims.

Charles, known commonly in history as Charles the Bold, became

Duke of Burgundy in 1467, succeeding his father Philip,

misnamed "The Good." "His position was a very peculiar one; it

requires a successful shaking-off of modern notions fully to

take in what it was. Charles held the rank of one of the first

princes in Europe without being a King, and without possessing

an inch of ground for which he did not owe service to some

superior lord. And, more than this, he did not owe service to

one lord only. The phrase of 'Great Powers' had not been

invented in the 15th century; but there can be no doubt that,

if it had been, the Duke of Burgundy would have ranked among

the foremost of them. He was, in actual strength, the equal of

his royal neighbour to the west, and far more than the equal

of his Imperial neighbour to the east. Yet for every inch of

his territories he owed a vassal's duty to one or other of

them. Placed on the borders of France and the Empire, some of

his territories were held of the Empire and some of the French

Crown. Charles, Duke of Burgundy, Count of Flanders and

Artois, was a vassal of France; but Charles, Duke of Brabant,

Count of Burgundy, Holland, and a dozen other duchies and

counties, held his dominions as a vassal of Cæsar. His

dominions were large in positive extent, and they were

valuable out of all proportion to their extent. No other

prince in Europe was the direct sovereign of so many rich and

flourishing cities, rendered still more rich and flourishing

through the long and, in the main, peaceful administration of

his father. The cities of the Netherlands were incomparably

greater and more prosperous than those of France or England;

and, though they enjoyed large municipal privileges, they were

not, like those of Germany, independent commonwealths,

acknowledging only an external suzerain in their nominal lord;

Other parts of his dominions, the Duchy of Burgundy

especially, were as rich in men as Flanders was rich in money.

So far the Duke of Burgundy had some great advantages over

every other prince of his time. But, on the other hand, his

dominions were further removed than those of any prince in

Europe from forming a compact whole. He was not King of one

kingdom, but Duke, Count, and Lord of innumerable duchies,

counties, and lordships, acquired by different means, held by

different titles and of different overlords, speaking

different languages, subject to different laws, transmitted

according to different rules of succession. ... They lay in

two large masses, the two Burgundies forming one and the Low

Countries forming the other, so that their common master could

not go from one capital to another without passing through a

foreign territory.

{333}

And, even within these two great masses, there were portions

of territory intersecting the ducal dominions which there was

no hope of annexing by fair means. ... The career of Charles

the Bold ... divides itself into a French and a German

portion. In both alike he is exposed to the restless rivalry

of Lewis of France; but in the one period that rivalry is

carried on openly within the French territory, while in the

second period the crafty king finds the means to deal far more

effectual blows through the agency of Teutonic hands. ... As a

French prince, he joined with other French princes to put

limits on the power of the Crown, and to divide the kingdom

into great feudal holdings, as nearly independent as might be

of the common overlord. As a French prince, he played his part

in the War of the Public Weal [see FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468],

and insisted, as a main object of his policy, on the

establishment of the King's brother as an all but independent

Duke of Normandy. The object of Lewis was to make France a

compact monarchy; the object of Charles and his fellows was to

keep France as nearly as might be in the same state as

Germany. But, when the other French princes had been gradually

conquered, won over, or got rid of in some way or other by the

crafty policy of Lewis, Charles remained no longer the chief

of a coalition of French princes, but the personal rival, the

deadly enemy, of the French King. ... Chronologically and

geographically alike. Charles and his Duchy form the great

barrier, or the great connecting link, whichever we choose to

call it, between the main divisions of European history and

European geography. The Dukes of Burgundy of the House of

Valois form a sort of bridge between the later Middle Age and

the period of the Renaissance and the Reformation. They

connect those two periods by forming the kernel of the vast

dominion of that Austrian House which became their heir, and

which, mainly by virtue of that heirship fills such a space in

the history of the 16th and 17th centuries. But the dominions

of the Burgundian Dukes hold a still higher historical

position. They may be said to bind together the whole of

European history for the last thousand years. From the 9th

century to the 19th, the politics of Europe have largely

gathered round the rivalry between the Eastern and the Western

Kingdoms--in modern language, between Germany and France.

From the 9th century to the 19th, a succession of efforts have

been made to establish, in one shape or another, a middle

state between the two. Over and over again during that long

period have men striven to make the whole or some portion of

the frontier lands stretching from the mouth of the Rhine to

the mouth of the Rhone into an independent barrier state. ...

That object was never more distinctly aimed at, and it never

seemed nearer to its accomplishment, than when Charles the

Bold actually reigned from the Zuyder Zee to the Lake of

Neufchâtel, and was not without hopes of extending his

frontier to the Gulf of Lyons. ... Holding, as he did, parts

of old Lotharingia and parts of old Burgundy, there can be no

doubt that he aimed at the re-establishment of a great Middle

Kingdom, which should take in all that had ever been

Burgundian or Lotharingian ground. He aimed, in short, as

others have aimed before and since, at the formation of a

state which should hold a central position between France,

Germany and Italy--a state which should discharge, with

infinitely greater strength, all the duties which our own age

has endeavoured to throw on Switzerland, Belgium and Savoy.

... Undoubtedly it would have been for the permanent interest

of Europe if he had succeeded in his attempt."

E. A. Freeman, Charles the Bold (Historical Essays, 1st

series, no. 11).

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1467-1468.

The war of Charles the Bold with the Liegeois

and his troubles with Louis XI.

"Soon after the pacification of the troubles of France [see

FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468], the Duke of Burgundy began a war

against the Liegeois, which lasted for several years; and

whenever the king of France [Louis XI.] had a mind to

interrupt him, he attempted some new action against the

Bretons, and, in the meantime, supported the Liegeois

underhand; upon which the Duke of Burgundy turned against him

to succour his allies, or else they came to some treaty or

truce among themselves. ... During these wars, and ever since,

secret and fresh intrigues were carried on by the princes. The

king was so exceedingly exasperated against the Dukes of

Bretagne and Burgundy that it was wonderful. ... The king of

France's aim, in the meantime, was chiefly to carry his design

against the province of Bretagne, and he looked upon it as a

more feasible attempt, and likelier to give him less

resistance than the house of Burgundy. Besides, the Bretons

were the people who protected and entertained all his

malcontents; as his brother, and others, whose interest and

intelligence were great in his kingdom; for this cause he

endeavoured very earnestly with Charles, Duke of Burgundy, by

several advantageous offers and proposals, to prevail with him

to desert them, promising that upon those terms he also would

abandon the Liegeois, and give no further protection to his

malcontents. The Duke of Burgundy would by no means consent to

it, but again made preparations for war against the Liegeois,

who had broken the peace." This was in October, 1467. The Duke

(Charles the Bold) attacked St. Tron, which was held by a

garrison of 3,000 of the men of Liege. The Liegeois, 30,000

strong, came to the relief of the besieged town, and were

routed, leaving 6,000 slain on the field. St. Tron and Tongres

were both surrendered, and Liege, itself, after considerable

strife among its citizens, opened its gates to the Duke, who

entered in triumph (Nov. 17, 1467) and hanged half-a-dozen for

his moderate satisfaction. In the course of the next summer

the French king opened war afresh upon the Duke of Bretagne

and forced him into a treaty, before the Duke of Burgundy, his

ally, could take the field. The king, then being extremely

anxious to pacify the Duke of Burgundy, took the extraordinary

step of visiting the latter at Peronne, without any guard,

trusting himself wholly to the honor of his enemy. But it

happened unfortunately, during the king's stay at Peronne,

that a ferocious revolt occurred at Liege, which was traced

beyond denial to the intrigues of two agents whom king Louis

had sent thither not long before, for mischief-making

purposes. The Duke, in his wrath, was not easily restrained

from doing some violence to the king; but the royal trickster

escaped from his grave predicament by giving up the unhappy

Liegeois to the vengeance of Duke Charles and personally

assisting the latter to inflict it.

{334}

"After the conclusion of the peace [dictated by Charles at

Peronne and signed submissively by Louis] the King and the

Duke of Burgundy set out the next morning [Oct. 15, 1468] for

Cambray, and from thence towards the country of Liége: it was

the beginning of winter and the weather was very bad. The king

had with him only his Scotch guards and a small body of his

standing forces; but he ordered 300 of his men-at-arms to join

him." Liége was invested, and, notwithstanding its walls had

been thrown down the previous year, it made a stubborn

defense. During a siege of a fortnight, several desperate

sallies were made, by the last one of which both the Duke and

the King were brought into great personal peril. Exhausted by

this final effort, the Liegeois were unprepared to repel a

grand assault which the besieging forces made upon the town

the next morning--Sunday, Oct. 30. Liege was taken that day

almost without resistance, the miserable inhabitants flying

across the Maes into the forest of Ardennes, abandoning their

homes to pillage. The Duke of Burgundy now permitted King

Louis to return home, while he remained a few days longer in

desolate Liege, which his fierce hatred had doomed. "Before

the Duke left the city, a great number of those poor creatures

who had hid themselves in the houses when the town was taken,

and were afterwards made prisoners, were drowned. He also

resolved to burn the city, which had always been very

populous; and orders were given for firing it in three

different places, and 3,000 or 4,000 foot of the country of

Limbourg (who were their neighbours, and used the same habit

and language), were commanded to effect this desolation, but

to secure the churches. ... All things being thus ordered, the

Duke began his march into the country of Franchemont: he was

no sooner out of town, but immediately we saw a great number

of houses on fire beyond the river; the duke lay that night

four leagues from the city, yet we could hear the noise as

distinctly as if we had been upon the spot; but whether it was

the wind which lay that way, or our quartering upon the river,

that was the cause of it, I know not. The next day the Duke

marched on, and those who were left in the town continued the

conflagration according to his orders; but all the churches

(except some few) were preserved, and above 300 houses

belonging to the priests and officers of the churches, which

was the reason it was so soon reinhabited, for many flocked

thither to live with the priests."

Philip de Commines, Memoirs, book 2.

ALSO IN:

J. F. Kirk, History of Charles the Bold, book 1, chapter 7-9;

book 2.

P. F. Willert, The Reign of Louis XI.

Sir. W. Scott, Quentin Durward.

See, also, DINANT.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1476-1477.

Charles The Bold And The Swiss.

His Defeats And His Death.

The Effects Of His Fall.

"Sovereign of the duchy of Burgundy, of the Free County, of

Hainaut, of Flanders, of Holland, and of Gueldre, Charles

wished, by joining to it Lorraine, a portion of Switzerland,

and the inheritance of old King René, Count of Provence, to

recompose the ancient kingdom of Lorraine, such as it had

existed under the Carlovingian dynasty; and flattered himself

that by offering his daughter to Maximilian, son of Frederick

III., he would obtain the title of king. Deceived in his

hopes, the Duke of Burgundy tried means to take away Lorraine

from the young René. That province was necessary to him, in

order to join his northern states with those in the south. The

conquest was rapid, and Nancy opened its gates to Charles the

Rash; but it was reserved for a small people, already

celebrated for their heroic valour and by their love of

liberty, to beat this powerful man. Irritated against the

Swiss, who had braved him, Charles crossed over the Jura,

besieged the little town of Granson, and, in despite of a

capitulation, caused all the defenders to be hanged or

drowned. At this news the eight cantons which then composed

the Helvetian republic arose, and under the very walls of the

town which had been the theatre of his cruelty they attacked

the Duke and dispersed his troops [March 3, 1476]. Some months

later [June 21], supported by young René of Lorraine,

despoiled of his inheritance, they exterminated a second

Burgundian army before Morat. Charles, vanquished, reassembled

a third army, and marched in the midst of winter against Nancy,

which had fallen into the hands of the Swiss and Lorrainers.

It was there that he perished [January 5, 1477] betrayed by his

mercenary soldiers, and overpowered by numbers."

E. de Bonnechose, History of France, volume 1, book 3, chapter 2.

"And what was the cause of this war? A miserable cart-load of

sheep skins that the Count of Romont had taken from the Swiss,

in his passage through his estates. If God Almighty had not

forsaken the Duke of Burgundy it is scarce conceivable he

would have exposed himself to such great dangers upon so small

and trivial an occasion; especially considering the offers the

Swiss had made him, and that his conquest of such enemies

would yield him neither profit nor honour; for at that time

the Swiss were not in such esteem as now, and no people in the

world could be poorer." At Granson, "the poor Swiss were

mightily enriched by the plunder of his [the Duke of

Burgundy's] camp. At first they did not understand the value

of the treasure they were masters of, especially the common

soldiers. One of the richest and most magnificent tents in the

world was cut into pieces. There were some of them that sold

quantities of dishes and plates of silver for about two sous

of our money, supposing they had been pewter. His great

diamond, ... with a large pearl fixed to it, was taken up by a

Swiss, put up again into the case, thrown under a wagon, taken

up again by the same soldier, and after all offered to a

priest for a florin, who bought it, and sent it to the

magistrates of that country, who returned him three francs as

a sufficient reward. [This was long supposed to be the famous

Sancy diamond; but Mr. Streeter thinks that the tradition

which so connects it is totally disproved.] They also took

three very rich jewels called the Three Brothers, another

large ruby called La Hatte, and another called the Ball of

Flanders, which were the fairest and richest in the world;

besides a prodigious quantity of other goods." In his last

battle, near Nancy, the Duke had less than 4,000 men, "and of

that number not above 1,200 were in a condition to fight." He

encountered on this occasion a powerful army of Swiss and

Germans, which the Duke of Lorraine had been able to collect,

with the help of the king of France and others. It was against

the advice of all his counsellors that the headstrong,

half-mad Duke Charles dashed his little army upon this greater

one, and he paid the penalty.

{335}

It was broken at the first shock, and the Duke was killed in

the confused rout without being known. His body, stripped

naked by the pillagers and mangled by wolves or dogs, was

found frozen fast in a ditch. "I cannot easily determine

towards whom God Almighty showed his anger most, whether

towards him who died suddenly, without pain or sickness in the

field of battle, or towards his subjects, who never enjoyed

peace after his death, but were continually involved in wars

against which they were not able to maintain themselves, upon

account of the civil dissensions and cruel animosities that

arose among them. ... As I had seen these princes puissant,

rich and honourable, so it fared with their subjects: for I

think I have seen and known the greatest part of Europe, yet I

never knew any province or country, though of a larger extent,

so abounding in money, so extravagantly fine in their

furniture, so sumptuous in their buildings, so profuse in

their expenses, so luxurious in their feasts and

entertainments, and so prodigal in all respects, as the

subjects of these princes in my time; and if any think I have

exaggerated, others who lived in my time will be of opinion

that I have rather said too little. ... In short, I have seen

this family in all respects the most flourishing and

celebrated of any in Christendom: and then, in a short space

of time, it was quite ruined and turned upside down, and left

the most desolate and miserable of any house in Europe, as

regards both prince and subjects."

Philip de Commines, Memoirs, book 5, chapters 1-9.

"The popular conception of this war [between Charles the Bold

and the Swiss] is simply that Charles, a powerful and

encroaching prince, was overthrown in three great battles by

the petty commonwealths which he had expected easily to attach

to his dominion. Grandson and Morat are placed side by side

with Morgarten and Sempach. Such a view as this implies

complete ignorance of the history; it implies ignorance of the

fact that it was the Swiss who made war upon Charles, and not

Charles who made war upon the Swiss; it implies ignorance of

the fact that Charles's army never set foot on proper Swiss

territory at all, that Grandson and Morat were at the

beginning of the war no part of the possessions of the

Confederation. ... The mere political accident that the

country which formed the chief seat of war now forms part of

the Swiss Confederation has been with many people enough to

determine their estimate of the quarrel. Grandson and Morat

are in Switzerland; Burgundian troops appeared and were

defeated at Grandson and Morat; therefore Charles must have

been an invader of Switzerland, and the warfare on the Swiss

side must have been a warfare of purely defensive heroism. The

simple fact that it was only through the result of the

Burgundian war that Grandson and Morat ever became Swiss

territory at once disposes of this line of argument. ... The

plain facts of the case are that the Burgundian war was a war

declared by Switzerland against Burgundy ... and that in the

campaigns of Grandson and Morat the Duke of Burgundy was

simply repelling and avenging Swiss invasions of his own

territory and the territory of his allies."

E. A. Freeman, Historical Essays, volume 1, number 11.

ALSO IN:

J. F. Kirk, History of Charles the Bold, book 5.

L. S. Costello, Memoirs of Mary of Burgundy, chapter 14-27.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1477.

Permanently restored to the French crown

Louis XI. of France, who had been eagerly watching while

Charles the Bold shattered his armies and exhausted his

strength in Switzerland, received early news of the death of

the self-willed Duke. While the panic and confusion which it

caused still prevailed, the king lost no time in taking

possession of the duchy of Burgundy, as an appanage which had

reverted to the crown, through default of male heirs. The

legality of his claim has been much in dispute. "Charles left

an only daughter, undoubted heiress of Flanders and Artois, as

well as of his dominions out of France, but whose right of

succession to the duchy of Burgundy was more questionable.

Originally the great fiefs of the crown descended to females,

and this was the case with respect to the two first mentioned.

But John had granted Burgundy to his son Philip by way of

appanage; and it was contended that the appanages reverted to

the crown in default of male heirs. In the form of Philip's

investiture, the duchy was granted to him and his lawful

heirs, without designation of sex. The construction,

therefore, must be left to the established course of law.

This, however, was by no means acknowledged by Mary, Charles's

daughter, who maintained both that no general law restricted

appanages to male heirs, and that Burgundy had always been

considered as a feminine fief, John himself having possessed

it, not by reversion as king (for descendants of the first

dukes were then living), but by inheritance derived through

females. Such was this question of succession between Louis

XI. and Mary of Burgundy, upon the merits of whose pretensions

I will not pretend altogether to decide, but shall only

observe that, if Charles had conceived his daughter to be

excluded from this part of his inheritance, he would probably,

at Conflans or Peronne, where he treated upon the vantage

ground, have attempted at least to obtain a renunciation of

Louis's claim. There was one obvious mode of preventing all

further contest, and of aggrandizing the French monarchy far

more than by the reunion of Burgundy. This was the marriage of

Mary with the dauphin, which was ardently wished in France."

The dauphin was a child of seven years; Mary of Burgundy a

masculine-minded young woman of twenty, Probably Louis

despaired of reconciling the latter to such a marriage. At all

events, while he talked of it occasionally, he proceeded

actively in despoiling the young duchess, seizing Artois and

Franche Comté, and laying hands upon the frontier towns which

were exposed to his arms. He embittered her natural enmity to

him by various acts of meanness and treachery. "Thus the

French alliance becoming odious in Flanders, this princess

married Maximilian of Austria, son of the Emperor Frederic--a

connexion which Louis strove to prevent, though it was

impossible then to foresee that it was ordained to retard the

growth and to bias the fate of Europe during three hundred

years. This war lasted till after the death of Mary, who left

one son Philip and one daughter Margaret."

H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 1, part 2.

{336}

"The king [Louis XI.] had reason to be more than ordinarily

pleased at the death of that duke [of Burgundy], and he

triumphed more in his ruin than in that of all the rest of his

enemies, as he thought that nobody, for the future, either of

his own subjects, or his neighbours, would be able to oppose

him, or disturb the tranquillity of his reign. . . . Although

God Almighty has shown, and does still show, that his

determination is to punish the family of Burgundy severely,

not only in the person of the duke, but in their subjects and

estates; yet I think the king our master did not take right

measures to that end. For, if he had acted prudently, instead

of pretending to conquer them, he should rather have

endeavoured to annex all those large territories, to which he

had no just title, to the crown of France by some treaty of

marriage; or to have gained the hearts and affections of the

people, and so have brought them over to his interest, which

he might, without any great difficulty, have effected,

considering how their late afflictions had impoverished and

dejected them. If he had acted after that manner, he would not

only have prevented their ruin and destruction, but extended

and strengthened his own kingdom, and established them all in

a firm and lasting peace."

Philip de Commines, Memoirs, book 5, chapter 12.

"He [Louis XI.] reassured, caressed, comforted the duchy of

Burgundy, gave it a parliament, visited his good city of

Dijon, swore in St. Benignus' church to respect all the old

privileges and customs that could be sworn to, and bound his

successors to do the same on their accession. Burgundy was a

land of nobles; and the king raised a bridge of gold for all

the great lords to come over to him."

J. Michelet, History of France, book 17, ch.. 3-4.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1477-1482.

Reign of the Burgundian heiress in the Netherlands.

Her marriage with Maximilian of Austria.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1477.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1512. Formation of the Circle.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

BURGUNDY: A. D. 1544. Renunciation of the Claims of Charles V.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

----------BURGUNDY: End----------

BURH, The.

See BOROUGH.

BURI, The.

A Suevic clan of Germans whose settlements were anciently in

the neighborhood of modern Cracow.

Tacitus, Germany, translated by Church and Brodribb.

Geographical notes.

BURKE, Edmund, and the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (JANUARY-MARCH).

BURKE, Edmund, and the French Revolution.

See ENGLAND A. D. 1793-1796.

BURLEIGH, Lord, and the reign of Queen Elizabeth.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1598.

BURLINGAME CHINESE EMBASSY AND TREATIES.

See CHINA: A. D. 1857-1868.

BURMA:

Rise of the kingdom.

First war with the English (1824-1826).

Cession of Assam and Aracan.

See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

BURMA: A. D. 1852.

Second war with the English.

Loss of Pegu.

See INDIA: A. D. 1852.

BURNED CANDLEMAS.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1333-1370.

BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.: Expedition to Roanoke.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-APRIL: NORTH CAROLINA).

BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.

Command of the Army of the Potomac.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862

(OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: VIRGINIA).

BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.

Retirement from command of the Army of the Potomac.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863

(JANUARY-APRIL: VIRGINIA).

BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.

Deliverance of East Tennessee.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 AUGUST-SEPTEMBER:

TENNESSEE.

BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.

Defense of Knoxville.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

BURNSIDE, General Ambrose E.

At the siege of Petersburg.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (JUNE: VIRGINIA), (JULY: VIRGINIA).

BURR, Aaron.

Duel with Hamilton.

Conspiracy.

Arrest.

Trial.

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

BURSCHENSCHAFT, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1817-1820.

BUSACO, Battle of (1810).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1812.

BUSHMEN, The.

See AFRICA: THE INHABITING RACES.

BUSHY RUN, Battle of (A. D. 1763).

See PONTIAC'S WAR.

BUSHWHACKERS.

A name commonly given to the rebel guerrillas or half-bandits

of the southwest in the American Civil War.

J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay, Abraham Lincoln, volume 6, page 371.

BUSIRIS.

Destroyed by Diocletian.

See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.

BUSSORAH AND KUFA,

The rise and importance of.

In the first years of their conquest and occupation of

Mesopotamia and the Delta of the Euphrates and Tigris--as

early as A. D. 638--the Moslems founded two cities which

acquired importance in Mahometan history. In both cases, these

cities appear to have arisen out of the need felt by the Arabs

for more salubrious sites of residence than their predecessors

in the ancient country had been contented with. Of Bussorah,

or Bassorah, the city founded in the Delta, the site is said

to have been changed three times. Kufa was built on a plain

very near to the neglected city of Hira, on the Euphrates.

"Kufa and Bussorah . . . had a singular influence on the

destinies of the Caliphate and of Islam itself. The vast

majority of the population came from the Peninsula and were of

pure Arabian blood. The tribes which, with their families,

scenting from afar the prey of Persia, kept streaming into

Chaldæa from every corner of Arabia, settled chiefly in these

two cities. At Kufa, the races from Yemen and the south

predominated; at Bussorah, from the north. Rapidly they grew

into two great and luxurious capitals, with an Arab population

each of from 150,000 to 200,000 souls. On the literature,

theology, and politics of Islam, these cities had a greater

influence than the whole Moslem world besides. ... The people

became petulant and factious, and both cities grew into

hotbeds of turbulence and sedition. The Bedouin element,

conscious of its strength, was jealous of the Coreish, and

impatient of whatever checked its capricious humour. Thus

factions sprang up which, controlled by the strong and wise

arm of Omar, broke loose under the weaker Caliphs, eventually

rent the unity of Islam, and brought on disastrous days."

Sir W. Muir, Annals of the Early Caliphate, chapter 18.

See, also, MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

BUTADÆ, The.

See PHYLÆ.

BUTE'S ADMINISTRATION.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1760-1763.

BUTLER, General Benjamin F.

In command at Baltimore.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861

(APRIL-MAY: MARYLAND).

BUTLER, General Benjamin F.

In command at Fortress Monroe.

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

{337}

BUTLER, General Benjamin F.

The Hatteras Expedition.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (AUGUST: NORTH CAROLINA).

BUTLER, General Benjamin F.

Command at New Orleans.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862

(MAY-DECEMBER: LOUISIANA).

BUTLER, General Benjamin F.

Command of the Army of the James.

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

BUTLER, Walter,

The Tory and Indian partisans of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER). and (JULY).

BUTTERNUTS.

See BOYS IN BLUE;

Also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).

BUXAR, OR BAXAR, OR BAKSAR, Battle of (1764).

See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

BYRON, Lord, in Greece.

See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

BYRSA.

The citadel of Carthage.

See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

BYTOWN.

The original name of Ottawa, the capital of the Dominion of

Canada.

See OTTAWA.

BYZACIUM.

See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE.

The Eastern Roman Empire, having its capital at Byzantium

(modern Constantinople), the earlier history of which will be

found sketched under the caption ROME: A. D. 394-395, to

717-800, has been given, in its later years, the name of the

Byzantine Empire. The propriety of this designation is

questioned by some historians, and the time when it begins to

be appropriate is likewise a subject of debate. For some

discussion of these questions,

See ROME: A. D. 717-800.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE.

Its part in history.

Its defence of Europe.

Its civilizing influence.

"The later Roman Empire was the bulwark of Europe against the

oriental danger; Maurice and Heraclius, Constantine IV. and

Leo the Isaurian were the successors of Themistocles and

Africanus. ... Until the days of the crusades, the German

nations did not combine with the Empire against the common

foe. Nor did the Teutons, by themselves, achieve any success

of ecumenical importance against non-Aryan races. I may be

reminded that Charles the Great exterminated the Avars; but

that was after they had ceased to be really dangerous. When

there existed a truly formidable Avar monarchy it was the

Roman Empire that bore the brunt; and yet while most people

who read history know of the Avar war of Charles, how few

there are who have ever heard of Priscus, the general who so

bravely warred against the Avars in the reign of Maurice. I

may be reminded that Charles Martel won a great name by

victories, in southern Gaul over the Saracens; yet those

successes sink into insignificance by the side of the

achievement of his contemporary, the third Leo, who held the

gate of eastern Europe against all the forces which the

Saracen power, then at its height, could muster. Everyone

knows about the exploits of the Frank; it is almost incredible

how little is known of the Roman Emperor's defence of the

greatest city of Christian Europe, in the quarter where the

real danger lay. .... The Empire was much more than the

military guard of the Asiatic frontier; it not only defended

but also kept alive the traditions of Greek and Roman culture.

We cannot over-estimate the importance of the presence of a

highly civilised state for a system of nations which were as

yet only beginning to be civilised. The constant intercourse

of the Empire with Italy, which until the eleventh century was

partly imperial, and with southern Gaul and Spain, had an

incalculable influence on the development of the West. Venice,

which contributed so much to the growth of western culture,

was for a long time actually, and for a much longer time

nominally, a city of the Roman Empire, and learned what it

taught from Byzantium. The Byzantine was the mother of the

Italian school of painting, as Greece in the old days had been

the mistress of Rome in the fine arts; and the Byzantine style

of architecture has had perhaps a wider influence than any

other. It was to New Rome that the Teutonic kings applied when

they needed men of learning, and thither students from western

countries, who desired a university education, repaired. ...

It was, moreover, in the lands ruled by New Rome that old

Hellenic culture and the monuments of Hellenic literature were

preserved, as in a secure storehouse, to be given at length to

the 'wild nations' when they had been sufficiently tamed. And

in their taming New Rome played an indispensable part. The

Justinian law, which still interpenetrates European

civilisation, was a product of New Rome. In the third place

the Roman Empire for many centuries entirely maintained

European commerce. This was a circumstance of the greatest

importance; but unfortunately it is one of those facts

concerning which contemporary historians did not think of

leaving records to posterity. The fact that the coins of the

Roman Emperors were used throughout Europe in the Middle Ages

speaks for itself. ... In the fourth place, the Roman Empire

preserved a great idea which influenced the whole course of

western European history down to the present day--the idea of

the Roman Empire itself. If we look at the ecumenical event of

800 A. D. from a wide point of view, it really resolves itself

into this: New Rome bestowed upon the western nations a great

idea, which moulded and ordered their future history; she gave

back to Old Rome the idea which Old Rome bestowed upon her

five centuries before. ... If Constantinople and the Empire

had fallen, the imperial idea would have been lost in the

whirl of the 'wild nations.' It is to New Rome that Europeans

really owe thanks for the establishment of the principle and

the system which brought law and order into the political

relations of the West."

J. B. Bury, History of the Later Roman Empire,

book 6, chapter 14 (volume 2).

BYZANTINE EMPIRE. A. D. 717.

Its organization by Leo the Isaurian.

"The accession of Leo the Isaurian to the throne of

Constantinople suddenly opened a new era in the history of

the Eastern Empire. ... When Leo III. was proclaimed emperor

[A. D. 717], it seemed as if no human power could save

Constantinople from falling as Rome had fallen. The Saracens

considered the sovereignty of every land, in which any remains

of Roman civilization survived, as within their grasp. Leo, an

Isaurian, and an Iconoclast, consequently a foreigner and a

heretic, ascended the throne of Constantine and arrested the

victorious career of the Mohammedans. He then reorganized the

whole administration so completely in accordance with the new

exigencies of Eastern society that the reformed empire

outlived for many centuries every government contemporary

with its establishment.

{338}

The Eastern Roman Empire, thus reformed, is called by modern

historians the Byzantine Empire; and the term is well devised

to mark the changes effected in the government, after the

extinction of the last traces of the military monarchy of

ancient Rome. ... The provincial divisions of the Roman Empire

had fallen into oblivion. A new geographical arrangement into

Themes appears to have been established by Heraclius, when he

recovered the Asiatic provinces from the Persians; it was

reorganized by Leo, and endured as long as the Byzantine

government. The number of themes varied at different periods.

The Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, writing about the

middle of the tenth century, counts sixteen in the Asiatic

portion of the Empire and twelve in the European. ... The

European provinces were divided into eight continental and

five insular or transmarine themes, until the loss of the

exarchate of Ravenna reduced the number to twelve. Venice and

Naples, though they acknowledged the suzerainty of the Eastern

Empire, acted generally as independent cities. ... When Leo

was raised to the throne the Empire was threatened with

immediate ruin. ... Every army assembled to encounter the

Saracens broke out into rebellion. The Bulgarians and

Sclavonians wasted Europe up to the walls of Constantinople;

the Saracens ravaged the whole of Asia Minor to the shores of

the Bosphorus."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire, book 1, chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

E. W. Brooks, The Emperor Zenon and the Isaurians

(English History Review, April, 1893).

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 717-797.

The Isaurian dynasty.

The dynasty founded by Leo the Isaurian held the throne until

the dethronement of Constantine VI. by his mother, Irene, A.

D. 797, and her dethronement, in turn by, Nicephorus I., A. D.

802. It embraced the following reigns:

Constantine V., called Copronymus, A. D. 741-775;

Leo IV., 775-780;

Constantine VI., 780-797;

Irene, 797-802.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 726-751.

The Iconoclastic Controversy.

Rupture with the West.

Fall of the Exarchate of Ravenna.

End of authority in Italy.

See ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY,

and PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 802-820. Emperors:

Nicephorus 1., A. D. 802-811;

Stauracius, A. D. 811;

Michael I., A. D. 811-813;

Leo V., A. D. 813-820.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 803.

Treaty with Charlemagne, fixing boundaries.

See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 820-1057.

The Amorian and Basilian or Macedonian dynasties.

Michael, the Amorian (820-829) so named from his birth-place;

Amorium, in Phrygia, was a soldier, raised to the throne by a

revolution which deposed and assassinated his friend and

patron, the Emperor Leo V. Michael transmitted the crown to

his son (Theophilus, 829-842) and grandson. The latter, called

Michael the Drunkard, was conspired against and killed by one

of the companions of his drunken orgies (867), Basil the

Maeedonian, who had been in early life a groom. Basil founded

a dynasty which reigned, with several interruptions, from A.

D. 867 to 1057--a period covering the following reigns:

Basil I., A. D. 867-886;

Leo VI., A. D. 886-911;

Constantine VII. (Porphyrogenitus), A. D. 911-950;

Romanus I. (Colleague), A. D. 919-944;

Constantine VIII. (Colleague), A. D, 944;

Romanus II., A. D. 959-963;

Nicephorus II., A. D. 963-969;

John Zimisces, A. D. 969-976;

Basil II., A. D. 963-1025;

Constantine IX., A. D. 963-1028;

Romanus III., A. D. 1028-1034;

Michael IV., A. D. 1034-1041;

Michael V., A. D. 1041-1042;

Zoe and Theodora, A. D. 1042-1056;

Constantine X., A. D. 1042-1054;

Michael VI., A. D. 1056-1057.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 865-1043.

Wars, commerce and Church Connection with the Russians.

See RUSSIANS: A. D. 865-900;

also CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 865 and 907-1043.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE:  A. D. 870-1016.

Fresh acquisitions in Southern Italy.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 963-1025.

Recovery of prestige and territory.

"Amidst all the crimes and revolutions of the Byzantine

government--and its history is but a series of crimes and

revolutions--it was never dismembered by intestine war. A

sedition in the army, a tumult in the theatre, a conspiracy in

the palace, precipitated a monarch from the throne; but the

allegiance of Constantinople was instantly transferred to his

successor, and the provinces implicitly obeyed the voice of

the capital. The custom, too, of partition, so baneful to the

Latin kingdoms, and which was not altogether unknown to the

Saracens, never prevailed in the Greek Empire. It stood in the

middle of the tenth century, as vicious indeed and cowardly,

but more wealthy, more enlightened, and far more secure from

its enemies than under the first successors of Heraclius. For

about one hundred years preceding there had been only partial

wars with the Mohammedan potentates; and in these the emperors

seem gradually to have gained the advantage, and to have

become more frequently the aggressors. But the increasing

distractions of the East encouraged two brave usurpers,

Nicephorus Phocas and John Zimisces, to attempt the actual

recovery of the lost provinces. They carried the Roman arms

(one may use the term with less reluctance than usual) over

Syria; Antioch and Aleppo were taken by storm; Damascus

submitted; even the cities of Mesopotamia, beyond the ancient

boundary of the Euphrates, were added to the trophies of

Zimisces, who unwillingly spared the capital of the Khalifate.

From such distant conquests it was expedient, and indeed

necessary to withdraw; but Cilicia and Antioch were

permanently restored to the Empire. At the close of the tenth

century the emperors of Constantinople possessed the best and

greatest portion of the modern kingdom of Naples, a part of

Sicily, the whole [present] European dominions of the

Ottomans, the province of Anatolia or Asia Minor, with some

part of Syria and Armenia."

H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 6.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 970-1014.

Recovery of Bulgaria.

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 907-1043;

also BULGARIA, and ACHRIDA.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1054.

Ecclesiastical division of the

Eastern from the Roman Church.

See FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY,

and ORTHODOX CHURCH.

{339}

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1057-1081.

Between the Basilian and the Comnenian dynasties.

A dark period.

"The moment that the last of the Macedonian dynasty was gone,

the elements of discord seemed unchained, and the double

scourge of civil war and foreign invasion began to afflict the

empire. In the twenty-four years between 1057 and 1081 were

pressed more disasters than had been seen in any other period

of East Roman history, save perhaps the reign of Heraclius.

... The aged Theodora had named as her successor on the throne

Michael Stratiocus, a contemporary of her own who had been an

able soldier 25 years back. But Michael VI. was grown aged and

incompetent, and the empire was full of ambitious generals,

who would not tolerate a dotard on the throne. Before a year

had passed a band of great Asiatic nobles entered into a

conspiracy to overturn Michael, and replace him by Isaac

Comnenus, the chief of one of the ancient Cappadocian houses,

and the most popular general of the East. Isaac Comnenus and

his friends took arms, and dispossessed the aged Michael of

his throne with little difficulty. But a curse seemed to rest

upon the usurpation; Isaac was stricken down by disease when

he had been little more than a year on the throne, and retired

to a monastery to die. His crown was transferred to

Constantine Ducas, another Cappadocian noble," who reigned for

seven troubled years. His three immediate successors were:

Romanus IV., A. D. 1067-1071;

Michael VII., A. D. 1071-1078;

Nicephorus III., A. D. 1078-1081.-

C. W. C. Oman, The Story of the Byzantine Empire, chapter 20.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1063-1092.

Disasters in Asia Minor.

See TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1063-1073;

and A. D. 1073-1092.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1064.

Great revival of pilgrimages from Western Europe to the Holy

Land.

See CRUSADES: CAUSES, ETC.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081.

The enthronement of the Comnenian Dynasty.

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1081.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081-1085.

Attempted Norman conquest from Southern Italy.

Robert Guiscard, the Norman adventurer who had carved for

him-self a principality in Southern Italy and acquired the

title of Duke of Apulia,--his duchy coinciding with the

subsequent Norman kingdom of Naples--conceived the ambitious

design of adding the Byzantine Empire to his estate. His

conquests in Italy had been mostly at the expense of the

Byzantine dominions, and he believed that he had measured the

strength of the degenerate Roman-Greeks. He was encouraged,

moreover, by the successive revolutions which tossed the

imperial crown from hand to hand, and which had just given it

to the Comnenian, Alexius I. Beyond all, he had a claim of

right to interfere in the affairs of the Empire; for his young

daughter was betrothed to the heir-expectant whose

expectations were now vanishing, and had actually been sent to

Constantinople to receive her education for the throne. To

promote his bold undertaking, Robert obtained the approval of

the pope, and an absolution for all who would join his ranks.

Thus spiritually equipped, the Norman duke invaded Greece, in

the summer of 1081, with 150 ships and 30,000 men. Making

himself master, on the way, of the island of Corcyra (Corfu),

and taking several ports on the mainland, he laid siege to

Dyrrachium, and found it a most obstinate fortification to

reduce. Its massive ancient walls defied the Norman enginery,

and it was not until February, 1082, that Robert Guiscard

gained possession of the town, by the treachery of one of its

defenders. Meantime the Normans had routed and scattered one

large army, which the Emperor Alexius led in person to the

relief of Dyrrachium; but the fortified towns in Illyria and

Epirus delayed their advance toward Constantinople. Robert was

called home to Italy by important affairs and left his son

Bohemund (the subsequent Crusader and Prince of Antioch), in

command. Bohemund defeated Alexius again in the spring of

1083, and still a third time the following autumn. All Epirus

was overrun and Macedonia and Thessaly invaded; but the

Normans, while besieging Larissa, were undone by a stratagem,

lost their camp and found it necessary to retreat. Robert was

then just reentering the field, in person, and had won an

important naval battle at Corfu, over the combined Greeks and

Venetians, when he died (July, 1085), and his project of

conquest in Greece ended with him. Twenty years afterwards,

his son Bohemund, when Prince of Antioch, and quarreling with

the Byzantines, gathered a crusading army in France and Italy

to lead it against Constantinople; but it was stopped by

stubborn Dyrrachium, and never got beyond. Alexius had

recovered that strong coast defence shortly after Robert

Guiscard's death, with the help of the Venetians and

Amalfians. By way of reward, those merchant allies received

important commercial privileges, and the title of Venice to

the sovereignty of Dalmatia and Croatia was recognized. "From

this time the doge appears to have styled himself lord of the

kingdoms of Dalmatia and Croatia."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,

book 3, chapter 2, section 1.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE:

A. D. 1081-1185.--The Comnenian emperors.

Alexius I., A. D. 1081-1118;

John II., A. D. 1118-1143;

Manuel I., A. D. 1143-1181;

Alexius II., A. D. 1181-1183;

Andronicus I., A. D. 1183-1185.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1096-1097.

The passage of the first Crusaders.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.

Destructive invasion of Roger, king of Sicily.

Sack of Thebes and Corinth.

When Roger, king of Sicily, united the Norman possessions in

Southern Italy to his Sicilian realm he became ambitious, in

his turn, to acquire some part of the Byzantine possessions.

His single attack, however, made simultaneously with the

second crusading movement (A. D. 1146), amounted to no more

than a great and destructive plundering raid in Greece. An

insurrection in Corfu gave that island to him, after which his

fleet ravaged the coasts of Eubœa and Attica, Acarnania and

Ætolia. "It then entered the gulf of Corinth, and debarked a

body of troops at Crissa. This force marched through the

country to Thebes, plundering every town and village on the

way. Thebes offered no resistance, and was plundered in the

most deliberate and barbarous manner. The inhabitants were

numerous and wealthy. The soil of Bœotia is extremely

productive, and numerous manufactures established in the city

of Thebes gave additional value to the abundant produce of

agricultural industry. ... All military spirit was now dead,

and the Thebans had so long lived without any fear of invasion

that they had not even adopted any effectual measures to

secure or conceal their movable property. The conquerors,

secure against all danger of interruption, plundered Thebes at

their leisure. ... When all ordinary means of collecting booty

were exhausted, the citizens were compelled to take an oath on

the Holy Scriptures that they had not concealed any portion of

their property yet many of the wealthiest were dragged away

captive, in order to profit by their ransom; and many of the

most skilful workmen in the silk-manufactories, for which

Thebes had long been famous, were pressed on board the fleet

to labour at the oar. ...

{340}

Benjamin of Tudela, who visited Thebes about twenty years

later, or perhaps in 1161, speaks of it as then a large city,

with two thousand Jewish inhabitants, who were the most

eminent manufacturers of silk and purple cloth in all Greece.

The silks of Thebes continued to be celebrated as of superior

quality after this invasion. ... From Bœotia the army passed

to Corinth. ... Corinth was sacked as cruelly as Thebes; men

of rank, beautiful women, and skilful artisans, with their

wives and families, were carried away into captivity. ... This

invasion of Greece was conducted entirely as a plundering

expedition. ... Corfu was the only conquest of which Roger

retained possession; yet this passing invasion is the period

from which the decline of Byzantine Greece is to be dated. The

century-and-a-half which preceded this disaster had passed in

uninterrupted tranquillity, and the Greek people had increased

rapidly in numbers and wealth. The power of the Sclavonian

population sank with the ruin of the kingdom of Achrida; and

the Sclavonians who now dwelt in Greece were peaceable

cultivators of the soil, or graziers. The Greek population, on

the other hand, was in possession of an extensive commerce and

many flourishing manufactures. The ruin of this commerce and

of these manufactures has been ascribed to the transference of

the silk trade from Thebes and Corinth to Palermo, under the

judicious protection it received from Roger; but it would be

more correct to say that the injudicious and oppressive

financial administration of the Byzantine Emperors destroyed

the commercial prosperity and manufacturing industry of the

Greeks; while the wise liberality and intelligent protection

of the Norman kings extended the commerce and increased the

industry of the Sicilians. When the Sicilian fleet returned to

Palermo, Roger determined to employ all the silk-manufacturers

in their original occupations. He consequently collected all

their families together, and settled them at Palermo,

supplying them with the means of exercising their industry

with profit to themselves, and inducing them to teach his own

subjects to manufacture the richest brocades, and to rival the

rarest productions of the East. ... It is not remarkable that

the commerce and manufactures of Greece were transferred in

the course of another century to Sicily and Italy."

G. Finlay, History of Byzantine and Greek Empires,

from 716 to 1453, book 3, chapter 2, section 3.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1147-1148.

Trouble with the German and French Crusaders.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1185-1204.

The Angeli.

Isaac II., A. D. 1185-1195;

Alexius III., A. D. 1195-1203;

Alexius IV., A. D. 1203-1204.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1203-1204.

Its overthrow by the Venetians and Crusaders.

Sack of Constantinople.

The last of the Comnenian Emperors in the male line--the

brutal Andronicus I.--perished horribly in a wild

insurrection at Constantinople which his tyranny provoked, A.

D. 1185. His successor, Isaac Angelus, collaterally related to

the imperial house, had been a contemptible creature before

his coronation, and received no tincture of manliness or

virtue from that ceremony. In the second year of his reign,

the Empire was shorn of its Bulgarian and Wallachian provinces

by a successful revolt. In the tenth year (A. D. 1195), Isaac

was pushed from his throne, deprived of sight and shut up in a

dungeon, by a brother of equal worthlessness, who styled

himself Alexius III. The latter neglected, however, to secure

the person of Isaac's son, Alexius, who escaped from

Constantinople and made his way to his sister, wife of Philip,

the German King and claimant of the western imperial crown.

Philip thereupon plotted with the Venetians to divert the

great crusading expedition, then assembling to take ship at

Venice, and to employ it for the restoration of young Alexius

and his father Isaac to the Byzantine throne. The cunning and

perfidious means by which that diversion was brought about are

related in another place (see CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203). The

great fleet of the crusading filibusters arrived in the

Bosphorus near the end of June, 1203. The army which it bore

was landed first on the Asiatic side of the strait, opposite

the imperial city. After ten days of parley and preparation it

was conveyed across the water and began its attack. The towers

guarding the entrance to the Golden Horn--the harbor of

Constantinople--were captured, the chain removed, the harbor

occupied; and the imperial fleet seized or destroyed. On the

17th of July a combined assault by land and water was made on

the walls of the city, at their northwest corner, near the

Blachern palace, where they presented one face to the Horn and

another to the land. The land-attack failed. The Venetians,

from their ships, stormed twenty-five towers, gained

possession of a long stretch of the wall, and pushed into the

city far enough to start a conflagration which spread ruin

over an extensive district. They could not hold their ground,

and withdrew; but the result was a victory. The cowardly

Emperor, Alexius III., fled from the city that night, and

blind old Isaac Angelus was restored to the throne. He was

ready to associate his son in the sovereignty, and to fulfill,

if he could, the contracts which the latter had made with

Venetians and Crusaders. These invaders had now no present

excuse for making war on Constantinople any further. But the

excuse was soon found. Money to pay their heavy claims could

not be raised, and their hatefulness to the Greeks was

increased by the insolence of their demeanor. A serious

collision occurred at length, provoked by the plundering of a

Mahometan mosque which the Byzantines had tolerated in their

capital. Once more, on this occasion, the splendid city was

fired by the ruthless invaders, and an immense district in the

richest and most populous part was destroyed, while many of

the inhabitants perished. The fire lasted two days and nights,

sweeping a wide belt from the harbor to the Marmora. The

suburbs of Constantinople were pillaged and ruined by the

Latin soldiery, and more and more it became impossible for the

two restored emperors to raise money for paying the claims of

the Crusaders who had championed them. Their subjects hated

them and were desperate. At last, in January, 1204, the public

feeling of Constantinople flamed out in a revolution which

crowned a new emperor,--one Alexis Ducas, nicknamed

Mourtzophlos, on account of his eyebrows, which met.

{341}

A few days afterwards, with suspicious opportuneness, Isaac

and Alexius died. Then both sides entered upon active

preparations for serious war; but it was not until April 9th

that the Crusaders and Venetians were ready to assail the

walls once more. The first assault was repelled, with heavy

loss to the besiegers. They rested two days and repeated the

attack on the 12th with irresistible resolution and fury. The

towers were taken, the gates were broken down, knights and

soldiers poured into the fated city, killing without mercy,

burning without scruple--starting a third appalling

conflagration which laid another wide district in ruins. The

new emperor fled, the troops laid down their

arms,--Constantinople was conquered and prostrate. "Then began

the plunder of the city. The imperial treasury and the arsenal

were placed under guard; but with these exceptions the right

to plunder was given indiscriminately to the troops and

sailors. Never in Europe was a work of pillage more

systematically and shamelessly carried out. Never by the army

of a Christian state was there a more barbarous sack of a city

than that perpetrated by these soldiers of Christ, sworn to

chastity, pledged before God not to shed Christian blood, and

bearing upon them the emblem of the Prince of Peace. ...

'Never since the world was created,' says the Marshal

[Villehardouin] 'was there so much booty gained in one city.

Each man took the house which pleased him, and there were

enough for all. Those who were poor found themselves suddenly

rich. There was captured an immense supply of gold and silver,

of plate and of precious stones, of satins and of silk, of

furs and of every kind of wealth ever found upon the earth.'

... The Greek eye-witness [Nicetas] gives the complement of

the picture of Villehardouin. The lust of the army spared

neither maiden nor the virgin dedicated to God. Violence and

debauchery were everywhere present; cries and lamentations and

the groans of the victims were heard throughout the city; for

everywhere pillage was unrestrained and lust unbridled. ... A

large part of the booty had been collected in the three

churches designated for that purpose. ... The distribution was

made during the latter end of April. Many works of art in

bronze were sent to the melting-pot to be coined. Many statues

were broken up in order to obtain the metals with which they

were adorned. The conquerors knew nothing and cared nothing

for the art which had added value to the metal."

E. Pears, The Fall of Constantinople, chapter 14-15.

ALSO IN: G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and

Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453, book 3, chapter 3, section 3.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A, D. 1204.

Reign of Alexius V.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.

The partitioning of the Empire by the Crusaders and the Venetians.

"Before the crusaders made their last successful attack on

Constantinople, they concluded a treaty partitioning the

Byzantine empire and dividing the plunder of the capital. ...

This treaty was entered into by the Frank crusaders on the one

part, and the citizens of the Venetian republic on the other,

for the purpose of preventing disputes and preserving unity in

the expedition." The treaty further provided for the creation

of an Empire of Romania, to take the place of the Byzantine

Empire, and for the election of an Emperor to reign over it.

The arrangements of the treaty in this latter respect were

carried out, not long after the taking of the city by the

election of Baldwin, count of Flanders, the most esteemed and

the most popular among the princes of the crusade, and he

received the imperial crown of the new Empire of Romania at

the hands of the legate of the pope. "Measures were

immediately taken after the coronation of Baldwin to carry

into execution the act of partition as arranged by the joint

consent of the Frank and Venetian commissioners. But their

ignorance of geography, and the resistance offered by the

Greeks in Asia Minor, and by the Vallachians and Albanians in

Europe, threw innumerable difficulties in the way of the

proposed distribution of fiefs. The quarter of the Empire that

formed the portion of Baldwin consisted of the city of

Constantinople, with the country in its immediate vicinity, as

far as Bizya and Tzouroulos in Europe and Nicomedia in Asia.

Beyond the territory around Constantinople, Baldwin possessed

districts extending as far as the Strymon in Europe and the

Sangarins in Asia; but his possessions were intermingled with

those of the Venetians and the vassals of the Empire.

Prokonnesos, Lesbos, Chios, Lemnos, Skyros, and several

smaller islands, also fell to his share."

G. Finlay, History of Greece from its Conquest by

the Crusaders, chapter 4, section 1-2.

"In the division of the Greek provinces the share of the

Venetians was more ample than that of the Latin emperor. No

more than one fourth was appropriated to his domain; a clear

moiety of the remainder was reserved for Venice and the other

moiety was distributed among the adventurers of France and

Lombardy. The venerable Dandolo was proclaimed Despot of

Romania, and was invested, after the Greek fashion, with the

purple buskins. He ended at Constantinople his long and

glorious life; and if the prerogative was personal, the title

was used by his successors till the middle of the fourteenth

century, with the singular, though true, addition of 'Lords of

one fourth and a half of the Roman Empire.' ... They possessed

three of the eight quarters of the city. ... They had rashly

accepted the dominion and defence of Adrianople; but it was

the more reasonable aim of their policy to form a chain of

factories and cities and islands along the maritime coast,

from the neighbourhood of Ragnsa to the Hellespont and the

Bosphorus. ... For the price of 10,000 marks the republic

purchased of the marquis of Montferrat the fertile island of

Crete or Candia with the ruins of a hundred cities. ... In the

moiety of the adventurers the Marquis Boniface [of

Montferrat] might claim the most liberal reward; and, besides

the isle of Crete, his exclusion from the throne [for which he

had been a candidate against Baldwin of Flanders] was

compensated by the royal title and the provinces beyond the

Hellespont. But he prudently exchanged that distant and

difficult conquest for the kingdom of Thessalonica or

Macedonia, twelve days' journey from the capital, where he

might be supported by the neighbouring powers of his

brother-in-law, the king of Hungary. ... The lots of the Latin

pilgrims were regulated by chance or choice or subsequent

exchange. ... At the head of his knights and archers each

baron mounted on horseback to secure the possession of his

share, and their first efforts were generally successful. But

the public force was weakened by their dispersion; and a

thousand quarrels must arise under a law and among men whose

sole umpire was the sword."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 61.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

{342}

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.

The political shaping of the fragments.

See

ROMANIA.

THE EMPIRE;

GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA;

TREBIZOND;

EPIRUS:

NAXOS, THE MEDIÆVAL DUKEDOM

ACHAIA: A. D. 1205-1387:

ATHENS: A. D. 1205-1456:

SALONIKI.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1261-1453.

The Greek restoration.

Last struggle with the Turks and final overthrow.

The story of the shadowy restoration of a Greek Empire at

Constantinople, its last struggle with the Turks, and its fall

is told elsewhere.

See CONSTANTINOPLE, A. D. 1261-1453,

"From the hour of her foundation to that in which her sun

finally sank in blood, Christian Constantinople was engaged in

constant struggles against successive hordes of barbarians.

She did not always triumph in the strife, but, even when she

was beaten she did not succumb, but carried on the contest

still; and the fact that she was able to do so is alone a

sufficing proof of the strength and vitality of her

organization. ... Of the seventy-six emperors and five

empresses who occupied the Byzantine throne, 15 were put to

death, 7 were blinded or otherwise mutilated, 4 were deposed

and imprisoned in monasteries, and 10 were compelled to

abdicate. This list, comprising nearly half of the whole

number, is sufficient indication of the horrors by which the

history of the empire is only too often marked, and it may be

frankly admitted that these dark stains, disfiguring pages

which but for them would be bright with the things which were

beautiful and glorious, go some way to excuse, if not to

justify, the obloquy which Western writers have been so prone

to cast upon the East. But it is not by considering the evil

only, any more than the good only, that it is possible to form

a just judgment upon an historic epoch. To judge the Byzantine

Empire only by the crimes which defiled the palace would be as

unjust as if the French people were to be estimated by nothing

but the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, the Reign of Terror, and

the Commune of 1871. The dynastic crimes and revolutions of

New Rome were not a constant feature in her history. On the

contrary, the times of trouble and anarchy were episodes

between long periods of peace. They arose either from quarrels

in the imperial family itself, which degraded the dignity of

the crown, or from the contentions of pretenders struggling

among themselves till one or other had worsted his rivals and

was able to become the founder of a long dynasty. ... The most

deplorable epoch in the history of the Byzantine Empire, the

period in which assassination and mutilation most abounded,

was that in which it was exposed to the influence of the

Crusaders, and thus brought into contact with Western Europe.

... The Byzantine people, although in every respect the

superiors of their contemporaries, were unable entirely to

escape the influence of their neighborhood. As the guardians

of classical civilization, they strove to keep above the

deluge of barbarism by which the rest of the world was then

inundated. But it was a flood whose waters prevailed

exceedingly upon the earth, and sometimes all the high hills

were covered, even where might have rested the ark in which

the traditions of ancient culture were being preserved. ...

The Byzantine Empire was predestinated to perform in especial

one great work in human history. That work was to preserve

civilization during the period of barbarism which we call the

Middle Ages. ... Constantinople fell, and the whole Hellenic

world passed into Turkish slavery. Western Europe looked on

with unconcern at the appalling catastrophe. It was in vain

that the last of the Palaiologoi cried to them for help.

'Christendom,' says Gibbon, 'beheld with indifference the fall

of Constantinople,' ... Up to her last hour she had never

ceased, for more than a thousand years, to fight. In the

fourth century she fought the Goths; in the fifth, the Huns

and Vandals; in the sixth, the Slavs; in the seventh, the

Persians, the Avars, and the Arabs; in the eighth, ninth, and

tenth, the Bulgars, the Magyars, and the Russians; in the

eleventh, the Koumanoi, the Petzenegoi, and the Seljoukian

Turks; in the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth,

the Ottomans, the Normans, the Crusaders, the Venetians, and

the Genoese. No wonder that at last she fell exhausted. The

wonder is, how she could keep herself alive so long. But it

was by this long battle that she succeeded in saving from

destruction, amid the universal cataclysm which overwhelmed

the classical world, the civilization of the ancients,

modified by the Christian religion. The moral and intellectual

development of modern Europe are owing to the Byzantine

Empire, if it be true that this development is the common

offspring of antiquity upon the one hand and of Christianity

upon the other."

Demetrios Bikelas,

The Byzantine Empire (Scottish Review, volume 8, 1886).

----------BYZANTINE EMPIRE: End----------

BYZANTIUM,

Beginnings of.

The ancient Greek city of Byzantium, which occupied part of

the site of the modern city of Constantinople, was founded,

according to tradition, by Megarians, in the seventh century

B. C. Its situation on the Bosphorus enabled the possessors of

the city to control the important corn supply which came from

the Euxine, while its tunny fisheries were renowned sources of

wealth. It was to the latter that the bay called the Golden

Horn was said to owe its name. The Persians, the

Lacedæmonians, the Athenians and the Macedonians were

successive masters of Byzantium, before the Roman day, Athens

and Sparta having taken and retaken the city from one another

many times during their wars.

BYZANTIUM: B. C. 478.

Taken by the Greeks from the Persians.

See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.

BYZANTIUM: B. C. 440.

Unsuccessful revolt against Athens.

See ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.

BYZANTIUM: B. C. 408.

Revolt and reduction by the Athenians.

See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.

BYZANTIUM: B. C. 340.

Unsuccessful siege by Philip of Macedon.

See GREECE: B. C. 340.

BYZANTIUM: B. C. 336.

Alliance with Alexander the Great.

See GREECE: B. C. 336-335.

BYZANTIUM: A. D. 194.

Siege by Severus.

See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

BYZANTIUM: A. D. 267.

Capture by the Goths.

See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

BYZANTIUM: A. D. 323.

Siege by Constantine.

See ROME: A. D. 305-323.

BYZANTIUM: A. D. 330.

Transformed into Constantinople.

See CONSTANTINOPLE.

{343}

C.

ÇA IRA:

The origin of the cry and the song.

"When the news of the disastrous retreat [of Washington, in

1776] through the Jerseys and the miseries of Valley Forge

reached France, many good friends to America began to think

that now indeed all was lost. But, the stout heart of Franklin

never flinched. 'This is indeed bad news,' said he, 'but ça

ira, ça ira [literally, 'this will go, this will go'], it will

all come right in the end.' Old diplomats and courtiers,

amazed at his confidence, passed about his cheering words.

They were taken up by the newspapers; they were remembered by

the people, and, in the dark days of the French Revolution,

were repeated over and over again on every side, and made the

subject of a stirring song which, till the Marseillaise Hymn

appeared, had no equal in France."

J. B. McMaster, History of the People of the

U. S., volume 2, page 89.

L. Rosenthal, America and France, page 263.

"The original words (afterward much changed) were by Ladré, a

street singer; and the music was a popular dance tune of the

time composed by Bécourt, a drummer of the Grand Opera."

Century Dictionary.

"The original name of the tune to which the words were written

is 'Le Carillon National,' and it is a remarkable circumstance

that it was a great favourite with the unfortunate Marie

Antoinette, who used to play it on the harpsichord."

J. Oxenford, Book of French Songs

(note to "Ça ira").

CAABA AT MECCA, The.

"An Arab legend asserts that this famous temple was erected by

Abraham and his son Ishmael with the aid of the angel Gabriel.

Mahomet lent his authority to the legend and devoted to it

several chapters in the Koran, and thus it became one of the

Mussulman articles of faith. Even before the introduction of

Islamism this story was current through a great part of Arabia

and spread abroad in proportion as the Ishmaelitish tribes

gained ground. ... This temple, whose name 'square house'

indicates its form, is still preserved. It was very small and

of very rude construction. It was not till comparatively

recent times that it had a door with a lock. ... For a long

time the sole sacred object it contained was the celebrated

black stone hadjarel-aswad, an aerolite, which is still the

object of Mussulman veneration. ... We have already mentioned

Hobal, the first anthropomorphic idol, placed in the Caaba.

This example was soon copied. ... The Caaba thus became a sort

of Arabian Pantheon, and even the Virgin Mary, with her child

on her knees, eventually found a place there."

F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History of the

East, book 7, chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

Sir W. Muir, Life of Mahomet, chapter 2.

CABAL, The.

See CABINET, THE ENGLISH;

also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1671.

CABALA, The.

"The term Cabala is usually applied to that wild system of

Oriental philosophy which was introduced, it is uncertain at

what period, into the Jewish schools: in a wider sense it

comprehended all the decisions of the Rabbinical courts or

schools, whether on religious or civil points."

H. H. Milman, History of the Jews, volume 2, book 18.

"The philosophic Cabala aspired to be a more sublime and

transcendental Rabbinism. It was a mystery not exclusive of,

but above their more common mysteries; a secret more profound

than their profoundest secrets. It claimed the same guaranty

of antiquity, of revelation, of tradition; it was the true,

occult, to few intelligible sense of the sacred writings and

of the sayings of the most renowned Wise Men; the inward

interpretation of the genuine interpretation of the Law and

the Prophets. Men went on; they advanced, they rose from the

most full and perfect study of the Talmuds to the higher

doctrines, to the more divine contemplations of the Cabala.

And the Zohar was the Book of the Cabala which soared almost

above the comprehension of the wisest. ... In its traditional,

no doubt unwritten form, the Cabala, at least a Cabala,

ascends to a very early date, the Captivity; in its proper and

more mature form, it belongs to the first century, and reaches

down to the end of the seventh century of our era. The Sepher

Yetzira, the Book of Creation, which boasts itself to be

derived from Moses, from Abraham, if not from Adam, or even

aspires higher, belongs to the earlier period; the Zohar, the

Light, to the later. The remote origin of the Cabala belongs

to that period when the Jewish mind, during the Captivity,

became so deeply impregnated with Oriental notions, those of

the Persian or Zoroastrian religion. Some of the first

principles of the Cabala, as well as many of the tenets, still

more of the superstitions, of the Talmud, coincide so exactly

with the Zendavesta ... as to leave no doubt of their kindred

and affiliation."

H. H. Milman, History of the Jews, book 30.

CABILDO. The.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1769.

CABINET, The American.

"There is in the government of the United States no such thing

as a Cabinet in the English sense of the term. But I use the

term, not only because it is current in America to describe

the chief ministers of the President, but also because it

calls attention to the remarkable difference which exists

between the great officers of State in America and the similar

officers in the free countries of Europe. Almost the only

reference in the Constitution to the ministers of the

President is that contained in the power given him to require

the opinion in writing of the principal officer in each of the

executive departments upon any subject relating to the duties

of their respective offices.' All these departments have been

created by Acts of Congress. Washington began in 1789 with

four only, at the head of whom were the following four

officials: Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury,

Secretary of War, Attorney General. In 1798 there was added a

Secretary of the Navy, in 1829 a Postmaster General, and in

1849 a Secretary of the Interior. ... Each receives a salary

of $8,000 (£1,600). All are appointed by the President,

subject to the consent of the Senate (which is practically

never refused), and may be removed by the President alone.

Nothing marks them off from any other officials who might be

placed in charge of a department, except that they are

summoned by the President to his private council. None of them

can vote in Congress, Art. XI., §6 of the Constitution

providing that 'no person holding any office under the United

States shall be a member of either House during his

continuance in office.'"

J. Bryce, The American Commonwealth, chapter 9.

{344}

"In 1862 a separate Department of Agriculture was

established. ... In 1889 the head of the Department became

Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and a Cabinet

officer. A Bureau of Labor under the Interior Department was

created in 1884. In 1888 Congress constituted it a separate

department, but did not make its head a Secretary, and

therefore not a Cabinet officer." There are now (1891) eight

heads of departments who constitute the President's Cabinet.

W. W. and W. F. Willoughby, Government and

Administration of the United States (Johns Hopkins

University Studies, series IX., numbers. 1-2), chapter 10.

CABINET, The English.

"Few things in our history are more curious than the origin

and growth of the power now possessed by the Cabinet. From an

early period the Kings of England had been assisted by a Privy

Council to which the law assigned many important functions and

duties (see PRIVY COUNCIL). During several centuries this body

deliberated on the gravest and most delicate affairs. But by

degrees its character changed. It became too large for

despatch and secrecy. The rank of Privy Councillor was often

bestowed as an honorary distinction on persons to whom nothing

was confided, and whose opinion was never asked. The

sovereign, on the most important occasions, resorted for

advice to a small knot of leading ministers. The advantages

and disadvantages of this course were early pointed out by

Bacon, with his usual judgment and sagacity: but it was not

till after the Restoration that the interior council began to

attract general notice. During many years old fashioned

politicians continued to regard the Cabinet as an

unconstitutional and dangerous board. Nevertheless, it

constantly became more and more important. It at length drew

to itself the chief executive power, and has now been

regarded, during several generations, as an essential part of

our polity. Yet, strange to say, it still continues to be

altogether unknown to the law. The names of the noblemen and

gentlemen who compose it are never officially announced to the

public. No record is kept of its meetings and resolutions; nor

has its existence ever been recognized by any Act of

Parliament. During some years the word Cabal was popularly

used as synonymous with Cabinet. But it happened by a

whimsical coincidence that, in 1671, the Cabinet consisted of

five persons the initial letters of whose names made up the

word Cabal, Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley, and

Lauderdale. These ministers were therefore emphatically called

the Cabal; and they soon made that appellation so infamous

that it has never since their time been used except as a term

of reproach."

Lord Macaulay, History of England, chapter 2.

"Walpole's work, ... the effect of his policy, when it was

finally carried through, was to establish the Cabinet on a

definite footing, as the seat and centre of the executive

government, to maintain the executive in the closest relation

with the legislature, to govern through the legislature, and

to transfer the power and authority of the Crown to the House

of Commons. Some writers have held that the first Ministry in

the modern sense was that combination of Whigs whom William

called to aid him in government in 1695. Others contend that

the second administration of Lord Rockingham, which came into

power in 1782, after the triumph of the American colonists,

the fall of Lord North, and the defeat of George III., was the

earliest Ministry of the type of to-day. At whatever date we

choose first to see all the decisive marks of that remarkable

system which combines unity, steadfastness, and initiative in

the executive, with the possession of supreme authority alike

over men and measures by the House of Commons, it is certain

that it was under Walpole that its ruling principles were

first fixed in parliamentary government, and that the Cabinet

system received the impression that it bears in our own time.

... Perhaps the most important of all the distinctions between

the Cabinet in its rudimentary stage at the beginning of the

century and its later practice, remains to be noticed. Queen

Anne held a Cabinet every Sunday, at which she was herself

present, just as we have seen that she was present at debates

in the House of Lords. With a doubtful exception in the time

of George III., no sovereign has been present at a meeting of

the Cabinet since Anne. ... This vital change was probably due

to the accident that Anne's successor did not understand the

language in which its deliberations were carried on. The

withdrawal of the sovereign from Cabinet Councils was

essential to the momentous change which has transferred the

whole substance of authority and power from the Crown, to a

committee chosen by one member of the two Houses of

Parliament, from among other members. ... The Prime Minister

is the keystone of the Cabinet arch. Although in Cabinet all

its members stand on an equal footing, speak with equal voice,

and, on the rare occasions when a division is taken, are

counted on the fraternal principle of one man, one vote, yet

the head of the Cabinet is 'primus inter pares,' and occupies

a position which, so long as it lasts, is one of exceptional

and peculiar authority. It is true that he is in form chosen

by the Crown, but in practice the choice of the Crown is

pretty strictly confined to the man who is designated by the

acclamation of a party majority. ... The Prime Minister, once

appointed, chooses his own colleagues, and assigns them to

their respective offices. ... The flexibility of the Cabinet

system allows the Prime Minister in an emergency to take upon

himself a power not inferior to that of a dictator, provided

always that the House of Commons will stand by him. In

ordinary circumstances, he leaves the heads of departments to

do their own work in their own way. ... Just as the Cabinet

has been described as being the regulator of relations between

Queen, Lords and Commons, so is the Prime Minister the

regulator of relations between the Queen and her servants. ...

Walpole was in practice able to invest himself with more of

the functions and powers of a Prime Minister than any of his

successors, and yet was compelled by the feeling of the time

earnestly and profusely to repudiate both the name and title,

and everyone of the pretensions that it involves. The earliest

instance in which I have found, the head of the government

designated as the Premier is in a letter to the Duke of

Newcastle from the Duke of Cumberland in 1746."

J. Morley, Walpole, chapter 7.

"In theory the Cabinet is nothing but a committee of the Privy

Council, yet with the Council it has in reality no dealings;

and thus the extraordinary result has taken place, that the

Government of England is in the hands of men whose position is

legally undefined: that while the Cabinet is a word of

every-day use, no lawyer can say what a Cabinet is: that while

no ordinary Englishman knows who the Lords of the Council are,

the Church of England prays, Sunday by Sunday, that these

Lords may be 'endued with wisdom and understanding'! that

while the collective responsibility of Ministers is a doctrine

appealed to by members of the Government, no less than by

their opponents, it is more than doubtful whether such

responsibility could be enforced by any legal penalties: that,

to sum up this catalogue of contradictions, the Privy Council

has the same political powers which it had when Henry VIII.

ascended the throne, whilst it is in reality composed of

persons many of whom never have taken part or wished to take

part in the contests of political life."

A. V. Dicey. The Privy Council, page 143.

{345}

CABINET, The Kitchen.

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

CABOCHIENS, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415.

CABOT, John and Sebastian.

American Discoveries.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1497, and 1498.

CABUL: A. D. 1840-1841.

Occupation by the British.

Successful native rising.

Retreat and destruction of the British army.

See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1838-1842.

CABUL: A. D. 1878-1880.

Murder of Major Cavagnari, the British Resident.

Second occupation by the English.

See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

----------CABUL: End----------

CACIQUE.

"Cacique, lord of vassals, was the name by which the natives

of Cuba, designated their chiefs. Learning this, the

conquerors applied the name generally to the rulers of wild

tribes, although in none of the dialects of the continent is

the word found."

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,

volume 1, page 210, foot-note.

CADDOAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY;

also, TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

CADE'S REBELLION.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1450.

CADESIA (KADISIYEH), Battle of.

This was the first of the decisive series of battles in which

the Arab followers of Mohammed effected the overthrow of the

Persian Empire (the Sassannian) and the conquest of its

dominions. It was desperately fought, A. D. 636, under the

walls of the fortified town of Cadesia (Kadisiyeh in the

Arabic) situated near the Sea of Nedjef, between the Euphrates

and the Arabian desert. The Persians numbered 120,000 men,

under Rustam, their best general. The Arabs were but 30,000

strong at first, but were reinforced the second day. They were

commanded by Sa'ad and led by the redoubtable Kaled. The

battle was obstinately prolonged through four days, but ended

in the complete rout of the Persians and the death of Rustam,

with 40,000 of his men.

G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 26.

See, also, MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-651.

CADIZ: Origin.

See UTICA, and GADES.

CADIZ: A. D. 1596.

Taken and sacked by the English and Dutch.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1596.

CADIZ: A. D. 1702.

Abortive English and Dutch expedition against.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1702.

CADIZ: A. D. 1810-1811.

Siege by the French.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1812.

CADIZ: A. D. 1823.

Siege, bombardment and capture by the French.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

CADMEA (KADMEIA), The.

See GREECE: B. C. 383.

CADMEANS, OR KADMEIANS.

See BŒOTIA.

CADURCI, The.

The Cadurci were one of the tribes of ancient Gaul whose chief

place was Divona, now Cahors on the Lot.

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

CADUSIANS, The.

An ancient people so-called by the Greeks, whose territory was

on the south-western border of the Caspian Sea,--the district

of modern Persians called Ghilan or Ghulan. Their native name

was "Gaels."

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 8, chapter 1.

CADWALLON, Death of.

See HEVENFIELD, BATTLE OF THE.

CÆLLAN HILL, The.

See SEVEN HILLS OF ROME.

CAERLAVEROCK, Siege of.

A famous siege and reduction of the Scottish castle of

Caerlaverock, in Dumfriesshire, by Edward I. A. D. 1300.

CAERLEON.

"Caer," like the "Ceaster" of the Saxons, is a corruption by

Celtic tongues of the Roman "Castrum." "In memory of the

second legion, which had been so long established at the

Silurian Isca, they [the Welsh] gave to the ruins of that city

the name of Caer-Legion, the city of the legion, now softened

to Caerleon."

T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.

CÆSAR, JULIUS, Career and death of.

See ROME: B. C. 69-63, to 44;

GAUL: B. C. 58-51;

and BRITAIN: B. C. 55-54.

CÆSAR, The title.

"Octavius was the adopted heir of Julius Cæsar; from the

moment of his adoption the surname Cæsar became appropriated

to him, and it was by this name accordingly that he was most

familiarly known to his own contemporaries. Modern writers for

the sake of distinction have agreed for the most part to

confine this illustrious title to the first of the Cæsarian

dynasty; but we should doubtless gain a clearer conception of

the gradual process by which the idea of a dynastic succession

fixed itself in the minds of the Romans, if we followed their

own practice in this particular, and applied the name of

Cæsar, not to Augustus only, but also to his adopted son

Tiberius, to the scions of the same lineage who succeeded him,

and even to those of later and independent dynasties. As late

indeed as the reign of Diocletian, the Roman monarch was still

eminently the Cæsar. It was not till the close of the third

century of our era that that illustrious title was deposed

from its preeminence, and restricted to a secondary and

deputed authority. Its older use was however revived and

perpetuated, though less exclusively, through the declining

ages of the empire, and has survived with perhaps unbroken

continuity even to our own days. The Austrian Kaiser still

retains the name, though he has renounced the succession, of

the Cæsars of Rome, while the Czar of Muscovy pretends to

derive his national designation by direct inheritance from the

Cæsars of Byzantium."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 31.

See, also, ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.

CÆSAR-AUGUSTA.

One of the fortified posts established in Spain by the Emperor

Augustus, B. C. 27, and in which the veterans of the legions

were settled. The place and its name (corrupted) survive in

modern Saragossa.

C. Merivale, History of the Roman, chapter 34.

{346}

CÆSAREA IN CAPPADOCIA: Origin.

See MAZACA.

CÆSAREA IN CAPPADOCIA: A. D. 260.

Capture, massacre and pillage by Sapor, king of Persia.

See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

CÆSAREA IN PALESTINE: Massacre of Jews.

See JEWS: A. D. 66-70.

CÆSAREA IN PALESTINE: The Church in.

See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 100-312.

CÆSAROMAGUS IN BRITAIN.

A Roman town identified, generally, with modern Chelmsford.

T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.

CÆSAROMAGUS IN GAUL.

Modern Beauvais.

See BELGÆ.

CÆSARS, The Twelve.

See ROME: A. D. 68-96.

CÆSAR'S TOWER.

See TOWER OF LONDON.

CAFFA.

See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

CAHORS:

Origin.

See CADURCI.

CAHORS: A. D. 1580.

Siege and capture by Henry of Navarre.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1578-1580.

CAIRN.

See BARROW.

CAIRO: A. D. 641.

Origin.

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

CAIRO: A. D. 967-1171.

Capital of the Fatimite Caliphs.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 908-1171.

CAIRO: A. D. 1517.

Capture, sack and massacre by the Ottoman Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

CAIRO: A. D. 1798.

Occupied by the French under Bonaparte.

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

CAIRO: A. D. 1800.

Revolt suppressed by the French.

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

CAIRO: A. D. 1801-1802.

Surrender to the English.

Restoration to Turkey.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

CAIRO: A. D. 1805-1811.

Massacres of the Mamelukes.

See EGYPT: A. D. 1803-1811.

CAIRO: A. D. 1879-1883.

Revolt against the Khedive and the foreign control.

Occupation by the British.

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

----------CAIRO: End----------

CAIROAN.

See KAIRWAN.

CAIUS, called Caligula,

Roman Emperor, A. D. 37-41.

CAKCHIQUELS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: QUICHES, and MAYAS.

CALABRIA:

Transfer of the name.

"After the loss of the true Calabria [to the Lombards] the

vanity of the Greeks substituted that name instead of the more

ignoble appellation of Bruttium; and the change appears to

have taken place before the time of Charlemagne."

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

chapter 45; note.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

CALABRIA: A. D. 1080.

Norman duchy.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1000-1090.

----------CALABRIA: End----------

CALAIS: A. D. 1346-1347.

Siege and capture by Edward III.

Immediately after his great victory won at Creci, the English

king, Edward III. laid siege to the strong city of Calais. He

built a town of huts round the city, "which he called 'Newtown

the Bold,' and laid it out with a market, regular streets and

shops, and all the necessary accommodation for an army, and

hither were carried in vast stores of victuals and other

necessaries, obtained by ravaging the country round and by

shipment from England." Calais held out for a year, and

angered the king so by its obstinacy that when, in August,

1347, starvation forced its people to surrender, he required

that six of the chief burgesses should be given up to him,

with halters round their necks, for execution. Eustache St.

Pierre and five others nobly offered themselves for the

sacrifice, and it was only by the weeping intercession of

Queen Philippa that Edward was induced to spare their lives.

He expelled all the inhabitants who refused to take an oath of

fealty to him and repeopled the town with Englishmen.

W. Warburton, Edward III., Second Decade, chapter 3.

See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360.

CALAIS: A. D. 1348.

The Staple for English trade.

See STAPLE.

CALAIS: A. D. 1558.

Recovery from the English by France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

CALAIS: A. D. 1564.

Final surrender of English claims.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1564.

CALAIS: A. D. 1596-1598.

Surprise and capture by the Spaniards.

Restoration to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

----------CALAIS: End----------

CALATRAVA AND SANTIAGO, Knights of.

"It was to repress the never-ceasing incursions of the

Mohammedans, as well as to return these incursions with

interest, that, in the time of Fernando [Fernando II. of the

early Spanish kingdom of Leon], two military orders, those of

Calatrava and Santiago [or St. Jago--or St. James of

Compostella], were instituted. The origin of the former order

was owing to the devotion of two Cistercian monks; St.

Raymond, abbot of Fitero, and his companion, the friar Diego

Velasquez. These intrepid men, who had both borne arms

previous to their monastic profession, indignant at the

cowardice of the Templars, who resigned into the king of

Castile's hands the fortress of Calatrava, which had been

confided to their defense by the emperor Alfonso, proposed, in

1158, to the regency of that kingdom, to preserve that

position against the assailants. The proposal was readily

accepted. The preaching of the warlike abbot was so

efficacious, that in a short time he assembled 20,000 men,

whom he conducted to Calatrava, and among whom were not a few

of his own monks. There he drew up the institutions of the

order, which took its name from the place, and which in its

religious government long followed the Cistercian rule, and

wore the same monastic habit,--a white robe and scapulary. [By

pope Benedict XIII. the habit was dispensed with, and the

knights allowed to marry 'once.'--Foot-note.] The other

order commenced in 1161. Some robbers of Leon, touched with

their past enormities, resolved to make reparation for them,

by defending the frontiers against the incursions of the

Mohammedans. Don Pedro Fernandez--if the 'don' has not been

added to give something like respectability to the origin--was

the chief founder of the order. He engaged the brethren to

assume the rule of St. Augustine, in addition to the ordinary

obligations of knighthood. His military and monastic

fraternity was approved by king Fernando; at whose suggestion

the knights chose Santiago as their patron, whose bloody

sword, in form of a cross, became their professional symbol.

These two orders were richly endowed by successive kings of

Leon and Castile, until their possessions became immense."

S. A. Dunham, History of Spain and Portugal, book 3,

section 2, chapter 1, division. 2.

{347}

In 1396 the knights of the order of St. James of Compostella

"received permission to marry. In 1493, the Grand Mastership

was united to the crown of Spain." In 1523 the right of

nomination to the Grand Mastership of the Order of Calatrava

was transferred from the Pope to the crown of Spain, "and

since that time the order has gradually merged into a court

institution. The state dress is a white robe, with a red cross

on the left breast. The permission to marry has been enjoyed

since 1540."

F. C. Woodhouse, Military Religious Orders, part 4.

CALAURIA,

Confederation of.

A naval confederation, formed at a very early period of Greek

history, by the seven maritime cities of Orchomenus, Athens,

Ægina, Epidaurus, Hermione, Prasiæ and Nauplia against the

kings of Argos. The island of Calauria, off the eastern point

of Argolis, was the center of the confederacy.

E. Curtius, History of Greece, V. 1, book 1, chapter 3.

CALCINATO, Battle of (1706).

See ITALY (SAVOY AND PIEDMONT): A. D. 1701-1713.

CALCUTTA: A. D. 1698.

The founding of the city.

See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

CALCUTTA: A. D. 1756.

Capture by Surajah Dowlah.

The tragedy of the Black Hole.

See INDIA: A. D. 1755-1757.

----------CALCUTTA: End----------

CALDERON, Battle of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.

CALEDONIA, The name.

See SCOTLAND, THE NAME.

CALEDONIA,

Ancient Tribes.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CALEDONIA,

Wars of the Romans.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.

----------CALEDONIA: End----------

CALEDONIA SYLVA.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CALEDONII, The.

One of the wild tribes which occupied the Highlands of

Scotland when the Romans held Britain, and whose name they

gave finally to all the Highland tribes and to that part of

the island.

W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, volume 1.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CALENDAR, The French Republican.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).

CALENDAR,

Gregorian.

Gregorian Era.

"This was a correction and improvement of the Julian [see

CALENDAR, JULIAN]. It was discovered at length, by more

accurate astronomical observations, that the true solar or

tropical year was 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 57

seconds; whence it fell short of the Julian or Egyptian

computation of 365 days and 6 hours by an interval of 11

minutes, 3 seconds, . . . which, in the course of 130 years,

amounted to a whole day. At the end of 130 years, therefore,

the tropical year began a day earlier than the civil, or fell

back a day behind it. . . . In the time of Pope Gregory XIII.,

A. D. 1582, . . . the [vernal] equinox was found to be on the

11th of March, having fallen back ten days. In order,

therefore, to bring it forward to its former place of the

21st, he left out ten days in October, calling the 5th the

15th day of that month. Whence in that year of confusion, the

22d day of December became the first of January, A. D. 1583,

which was the first year of the Gregorian Era. In making this

correction, he was principally assisted by the celebrated

mathematician Clavius. But to prevent the repetition of this

error in future, a further reformation of the Julian Calendar

was wanting. Because the vernal equinox fell backwards three

days in the course of 390 years, Gregory, chiefly by the

assistance of Aloysius Lillius, decreed that three days should

be omitted in every four centuries: namely, that every first,

second and third centurial year, which would otherwise be

bissextile, should be a common year; but that every fourth

centurial year should remain bissextile. Thus, the years A. D.

1700, 1800, 1900, and 2100, 2200, 2300, were to be common

years; but A. D. 1600, 2000, 2400, to remain leap years. By

this ingenious reform, the Julian Calendar is rendered

sufficiently accurate for all the purposes of chronology, and

even of astronomy, for 6000 years to come. ... The Gregorian

or reformed Julian year was not adopted in England until A. D.

1751, when, the deficiency from the time of the Council of

Nice then amounting to eleven days, this number was struck out

of the month of September, by Act of Parliament; and the 3d

day was counted the 14th, in that year of confusion. The next

year A. D. 1752, was the first of the new style, beginning

January 1, instead of March 25."

W. Hales, New Analysis of Chronology, V. 1, book I.

The change from Old Style, as the Julian Calendar, and dates

according with it, now came to be called to New Style, or the

reformed, Gregorian Calendar, was made in Spain, Portugal,

part of Italy, part of the Netherlands, France, Denmark, and

Lorraine, in A. D. 1582; in Poland in 1586; in Hungary in 1587;

in Catholic Switzerland in 1583; in Catholic Germany in 1584;

in most parts of Protestant Germany, and Switzerland in 1700

and 1701, and, lastly, in England, in 1751. In Russia, Greece,

and the East generally, the Old Style is still retained.

Sir H. Nicolas, Chronology of History.

CALENDAR,

Julian.

Julian Era.

"The epoch of the Julian Era, which precedes the common or

Christian Era by forty-five years, is the reformation of the

Roman calendar by Julius Cæsar, who ordained that the Year of

Rome 707 should consist of 15 months, forming altogether 445

days; that the ensuing year, 708, should be composed of 365

days; and that every fourth year should contain 366 days, the

additional day being introduced after the 6th of the calends

of March, i. e., the 24th of February, which year he called

Bissextile, because the 6th of the calends of March were then

doubled. Julius Cæsar also divided the months into the number

of days which they at present contain. The Roman calendar,

which was divided into calends, nones and ides, was used in

most public instruments throughout Europe for many centuries.

... The calend is the 1st day of each month. The ides were

eight days in each month: in March, May, July and October the

ides commence on the 15th, and in all other months on the 13th

day. The nones are the 5th day of each month, excepting in

March, May, July and October, when the nones fall on the 7th

day. The days of the month were reckoned backwards instead of

forwards: thus, the 3d calends of February is the 30th of

January; the 4th calends of February the 29th January. ...

Excepting July and August, which were named after Julius and

Augustus Cæsar, having been called Quintilis and Sextilis, the

Roman months bore their present names.

{348}

An error prevailed for 37 years after the death of Julius

Cæsar, from reckoning every third instead of every fourth year

a bissextile, or leap year, as if the year contained 365 days,

8 hours. When this mistake was detected, thirteen

intercalations had occurred instead of ten, and the year

consequently began three days too late: the calendar was,

therefore, again corrected, and it was ordered that each of

the ensuing twelve years should contain 365 days only, and

that there should not be any leap year until A. U. C. 760 or

A. D. 7. From that time the years have been calculated without

mistakes, and the Roman year has been adopted by all Christian

nations, though about the sixth century they began to date

from the birth of our Saviour."

Sir H. Nicolas, Chronology of History, page 4.

"It might naturally have been expected that Julius Cæsar would

have so ordered his reformed solar year, as to begin on the

day of the winter solstice, which, in the 'Year of Confusion'

[i. e., the year in which the error of the calendar was

corrected] was supposed to fall on Dec. 25. But he chose to

begin his new year on the first of January following, because

on that day the moon was new, or in conjunction with the sun,

at 7 hours, 6 minutes and 35 seconds after noon. By this means

he began his year on a most high or holy day among the ancient

Druids, with whose usages he was well acquainted, and also

made his new year the first of a lunar cycle."

T. Hales, New Analysis of Chronology, volume 1, book 1.

ALSO IN:

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 20.

For an account of the subsequent correction of the Julian

calendar, see CALENDAR, GREGORIAN

CALENDS.

See CALENDAR, JULIAN.

CALETI, The.

See BELGÆ.

CALHOUN, John C.,

And the War of 1812.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1812.

CALHOUN, John C.

And the Nullification Movement.

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

CALIFORNIA:

The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY, and MODOCS AND

THEIR CALIFORNIA NEIGHBORS.

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1543-1781.

Origin of the name.

Early Spanish exploration and settlement.

The founding of the Franciscan missions.

"The settlements of the Spanish missionaries within the

present limits of the State of California date from the first

foundation of San Diego in 1769. The missions that were later

founded north of San Diego were, with the original

establishment itself, for a time known merely by some

collective name, such as the Northern Missions. But later the

name California, already long since applied to the country of

the peninsular missions to the Southward, was extended to the

new land, with various prefixes or qualifying phrases; and out

of these the definitive name Alta [or Upper] California at

last came, being applied to our present country during the

whole period of the Mexican Republican ownership. As to the

origin of the name California, no serious question remains

that this name, as first applied, between 1535 and 1539 to a

portion of Lower California, was derived from an old printed

romance, the one which Mr. Edward Everett Hale rediscovered in

1862, and from which he drew this now accepted conclusion.

For, in this romance, the name California was already before

1520 applied to a fabulous island, described as near the

Indies and also 'very near the Terrestrial Paradise.'

Colonists whom Cortes brought to the newly discovered

peninsula in 1535, and who returned the next year, may have

been the first to apply the name to this supposed island, on

which they had been for a time resident. The coast of Upper

California was first visited during the voyage of the explorer

Juan Cabrillo in 1542-43. Several landings were then made on

the coast and on the islands, in the Santa Barbara region. ...

In 1579 Drake's famous visit took place [see AMERICA: A. D.

1572-1580]. ... It is ... almost perfectly sure that he did

not enter or observe the Golden Gate, and that he got no sort

of idea of the existence of the Great Bay. ... This result of

the examination of the evidence about Drake's voyage is now

fairly well accepted, although some people will always try to

insist that Drake discovered our Bay of San Francisco. The

name San Francisco was probably applied to a port on this

coast for the first time by Cermeñon, who, in a voyage from

the Philippines in 1595 ran ashore, while exploring the coast

near Point Reyes. It is now, however, perfectly sure that

neither he nor any other Spanish navigator before 1769 applied

this name to our present bay, which remained utterly unknown

to Europeans during all this period. ... In 1602-3, Sebastian

Vizcaino conducted a Spanish exploring expedition along the

California coast. ... From this voyage a little more knowledge

of the character of the coast was gained; and thenceforth

geographical researches in the region of California ceased for

over a century and a half. With only this meagre result we

reach the era of the first settlement of Upper California. The

missions of the peninsula of Lower California passed, in 1767,

by the expulsion of the Jesuits, into the hands of the

Franciscans; and the Spanish government, whose attention was

attracted in this direction by the changed conditions, ordered

the immediate prosecution of a long-cherished plan to provide

the Manilla ships, on their return voyage, with good ports of

supply and repairs, and to occupy the northwest land as a

safeguard against Russian or other aggressions. ... Thus began

the career of Spanish discovery and settlement in California.

The early years show a generally rapid progress, only one

great disaster occurring,--the destruction of San Diego

Mission in 1775, by assailing Indians. But this loss was

quickly repaired. In 1770 the Mission of San Carlos was

founded at Monterey. In 1772, a land expedition, under Fages

and Crespi, first explored the eastern shore of our San

Francisco Bay, in an effort to reach by land the old Port of

San Francisco. ... After 1775, the old name began to be

generally applied to the new Bay, and so, thenceforth, the

name Port of San Francisco means what we now mean thereby. In

1775, Lieutenant Ayala entered the new harbor by water. In the

following year the Mission at San Francisco was founded, and

in October its church was dedicated. Not only missions,

however, but pueblos, inhabited by Spanish colonists, lay in

the official plan of the new undertakings. The first of these

to be established was San Jose, founded in November, 1777. The

next was Los Angeles, founded in September, 1781."

J. Royce, California, chapter 1, section 2.

ALSO IN:

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 13

(California, volume l).

F. W. Blackmar, Spanish Institutions of the Southwest,

chapters 5-15.

{349}

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847.

The American conquest and its unexplained preludes.

"Early in 1846, the Americans in California numbered about

200, mostly able-bodied men, and who in their activity,

enterprise, and audacity, constituted quite a formidable

element in this sparsely inhabited region. The population of

California at this time was 6,000 Mexicans and 200,000

Indians. We now come to a period in the history of California

that has never been made clear, and respecting which there are

conflicting statements and opinions. The following facts were

obtained by careful inquiry of intelligent parties who lived

in California during the period mentioned, and who

participated in the scenes narrated. The native Californians

appear to have entertained no very strong affection for their

own government, or, rather, they felt that under the

influences at work they would inevitably, and at no very

distant period, become a dismembered branch of the Mexican

nation; and the matter was finally narrowed down to this

contested point, namely, whether this state surgery should be

performed by Americans or English, the real struggle being

between these two nationalities. In the northern part of the

territory, such native Californians as the Vallejos, Castros,

etc., with the old American settlers, Leese, Larkin, and

others, sympathized with the United States, and desired

annexation to the American republic. In the south, Pio Pico,

then governor of the territory, and other prominent native

Californians, with James Alexander Forbes, the English consul,

who settled in Santa Clara in 1828, were exerting themselves to

bring the country under English domination. ... This was the

state of affairs for two or three years previous to the

Mexican War. For some months before the news that hostilities

between the United States and Mexico had commenced [see

MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847] reached California, the belief that

such an event would certainly occur was universal throughout

the territory. This quickened the impulses of all parties, and

stimulated the two rivals--the American and English--in their

efforts to be the first to obtain a permanent hold of the

country. The United States government had sent Colonel Fremont

to the Pacific on an exploring expedition. Colonel Fremont had

passed through California, and was on his way to Oregon, when,

in March, 1846, Lieutenant Gillespie, of the United States

marine service, was sent from Washington with dispatches to

Colonel Fremont. Lieutenant Gillespie went across Mexico to

Mazatlan, and from thence by sea to California. He finally

overtook Fremont early in June, 1846, a short distance on the

road to Oregon, and communicated to him the purport of his

dispatches, they having been committed to memory and the

papers destroyed before he entered Mexico. What these

instructions authorized Colonel Fremont to do has never been

promulgated, but it is said they directed him to remain in

California, and hold himself in readiness to cooperate with

the United States fleet, in case war with Mexico should occur.

Fremont immediately returned to California, and camped a short

time on Feather River, and then took up his headquarters at

Sutter's Fort. A few days after, on Sunday, June 14th, 1846, a

party of fourteen Americans, under no apparent command,

appeared in Sonoma, captured the place, raised the Bear flag,

proclaimed the independence of California, and carried off to

Fremont's headquarters four prominent citizens, namely, the

two Vallejos, J. P. Leese, and Colonel Prudhon. On the

consummation of these achievements, one Merritt was elected

captain. This was a rough party of revolutionists, and the

manner in which they improvised the famous Bear flag shows

upon what slender means nations and kingdoms are sometimes

started. From an estimable old lady they obtained a

fragmentary portion of her white skirt, on which they painted

what was intended to represent a grizzly bear, but not being

artistic in their work ... the Mexicans, with their usual

happy faculty on such occasions, called it the 'Bandera

Colchis,' or 'Hog Flag.' This flag now ornaments the rooms of

the Pioneer Society in San Francisco. On the 18th of June,

1846, William B. Ide, a native of New England, who had

emigrated to California the year previous, issued a

proclamation as commander-in-chief of the fortress of Sonoma.

This proclamation declared the purpose to overthrow the

existing government, and establish in its place the republican

form. ... General Castro now proposed to attack the feebly

manned post at Sonoma, but he was frustrated by a rapid

movement of Fremont, who, on the 4th of July, 1846, called a

meeting of Americans at Sonoma; and this assembly, acting

under his advice, proclaimed the independence of the country,

appointed Fremont Governor, and declared war against Mexico.

During these proceedings at Sonoma, a flag with one star

floated over the headquarters of Fremont at Sutter's Fort. The

meaning of this lone-star flag no one seems to have

understood. ... Just as Fremont, with his company, had started

for the coast to confront Castro, and act on the aggressive

generally, he was suddenly brought to a stand by the

astounding intelligence that Commodore Sloat had arrived at

Monterey, and that, on the 7th of July, 1846, he had raised

the American flag and taken possession of the place; also,

that, by command of Commodore Sloat, Commander Montgomery, of

the United States sloop-of-war Portsmouth, then lying in San

Francisco Bay, had, on the 8th of July, taken possession of

Yerba Buena and raised the American flag on the plaza. This of

course settled the business for all parties. The Mexican flag

and the Bear flag were lowered, and in due time, nolens

volens, all acquiesced in the flying of the Stars and Stripes.

... Commodore Sloat ... had heard of the commencement of

hostilities on the Rio Grande, ... sailed from Mazatlan for

California, took possession of the country and raised the

American flag on his own responsibility. These decisive steps

on the part of Commodore Sloat were not taken a moment too

soon, as on the 14th of July the British man-of-war

Collingwood, Sir George Seymour commanding, arrived at

Monterey," intending, as Sir George acknowledged, "to take

possession of that portion of the country." In August,

Commodore Sloat relinquished the command of the Pacific

squadron to Commodore Stockton, who "immediately instituted

bold and vigorous measures for the subjugation of the

territory. All his available force for land operations was 350

men--sailors and marines.

{350}

But so rapid and skilful were Stockton's movements, and so

efficient was the cooperation of Fremont with his small troop,

that California was effectually conquered in January, 1847.

During all this period the people of the United States were

ignorant of what was transpiring in California and vice versa.

But the action of Commodore Sloat ... and ... Commodore

Stockton ... did but anticipate the wishes of the United

States Government, which had, in June, 1846, dispatched

General Kearney across the country from Fort Leavenworth [see

NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846], at the head of 1,600 men, with orders

to conquer California, and when conquered to assume the

governorship of the territory. General Kearney arrived in

California via San Pasqual with greatly diminished forces,

December, 1846, a few weeks before active military operations

in that region ceased."

E. E. Dunbar, The Romance of the Age, pages 29-42.

ALSO IN:

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 17

(California, volume 5), chapter 1-16.

J. C. Fremont, Memoirs of my Life, volume 1, chapter 14-15.

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1848.

Cession to the United States.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

The discovery of Gold and the immigration of the Gold-hunters.

"In the summer of 1847 the American residents of California,

numbering perhaps 2,000, and mostly established near San

Francisco Bay, looked forward with hope and confidence to the

future. Their government held secure possession of the whole

territory, and had announced its purpose to hold it

permanently. ... It so happened that at this time one of the

leading representatives of American interests in California

was John A. Sutter, a Swiss by his parentage; a German by the

place of his birth in Baden; an American by residence and

naturalization in Missouri; and a Mexican by subsequent

residence and naturalization in California. In 1839 he had

settled at the junction of the Sacramento and American rivers,

near the site of the present city of Sacramento." His rancho

became known as Sutter's Fort. In the summer of 1847 he

planned the building of a flour-mill, and "partly to get

lumber for it, he determined to build a saw-mill also. Since

there was no good timber in the valley, the saw-mill must be

in the mountains. The site for it was selected by James W.

Marshall, a native of New Jersey, a skilful wheelwright by

occupation, industrious, honest, generous, but 'cranky,' full

of wild fancies, and defective in some kinds of business

sense. ... The place for his mill was in the small valley of

Coloma, 1,500 feet above the level of the sea, and 45 miles

from Sutter's Fort, from which it was accessible by wagon

without expense for road-making." Early in 1848 the saw-mill

was nearly completed; "the water had been turned into the race

to carry away some of the loose dirt and gravel, and then had

been turned off again. On the afternoon of Monday, the 24th of

January, Marshall was walking in the tail-race, when on its

rotten granite bed-rock he saw some yellow particles and

picked up several of them. The largest were about the size of

grains of wheat. ... He thought they were gold, and went to

the mill, where he told the men that he had found a gold mine.

At the time, little importance was attached to his statement.

It was regarded as a proper subject for ridicule. Marshall

hammered his new metal and found it malleable; he put it into

the kitchen fire, and observed that it did not readily melt or

become discolored; he compared its color with gold coin; and

the more he examined it the more he was convinced that it was

gold." He soon found an opportunity to show his discovery to

Sutter, who tested the metal with acid and by careful

weighing, and satisfied himself that Marshall's, conclusion

was correct. In the spring of 1848 San Francisco, a village of

about 700 inhabitants, had two newspapers, the 'Californian'

and the 'California Star,' both weeklies. The first printed

mention of the gold discovery was a short paragraph in the

former, under date of the 15th of March, stating that a gold

mine had been found at Sutter's Mill, and that a package of

the metal worth $30 had been received at New Helvetia. ...

Before the middle of June the whole territory resounded with

the cry of 'gold'! ... Nearly all the men hurried off to the

mines. Workshops, stores, dwellings, wives, and even ripe

fields of grain, were left for a time to take care of

themselves. ... 'The reports of the discovery, which began to

reach the Atlantic States in September, 1849, commanded little

credence there before January; but the news of the arrival of

large amounts of gold at Mazatlan, Valparaiso, Panama, and New

York, in the latter part of the winter, put an end to all

doubt, and in the spring there was such a rush of peaceful

migration as the world had never seen. In 1849,

25,000--according to one authority 50,000--immigrants went by

land, and 23,000 by sea from the region east of the Rocky

Mountains, and by sea perhaps 40,000 from other parts of the

world. ... The gold yield of 1848 was estimated at $5,000,000;

that of 1849 at $23,000,000; that of 1850 at $50,000,000; that

of 1853 at $65,000,000; and then came the decline which has

continued until the present time [1890] when the yield is

about $12,000,000."

J. S. Hittell, The Discovery of

Gold in California (Century Magazine, February, 1891).

ALSO IN:

E. E. Dunbar, The Romance of the Age,

or the Discovery of Gold in California.

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,

volume 18 (California, volume 6) chapter 2-4.

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1850.

Admission to the Union as a free state.

The Compromise.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1856.

The San Francisco Vigilance Committee.

"The association of citizens known as the vigilance committee,

which was organized in San Francisco on the 15th of May, 1856,

has had such an influence on the growth and prosperity of that

city that now [1877], at the end of 21 years, a true account of

the origin and subsequent action of that association will be

read with interest. For some time the corruption in the courts

of law, the insecurity of the ballot-box at elections, and the

infamous character of many of the public officials, had been

the subject of complaint, not only in San Francisco, but

throughout the State of California. It was evident to the

honest and respectable citizens of, San Francisco that ... it

would become the duty of the people to protect themselves by

reforming the courts of law, and by taking the ballot-box from

the hands of greedy and unprincipled politicians." The latter

were represented by a newspaper called the Sunday Times,

edited by one James P. Casey.

{351}

The opinion of the better classes of citizens was voiced by

the Evening Bulletin, whose editor was James King. On the 14th

of May, 1856, King was shot by Casey, in the public street,

receiving a wound from which he died six days later, and

intense excitement of feeling in the city was produced. Casey

surrendered himself and was lodged in jail. During the evening

of the 14th some of the members of a vigilance committee which

had been formed in 1851, and which had then checked a free

riot of crime in the suddenly populated and unorganized city,

by trying and executing a few desperadoes, came together and

determined the organization of another committee for the same

purpose. "The next day (the 15th) a set of rules and

regulations were drawn up which each member was obliged to

sign. The committee took spacious rooms, and all citizens of

San Francisco having the welfare of the city at heart were

invited to join the association. Several thousands enrolled

themselves in a few days. ... The members of the vigilance

committee were divided into companies of 100, each company

having a captain. Early on Sunday (the 18th) orders were sent

to the different captains to appear with their companies ready

for duty at the headquarters of the committee, in Sacramento

Street, at nine o'clock. When all the companies had arrived,

they were formed into one body, in all about 2,000 men. Sixty

picked men were selected as a guard for the executive

committee. At half-past eleven the whole force moved in the

direction of the jail. A large number of spectators had

collected, but there was no confusion, no noise. They marched

through the city to Broadway, and there formed in the open

space before the jail. ... The houses opposite the jail were

searched for men and arms secreted there, the committee

wishing to prevent any chance of a collision which might lead

to bloodshed. A cannon was then brought forward and placed in

front of the jail, the muzzle pointed at the door." The jailer

was now called upon to deliver Casey to the committee, and

complied, being unable to resist. One Charles Cora, who had

killed a United States marshal the November previous, was

taken from the jail at the same time. The two prisoners were

escorted to the quarters of the vigilance committee and there

confined under guard. Two days afterwards (May 20th) Mr. King

died. Casey and Cora were put on trial before a tribunal which

the committee had organized, were condemned to death, and were

hanged, with solemnity, on the 22d, from a platform erected in

front of the building on Sacramento Street. "The executive

committee, finding that the power they held was perfectly

under control, and that there was no danger of any popular

excesses, determined to continue their work and rid the

country of the gang of ruffians which had for so long a time

managed elections in San Francisco and its vicinity. These men

were all well known, and were ordered to leave San Francisco.

Many went away. Those who refused to go were arrested and

taken to the rooms of the committee, where they were confined

until opportunities offered for shipping them out of the

country. ... The governor of California at this time was Mr.

J. Neely Johnson. ... The major-general of the second division

of state militia (which included the city and county of San

Francisco) was Mr. William T. Sherman [afterwards well known

in the world as General Sherman] who had resigned his

commission in the United States army and had become a partner

in the banking house of Lucas, Turner & Co., in San Francisco.

... Toward the end of May, Governor Johnson ... appealed to

General Sherman for advice and assistance in putting a stop to

the vigilance committee. At this time General Wool was in

command of the United States troops, and Commodore Farragut

had charge of the navy yard." General Wool was applied to for

arms, and Commodore Farragut was asked to station a vessel of

war at anchor off San Francisco. Both officers declined to act

as requested, having no authority to do so. "When Governor

Johnson returned to Sacramento, a writ was issued, at his

request, by Judge Terry of the supreme court, commanding the

sheriff of San Francisco to bring before him one William

Mulligan, who was then in the hands of the vigilance

committee." The vigilance committee refused to surrender their

prisoner to the sheriff, and General Sherman was ordered to

call out the militia of his division to support that officer.

At the same time the governor issued a proclamation declaring

the city of San Francisco in a state or insurrection. General

Sherman found it impossible to arm his militia for service,

and resigned the command. The governor sought and obtained

arms elsewhere; but the schooner which brought them was seized

and the arms possessed by the committee. On attempting to

arrest the person who had charge of the schooner, one of the

vigilance committee's policemen, named Hopkins, was stabbed by

the afterwards notorious Judge Terry, who, with some others,

had undertaken to protect the man. "The signal for a general

meeting under arms was sounded, and in a short time 1,500 men

were reported ready for duty. In an hour 4,000 men were under

arms and prepared to act against the so-caned law-and-order

party, who were collected in force at the different armories.

These armories were surrounded." Judge Terry was demanded and

delivered up, and all the arms and ammunition in the armories

were removed. "In this way was settled the question of power

between the vigilance committee, who wished to restore order

and were working to establish an honest judiciary and a pure

ballot, and their opponents, the law-and-order party, who

wished to uphold the dignity of the law by means of a

butcher's knife in the hands of a judge of the supreme court.

Although the committee were masters in San Francisco, their

position was made more precarious by the very fact of their

having disarmed their opponents. The attention of the whole

Union was attracted to the state of things in California, and

it was rumored that instructions had been sent from Washington

to all the United States vessels in the Pacific to proceed at

once to San Francisco; and that orders were on the way,

placing the United States military force in California at the

disposal of Governor Johnson. The committee went on steadily

with their work. ... All the important changes which they had

undertaken had been carried out successfully, and they would

gladly have given up the responsibility they had assumed had

it not been for the case of Judge Terry. ... At last the

physicians announced that Hopkins was out of danger, and on

the 7th of August Judge Terry was released. ... Having got rid

of Judge Terry the committee prepared to bring their labours to a

close, and on the 18th of August the whole association,

numbering over 5,000 men, after marching through the principal

streets of San Francisco, returned to their headquarters in

Sacramento Street, where after delivering up their arms they

were relieved from duty. ... In the following November there

was an election of city and county officers. Every thing went

off very quietly. A 'people's ticket', bearing the names of

thoroughly trustworthy citizens, irrespective of party, was

elected by a large majority, and for the last 20 years San

Francisco has had the reputation of being one of the best

governed cities in the United States."

T. G. Cary, The San Francisco Vigilance Committee

(Atlantic Monthly, Dec. 1877).

ALSO IN:

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,

volume 18 (California, volume 6), chapter 25.

Gen. W. T. Sherman, Memoirs, chapter 4 (volume 1).

{352}

CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1877-1880.

Denis Kearney and the Sand Lot Party.

The new state constitution.

"Late in 1877 a meeting was called in San Francisco to express

sympathy with the men then on strike at Pittsburg in

Pennsylvania. ... Some strong language used at this meeting,

and exaggerated by the newspapers, frightened the business men

into forming a sort of committee of public safety. ... The

chief result of the incident was further irritation of the

poorer classes, who perceived that the rich were afraid of

them, and therefore disposed to deal harshly with them.

Shortly after came an election of municipal officers and

members of the State legislature. The contest, as is the

custom in America, brought into life a number of clubs and

other organizations, purporting to represent various parties

or sections of a party, and among others a body calling

itself' 'The Working men's Trade and Labor Union,' the

Secretary of which was a certain Denis Kearney. When the

election was over, Kearney declared that he would keep his

union going, and form a working man's party. He was a drayman

by trade, Irish by birth, brought up a Roman Catholic, but

accustomed to include his religion among the established

institutions he reviled. He had borne a good character for

industry and steadiness till some friend 'put him into

stocks,' and the loss of what he hoped to gain is said to have

first turned him to agitation. He had gained some faculty in

speaking by practice at a Sunday debating club called the

Lyceum of Self Culture. ... Kearney's tongue, loud and

abusive, soon gathered an audience. On the west side of San

Francisco, as you cross the peninsula from the harbor towards

the ocean, there is (or then was) a large open space, laid out

for building, but not yet built on, covered with sand, and

hence called the Sand Lot. Here the mob had been wont to

gather for meetings; here Kearney formed his party. At first

he had merely vagabonds to listen, but one of the two great

newspapers took him up. These two, the Chronicle and the

Morning Call, were in keen rivalry, and the former seeing in

this new movement a chance of going ahead, filling its columns

with sensational matter and increasing its sale among working

men, went in hot and strong for the Sand Lot party. ... The

advertisement which the Chronicle gave him by its reports and

articles, and which he repaid by advising working men to take

it, soon made him a personage; and his position was finally

assured by his being, along with several other speakers,

arrested and prosecuted on a charge of riot, in respect of

inflammatory speeches delivered at a meeting on 'the top of

Nob Hill, one of the steep heights which make San Francisco

the most picturesque of American cities. The prosecution

failed, and Kearney was a popular hero. Clerks and the better

class of citizens now began to attend his meetings, though

many went from mere curiosity, as they would have gone to a

circus; the W. P. C. (Working man's Party of California) was

organized as a regular party, embracing the whole State of

California, with Kearney for its President. ... The Sand Lot

party drew its support chiefly from the Democrats, who here,

as in the East, have the larger share of the rabble: hence its

rise was not unwelcome to the Republicans, because it promised

to divide and weaken their old opponents; while the Democrats,

hoping ultimately to capture it, gave a feeble resistance. Thus

it grew the faster, and soon began to run a ticket of its own

at city and State elections. It carried most of the city

offices, and when the question was submitted to the people

whether a new Constitution should be framed for California, it

threw its vote in favor of having one and prevailed. ... Next

came, in the summer of 1878, the choice of delegates to the

convention which was to frame the new Constitution. The

Working man's Party obtained a substantial representation in

the convention, but its nominees were ignorant men, without

experience or constructive ideas. ... However; the working

men's delegates, together with the more numerous and less

corruptible delegates of the farmers, got their way in many

things and produced that surprising instrument by which

California is now governed. ...

1. It restricts and limits in every possible way the powers of

the State legislature, leaving it little authority except to

carry out by statutes the provisions of the Constitution. It

makes 'lobbying,' i. e., the attempt to corrupt a legislator,

and the corrupt action of a legislator, felony.

2. It forbids the State legislature or local authorities to

incur debts beyond a certain limit, taxes uncultivated land

equally with cultivated, makes sums due on mortgage taxable in

the district where the mortgaged property lies, authorizes an

income tax, and directs a highly inquisitorial scrutiny of

everybody's property for the purposes of taxation.

3. It forbids the 'watering of stock,' declares that the State

has power to prevent corporations from conducting their

business so as to 'infringe the general well-being of the

State'; directs the charges of telegraph and gas companies,

and of water-supplying bodies, to be regulated and limited by

law; institutes a railroad commission with power to fix the

transportation rates on all railroads and examine the books

and accounts of all transportation companies.

4. It forbids all corporations to employ any Chinese, debars

them from the suffrage, forbids their employment on any public

works, annuls all contracts for 'coolie labour,' directs the

legislature to provide for the punishment of any company which

shall import Chinese, to impose conditions on the residence of

Chinese, and to cause their removal if they fail to observe

these conditions. It also declares that eight hours shall

constitute a legal day's work on all public works. When the

Constitution came to be submitted to the vote of the people,

in May 1879, it was vehemently opposed by the monied men. ...

{353}

The struggle was severe, but the Granger party commanded so

many rural votes, and the Sand Lot party so many in San

Francisco (whose population is nearly a third of that of the

entire State) that the Constitution was carried, though by a

small majority, only 11,000 out of a total of 145,000 citizens

voting. ... The next thing was to choose a legislature to

carry out the Constitution. Had the same influences prevailed

in this election as prevailed in that of the Constitutional

Convention, the results might have been serious. But

fortunately there was a slight reaction. ... A series of

statutes was passed which gave effect to the provisions of the

Constitution in a form perhaps as little harmful as could be

contrived, and certainly less harmful than had been feared

when the Constitution was put to the vote. Many bad bills,

particularly those aimed at the Chinese, were defeated, and

one may say generally that the expectations of the Sand Lot

men were grievously disappointed. While all this was passing,

Kearney had more and more declined in fame and power. He did

not sit either in the Constitutional Convention or in the

legislature of 1880. The mob had tired of his harangues,

especially as little seemed to come of them, and as the

candidates of the W. P. C. had behaved no better in office

than those of the old parties. He had quarreled with the

Chronicle. He was, moreover, quite unfitted by knowledge or

training to argue the legal, economical, and political

questions involved in the new Constitution so that the

prominence of these questions threw him into the background.

... Since 1880 he has played no part in Californian politics,

and is indeed so insignificant that no one cares to know where

he goes or what he does."

J. Bryce, The American Commonwealth, chapter 90 (volume 2),

and appendix to volume 1 (containing the text of the

Constitution of California).

----------CALIFORNIA: End----------

CALIGULA.

See CAIUS.

CALIPH, The Title.

The title Caliph, or Khalifa, simply signifies in the Arabic

language "Successor." The Caliphs were the successors of

Mahomet.

CALIPHATE, The.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST.

CALIPHS,

The Turkish Sultan becomes successor to the.

See BAGDAD: A. D. 1258.

CALISCH, OR KALISCH, Treaty of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813.

CALIXTINES, The.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

CALLAO: Siege, 1825-1826.

See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

CALLAO: A. D. 1866.

Repulse of the Spanish fleet.

See PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.

CALLEVA.

One of the greater towns of Roman Britain, the walls of which,

found at Silchester enclose an area of three miles in circuit.

T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.

CALLIAS, Peace of.

See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

CALLINICUS, Battle of.

Fought in the wars of the Romans with the Persians, on the

banks of the Euphrates, Easter Eve. A. D. 531. The Romans,

commanded by Belisarius, suffered an apparent defeat, but they

checked an intended advance of the Persians on Antioch.

G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 19.

CALLISTUS II., Pope, A. D. 1119-1124.

Callistus III., Pope, A. D. 1455-1458.

CALMAR, The Union of.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397, and 1397-1527.

CALPULALPAM, Battle of (1860).

See MEXICO: A. D. 1848-1861.

CALPURNIAN LAW, The.

"In this year, B. C. 149, the tribune L. Calpurnius Piso

Frugi, who was one of the Roman writers of annals, proposed

and carried a Lex Calpurnia, which made a great change in the

Roman criminal procedure. Before this time and to the third

Punic war, when a magistratus had misconducted himself in his

foreign administration by oppressive acts and spoliation,

there were several ways of inquiring into his offence. ... But

these modes of procedure were insufficient to protect the

subjects of Rome against bad magistratus. ... The remedy for

these evils was the establishment of a court under the name of

Quaestio Perpetua de pecuniis repetundis, the first regular

criminal court that existed at Rome. Courts similarly

constituted were afterwards established for the trial of

persons charged with other offences. The Lex Calpurnia defined

the offence of Repetundæ, as it was briefly named, to be the

taking of money by irregular means for the use of a governor.

The name Repetundæ was given to this offence, because the

object of the procedure was to compel the governor to make

restitution. ... The court consisted of a presiding judge ...

and of a body of judices or jurymen annually appointed. The

number of this body of judices is not known, but they were all

senators. The judge and a jury taken from the body of the

judices tried all the cases which came before them during one

year; and hence came the name Quaestio Perpetua or standing

court, in opposition to the extraordinary commissions which

had hitherto been appointed as the occasion arose. We do not

know that the Lex Calpurnia contained any penalties. As far as

the evidence shows, it simply enabled the complainants to

obtain satisfaction."

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, chapter 2.

CALUSA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.

CALVEN, Battle of (1499).

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

CALVIN AND THE REFORMATION.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1521-1535;

and GENEVA: A. D. 1536-1564.

CAMARCUM.

The ancient name of the town of Cambrai.

CAMARILLA.

A circle of irresponsible chamber

counsellors--courtiers--surrounding a sovereign with

influences superior to those of his responsible ministers.

CAMBALU, OR CAMBALEC.

See CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.

CAMBAS, OR

CAMPA, OR

CAMPO, The.

See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS;

and AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

CAMBORICUM.

A Roman town in Britain.

"Camboricum was without doubt a very important town, which

commanded the southern fens. It had three forts or citadels,

the principal of which occupied the district called the

Castle-end, in the modern town of Cambridge, and appears to

have had a bridge over the Cam, or Granta; of the others, one

stood below the town, at Chesterton, and the other above it,

at Granchester. Numerous roads branched off from this town.

... Bede calls the representative of Camboricum, in his time,

a 'little deserted city,' and tells us how, when the nuns of

Ely wanted a coffin for their saintly abbess, Etheldreda, they

found a beautiful sculptured sarcophagus of white marble

outside the city walls of the Roman town."

T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.

{354}

CAMBRAI: A. D. 1581.

Unsuccessful siege by the Prince of Parma.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.

CAMBRAI: A. D. 1595-1598.

End of the Principality of governor Balagni.

Siege and capture by the Spaniards.

Retention under the treaty of Vervins.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

CAMBRAI: A. D. 1677.

Taken by Louis XIV.

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

CAMBRAI: A. D. 1679.

Ceded to France.

See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.

----------CAMBRAI: End----------

CAMBRAI,

The League of.

See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

CAMBRAI, Peace of.

See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

CAMBRIA.

The early name of Wales.

See KYMRY, and CUMBRIA;

also, BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.

CAMBRIDGE,

England, Origin of.

See CAMBORICUM.

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts.

The first settlement.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.

CAMBRIDGE, Platform, The:

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1646-1651.

CAMBYSES, OR KAMBYSES,

King of Persia, B. C. 529-522.

CAMDEN, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).

CAMERONIAN REGIMENT, The.

In 1689, when Claverhouse was raising the Highland clans in

favor of James II., "William Cleland, who had fought with

distinguished bravery at Bothwell, and was one of the few men

whom Claverhouse feared, made an offer to the [Scottish]

Estates to raise a regiment among the Cameronians, under the

colonelcy of the Earl of Angus, and the offer was accepted.

Such was the origin of the Cameronian regiment. Its first

lieutenant-colonel was Cleland; its first chaplain was

Shields. Its courage was first tried at Dunkeld, where these

800 Covenanted warriors rolled back the tide of Celtic

invasion; and since that, undegenerate though changed, it has

won trophies in every quarter of the world."

J. Cunningham, Church History of Scotland,

volume 2, chapter 7.

ALSO IN:

J. Browne, History of the Highlands, volume 2, chapter 8.

CAMERONIANS, The.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689.

CAMISARDS, The revolt of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.

CAMORRA, OR CAMORRISTI, The.

"Besides the regular authorities known to and avowed by the

law ... there existed under the Bourbon rule at Naples

[overthrown by Garibaldi in 1860] a self-constituted authority

more terrible than either. It was not easy to obtain exact

proof of the operation of this authority, for it was impatient

of question, its vengeance was prompt, and the instrument of

that vengeance was the knife. In speaking of it as one

authority it is possible to err, for different forms or

branches of this secret institution at times revealed their

existence by the orders which they issued. This secret

influence was that of the Camorra, or Camorristi, a sort of

combination of the violence of the middle ages, of the trades

union tyranny of Sheffield, and of the blackmail levy of the

borders. The Camorristi were a body of unknown individuals who

subsisted on the public, especially on the smaller

tradespeople. A man effected a sale of his ware; as the

customer left his shop a man of the people would enter and

demand the tax on the sale for the Camorra. None could escape

from the odious tyranny. It was impalpable to the police. It

did not confine itself to the industry of illicit taxation. It

issued its orders. When the Italian Parliament imposed stamp

duties, that sensibly increased the cost of litigation, that

indispensable luxury of the Neapolitans, the advocates

received letters warning them to cease all practice in the

courts so long as these stamp duties were enforced.

'Otherwise,' continued the mandate, 'we shall take an early

opportunity of arranging your affairs.' Signed by 'the Camorra

of the avvocati.' The arrangement hinted at was to be made by

the knife. ... The Italian government, much to its credit,

made a great onslaught on the Camorristi. Many were arrested,

imprisoned or exiled, some even killed one another in prison.

But the total eradication of so terrible a social vice must be

[published in 1867] a work of great difficulty, perseverance

and time."

The Trinity of Italy; by an English Civilian, page 70.

CAMP OF REFUGE AT ELY.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1069-1071.

CAMPAGNA, OR CAMPANIA.

"'The name of Campania,' says Pelligrini, 'which was first

applied to the territory of Capua alone, extended itself by

successive re-arrangements of the Italian provinces over a

great part of Central Italy, and then gradually shrank back

again into its birth-place, and at last became restricted to

the limits of one city only, Naples, and that one of the least

importance in Italy. What naturally followed was the total

disuse of the name.' ... The term Campania, therefore, became

obsolete except in the writings of a few mediaeval authors,

whose statements created some confusion by their ignorance of

the different senses in which it had at different times been

used. An impression seems, however, to have prevailed that the

district of Capua had been so named on account of its flat and

fertile nature, and hence every similar tract of plain country

came to be called a campagna in the Italian language. The

exact time when the name, which had thus become a mere

appellative, was applied to the Roman Campagna is not

accurately ascertained. ... It will be seen that the term

Roman Campagna is not a geographical definition of any

district or province with clearly fixed limits, but that it is

a name loosely employed in speaking of the tract which lies

round the city of Rome."

R. Burn, Rome and the Campagna,

chapter 14, note at end.

ALSO IN:

Sir W. Gell, Topography of Rome, volume 1.

CAMPALDINO, Battle of.

See FLORENCE; A. D. 1289..

CAMPANIANS, The.

See SABINES;

also, SAMNITES.

CAMPBELL, Sir Colin (Lord Clyde),

The Indian Campaign of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1857-1858.

{355}

CAMPBELL'S STATION, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863

(OCTOBER-DECEMBER: TENNESSEE).

CAMPERDOWN, Naval battle of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

CAMPO-FORMIO, Peace of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

CAMPO SANTO, Battle of (1743).

See ITALY: A. D. 1741-1743.

CAMPO-TENESE, Battle of (1806).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805-1806 (DECEMBER-SEPTEMBER).

CAMPUS MARTIUS AT ROME, The.

"The history of the Campus Martius presents us with a series

of striking contrasts. It has been covered in successive ages,

first by the cornfields of the Tarquinian dynasty, then by the

parade ground of the great military republic, next by a forest

of marble colonnades and porticoes, and, lastly, by a confused

mass of mean and filthy streets, clustering round vast

mansions, and innumerable churches of every size and

description. ... During the time of the Republic, the whole

Campus seems to have been considered state property and was

used as a military and athletic exercise ground and a place of

meeting for the comitia centuriata."

R. Burn, Rome and the Campagna, chapter 13, part 1.

"We have hitherto employed this name to designate the whole of

the meadow land bounded by the Tiber on one side, and on the

other by the Collis Hortulorum, the Quirinal and the

Capitoline. ... But the Campus Martius, strictly speaking, was

that portion only of the flat ground which lies in the angle

formed by the bend of the stream. According to the narrative

of Livy, it was the property of the Tarquins, and upon their

expulsion was confiscated, and then consecrated to Mars; but

Dionysius asserts that it had been previously set apart to the

god and sacrilegiously appropriated by the tyrant. ... During

the republic the Campus Martius was employed specially for two

purposes. (1.) As a place for holding the constitutional

assemblies (comitia) especially the Comitia Centuriata, and

also for ordinary public meetings (conciones). (2.) For

gymnastic and warlike sports. For seven centuries it remained

almost entirely open. ... In the Comitia, the citizens, when

their votes were taken, passed into enclosures termed septa,

or ovilia, which were, for a long period, temporary wooden

erections."

W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 1.

CAMULODUNUM.

See COLCHESTER, ORIGIN OF.

CAMUNI, The.

See RHÆTIANS.

CANAAN.

CANAANITES.

"Canaan signifies 'the lowlands,' and was primarily the name

of the coast on which the great cities of Phoenicia were

built. As, however, the inland parts of the country were

inhabited by a kindred population, the name came to be

extended to designate the whole of Palestine, just as

Palestine itself meant originally only the small territory of

the Philistines."

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

chapter 2.

See PHŒNICIANS: ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY;

Also,

JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW HISTORY,

and HAMITES.

----------CANAAN: End----------

CANADA.

(NEW FRANCE.)

CANADA:

Names.

"The year after the failure of Verrazano's last enterprise,

1525, Stefano Gomez sailed from Spain for Cuba and Florida;

thence he steered northward in search of the long hoped-for

passage to India, till he reached Cape Race, on the

southeastern extremity of Newfoundland. The further details of

his voyage remain unknown, but there is reason to suppose that

he entered the Gulf of St. Lawrence and traded upon its

shores. An ancient Castilian tradition existed that the

Spaniards visited these coasts before the French, and having

perceived no appearance of mines or riches, they exclaimed

frequently 'Aca nada' [signifying 'here is nothing']; the

natives caught up the sound, and when other Europeans arrived,

repeated it to them. The strangers concluded that these words

were a designation, and from that time this magnificent

country bore the name of Canada. ... Father Hennepin asserts

that the Spaniards were the first discoverers of Canada, and

that, finding nothing there to gratify their extensive desires

for gold, they bestowed upon it the appellation of Capo di

Nada, 'Cape Nothing,' whence by corruption its present name.

... La Potherie gives the same derivation. . . . This

derivation would reconcile the different assertions of the

early discoverers, some of whom give the name of Canada to the

whole valley of the St. Lawrence; others, equally worthy of

credit, confine it to a small district in the neighbourhood of

Stadacona (now Quebec). ... Duponceau, in the Transactions of

the [American] Philosophical Society, of Philadelphia, founds

his conjecture of the Indian origin of the name of Canada upon

the fact that, in the translation of the Gospel of St. Matthew

into the Mohawk tongue, made by Brandt, the Indian chief, the

word Canada is always used to signify a village. The mistake

of the early discoverers, in taking the name of a part for

that of the whole, is very pardonable in persons ignorant of

the Indian language. ... The natural conclusion ... is, that

the word Canada was a mere local appellation, without

reference to the country; that each tribe had their own

Canada, or collection of huts, which shifted its position

according to their migrations."

E. Warburton, The Conquest of Canada,

volume 1, chapter 1, and foot-note.

"Canada was the name which Cartier found attached to the land

and there is no evidence that he attempted to displace it. ...

Nor did Roberval attempt to name the country, while the

commission given him by the king does not associate the name

of Francis or any new name therewith. ... There seems to have

been a belief in New England, at a later day, that Canada was

derived from William and Emery de Caen (Cane, as the English

spelled it), who were in New France in 1621, and later. Cf.

Morton's 'New English Canaan,' Adam's edition, page 235, and

Josselyn's 'Rarities,' page 5; also, J. Reade, in his history of

geographical names in Canada, printed in New Dominion Monthly,

xi. 344."

B. F. De Costa, Jacques Cartier and his Successors

(Narrative and Crit. History of America, volume 4, chapter 2),

and Editor's foot-note.

{356}

"Cartier calls the St. Lawrence the 'River of Hochelaga,' or

'the great river of Canada.' He confines the name of Canada to

a district extending from the Isle aux Coudres in the St.

Lawrence to a point at some distance above the site of Quebec.

The country below, he adds, was called by the Indians

Saguenay, and that above, Hochelaga. In the map of Gerard

Mercator (1569) the name Canada is given to a town, with an

adjacent district, on the river Stadin (St. Charles).

Lescarbot, a later writer, insists that the country on both

sides of the St. Lawrence, from Hochelaga to its mouth, bore

the name of Canada. In the second map of Ortelius, published

about the year 1572; New France, Nova Francia is thus

divided:--'Canada,' a district on the St. Lawrence above the

River Saguenay; 'Chilaga' (Hochelaga), the angle between the

Ottawa and the St. Lawrence; 'Saguenai,' a district below the

river of that name; 'Moscosa,' south of the St. Lawrence and

east of the River Richelieu; 'Avacal,' west and south of

Moscosa; 'Norumbega,' Maine and New Brunswick; 'Apalachen,'

Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc.; 'Terra Corterealis,' Labrador;

'Florida,' Mississippi, Alabama, Florida. Mercator confines

the name of New France to districts bordering on the St.

Lawrence. Others give it a much broader application. The use

of this name, or the nearly allied names of Francisca and La

Francisane, dates back, to say the least, as far as 1525, and

the Dutch geographers are especially free in their use of it,

out of spite to the Spaniards. The derivation of the name of

Canada has been a point of discussion. It is, without doubt,

not Spanish, but Indian. ... Lescarbot affirms that Canada is

simply an Indian proper name, of which it is vain to seek a

meaning. Belleforest also calls it an Indian word, but

translates it 'Terre,' as does also Thevet."

F. Parkman, Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,

chapter 1, foot-note.

CANADA:

The Aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;

HURONS; OJIBWAYS; SIOUAN FAMILY;

ATHAPASCAN FAMILY, AND ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.

CANADA: A. D. 1497-1498.

Coast discoveries of the Cabots.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1497 and 1498.

CANADA: A. D. 1500.

Cortereal on the coast.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1500.

CANADA: A. D. 1501-1504.

Portuguese, Norman and Breton fishermen on the Newfoundland

banks.

See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

CANADA: A. D. 1524.

The coasting voyage of Verrazano.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.

CANADA: A. D. 1534-1535.

Possession taken by Jacques Cartier for the King of France.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535.

CANADA: A. D. 1541-1603.

Jacques Cartier's last undertaking.

Unsuccessful French attempts at Colonization.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1541-1603.

CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.

The Beginning of Champlain's Career in the New World.

Colonization at Port Royal.

Exploration of the New England coast.

In Pontgravé's expedition of 1603 to New France [see AMERICA:

A. D. 1541-1603], "Samuel de Champlain, a captain in the

navy, accepted a command .... at the request of De Chatte [or

De Chastes]; he was a native of Saintonge, and had lately

returned to France from the West Indies, where he had gained a

high name for boldness and skill. Under the direction of this

wise and energetic man the first successful efforts were made

to found a permanent settlement in the magnificent province of

Canada, and the stain of the errors and disasters of more than

seventy years was at length wiped away. Pontgravé and

Champlain sailed for the St. Lawrence in 1603," explored it as

far as the rapids of St. Louis, and then returned to France.

They found that the patron of their undertaking, De Chastes,

was dead. "Pierre du Guast, Sieur de Monts, had succeeded to

the powers and privileges of the deceased, with even a more

extensive commission. De Monts was a Calvinist, and had

obtained from the king the freedom of religious faith for

himself and his followers in America, but under the engagement

that the Roman Catholic worship should be established among

the natives. ... The trading company established by De Chatte

was continued and increased by his successor. With this

additional aid De Monts was enabled to fit out a more complete

armament than had ever hitherto been engaged in Canadian

commerce. He sailed from Havre on the 7th of March, 1604, with

four vessels. Of these, two under his immediate command were

destined for Acadia. Champlain, Poutrincourt, and many other

volunteers, embarked their fortunes with him, purposing to

cast their future lot in the New World. A third vessel was

dispatched under Pontgravé to the Strait of Canso, to protect

the exclusive trading privileges of the company. The fourth

steered for Tadoussac, to barter for the rich furs brought by

the Indian hunters from the dreary wilds of the Saguenay. On

the 6th of May De Monts reached a harbor on the coast of

Acadia;" but, for some reason not to be understood, his

projected colony was quartered on the little islet of St.

Croix, near the mouth of the river of that name, which became

subsequently the boundary between Maine and New Brunswick.

Meantime, the fine harbor, now Annapolis, then named Port

Royal, had been discovered, and was granted, with a large

surrounding territory, by De Monts to De Poutrincourt, who

proposed to settle upon it as its feudal proprietor and lord.

The colony at St. Croix having been housed and put in order,

De Poutrincourt sailed for France, intending to bring his

family and establish himself at Port Royal. De Monts,

Champlain, and those who remained, suffered a winter of

terrible hardships, and thirty-five died before spring. De

Monts now resolved to seek a better site for his infant

settlement, and, finding no other situation so good he resumed

possession of that most desirable Port Royal which he had

granted away to Poutrincourt and removed his colony thither.

Champlain, meanwhile, in the summer of 1605, had explored the

coast southward far down the future home of the English

Puritans, looking into Massachusetts Bay, taking shelter in

Plymouth harbor and naming it Port St. Louis, doubling Cape

Cod (which he called Cap Blanc), turning back at Nausett

Harbor, and gaining on the whole a remarkable knowledge of the

country and its coast. Soon after Champlain's return from this

coasting voyage, De Monts was called home to France, by news

of machinations that were threatening to extinguish his

patent, and Pontgravé was left in command of the colony at

Port Royal.

E. Warburton, The Conquest of Canada, volume 1, chapter 3.

{357}

In De Monts' petition to the king for leave to colonize Acadia

that region was defined "as extending from the 40th to the

46th degree of north latitude, or from Philadelphia to beyond

Montreal."

F. Parkman, Pioneers of France in the New World: Champlain,

chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

E. F. Slafter, Memoir preface to "Voyages of Samuel de

Champlain" (Prince Society, 1880), chapter 1-5.

CANADA: A. D. 1606-1608.

The fortunes of the Acadian colony.

"De Monts found his pathway in France surrounded with

difficulties. The Rochelle merchants who were partners in the

enterprise desired a return for their investments. The Baron

de Poutrincourt, who was still possessed with the desire to

make the New World his home, proved of assistance to De Monts.

De Poutrincourt returned to Acadia and encouraged the

colonists, who were on the verge of deserting Port Royal. With

De Poutrincourt emigrated at this time a Parisian advocate,

named Mark Lescarbot, who was of great service to the colony.

During the absence of De Poutrincourt on an exploring

expedition down the coast, Lescarbot drained and repaired the

colonists' fort, and made a number of administrative changes,

much improving the condition of the settlers. The following

winter was one of comfort, indeed of enjoyment. ... In May,

however, the sad news reached the colony that the company of

the merchants on whom it depended had been broken up. Their

dependence being gone, on the 30th of July most of the

colonists left Acadia for France in vessels sent out for them.

For two years the empty buildings of Port Royal stood, a

melancholy sight, with not a white person in them, but under

the safe protection of Memberton, the Micmak chief, who proved

a trusty friend to the French. The opposition to the company

of Rochelle arose from various causes. In addition to its

financial difficulties the fact of De Monts being a Protestant

was seized on as the reason why nothing was being done in the

colony to christianize the Indians. Accordingly when De Monts,

fired with a new scheme for exploring the northwest passage,

turned over the management of Acadian affairs to De

Poutrincourt, who was a sincere Catholic, some of the

difficulties disappeared. It was not, however, till two years

later that arrangements were made for a new Acadian

expedition."

G. Bryce, Short History of the Canadian People, chapter 4,

section 1.

ALSO IN: J. Hannay, History of Acadia, chapter 4.

CANADA: A. D. 1608-1611.

Champlain's third and fourth expeditions.

His settlement at Quebec, discovery of Lake Champlain, and

first wars with the Iroquois.

"De Monts in no way lost heart, and he resolved to continue in

the career of exploration for settlement. A new, expedition

was determined on, and De Monts selected the Saint Lawrence as

the spot where the effort should be made. Champlain counselled

the change. In Nova Scotia and on the coast of New Brunswick and

Maine he had been struck by the number of ports affording

protection to vessels from sea, and by the small number of

Indians whom he had met. In Nova Scotia he would be exposed to

rival attempts at settlement, and at the same time he could

not see the possibility of obtaining Indian allies. In Canada

the full control would remain with those who first made a

settlement on the Saint Lawrence, and Champlain counted the

native tribes as powerful instruments in carrying out his

policy. We have the key here to his conduct in assisting the

Hurons in their wars. .... In 1608 Champlain started for the

St. Lawrence. Pontgravé was with the expedition. A settlement

was made at Quebec, as the most suitable place. Some ground

was cleared, buildings were commenced, when a conspiracy was

discovered. The ringleader was hanged and three of those

actively implicated were sent back to France with Pontgravé on

his return in the autumn. Matters now went peaceably on. The

summer was passed in completing the 'Abitation de Quebec,' of

which Champlain has left us a sketch. It was situated in the

present Lower Town on the river bank, in the corner where

Notre Dame Street meets Sous le Fort Street. It was here

Champlain laid the foundation for the future city. Winter

came, the scurvy carrying off twenty of their number. ... In

June, Des Marais, Pontgravé's son-in-law, arrived, telling him

that Pontgravé was at Tadousac. Champlain proceeded thither.

The question had then to be discussed, what policy should be

followed with the Indians? Should they be aided by what force

Champlain could command, in the expedition which they had

resolved to make against the Iroquois? It is plain that no

advance in discovery could have been made without their

assistance, and that this assistance could only have been

obtained by rendering them service. ... With the view of

making explorations beyond the points then known by Europeans,

Champlain in the middle of June ascended the St. Lawrence.

About a league and a half west of the river Saint Anne, they

were joined by a party of Algonquins who were to form a part

of the expedition. Champlain tells us of their mortal feud

with the Iroquois, a proof that in no way he created it. They

all returned to Quebec, where there was festivity for some

days. It was brought to a close and the war parties started;

Champlain with nine men, Des Marais and a pilot, joined it

[them?]. With his Indian allies he ascended the Richelieu and

reached Lake Champlain, the first white man who saw its

waters: subsequently for 165 years to be the scene of contest

between the Indian and white man, the French and English, the

revolted Colonies and the Mother Country. ... The advance up

Lake Champlain was made only by night. They reached Crown

Point. They were then in the Iroquois domain; very shortly

they knew of the presence of the enemy." On the 30th of July

the invaders fought a battle with the Iroquois, who fled in

terror before the arquebuse of Champlain, which killed two of

their chiefs and wounded a third. Soon after his return to

Quebec from this expedition--the beginning of the long war of

the French with the Iroquois--Champlain was summoned to

France. The patent of De Monts had been revoked and he could

not obtain its renewal. "Nevertheless, De Monts, with his

associates decided to continue their efforts, and, in March,

1610, Champlain again started for Canada." After reaching

Quebec his stay this time was short. He joined his Indian

allies in another expedition of war, and helped them to win

another victory over the Iroquois, at a place on the

Richelieu, one league above Sorel. On returning he got news of

the assassination of Henry IV. and started at once for France.

{358}

"The death of Henry IV. exercised great influence on the

fortunes of Canada. He had personally taken interest in

Champlain's voyages, and his energetic mind was well qualified

to direct the fortunes of a growing colony. Louis XIII. was

not then ten years old. Mary of Medecis was under the control

of her favourites, Leonora Galigai, and her husband, Concino

Concini. Richelieu had not then appeared on the scene. ... The

Jesuits were becoming all-powerful at Court. ... France was

unsettled and disordered. The Protestants, not without

provocation, were acting with passion and without judgment.

The assassination of the King had alarmed them. The whole

kingdom was threatened with convulsion and anarchy, and Canada

was to pass out of the notice of those in power: and, in the

sense of giving aid, half a century was to elapse before the

French Government could comprehend the duty of taking part in

the defence of the country, and of protecting the persons of

those living in New France. The ground was to be regarded

simply as a field for the active trader, side by side with the

devoted missionary. Thus the Government fell virtually under

the control of the Jesuits, who, impatient of contra aimed

only at the establishment of their authority, which was to

bring the colony to the verge of destruction." Champlain

returned to his colony in the spring of 1611, facing its

prospects with such courage as he found in his own stout

heart.

W. Kingsford, History of Canada,

book 1, chapters 3, 4 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

E. B. O'Callaghan, editor., Doc. History of New York,

volume 3,  pages 1-9.

CANADA: A. D. 1610-1613.

The Acadian colony revived, but destroyed by the English of

Virginia.

Port Royal was left uninhabited till 1610, when Poutrincourt

returned at the instance of the king to make the new

settlement a central station for the conversion of the

Indians,--a work which made some Jesuit missionaries prominent

in the history of the New World. His son followed in 1611,

with fathers Pierre Biard, and Enemond Masse. Madame la

Marquise de Guercheville, a pious Catholic, to whom De Monts

had ceded his title to Acadia, and to whom afterwards the

French king granted the whole territory now covered by the

United States, was the chief patroness of these voyages.

Desiring to make another settlement, she despatched a vessel

in 1613 with two more Jesuits, father Quentin and Gilbert Du

Thet, and forty-eight men under La Saussaye. "When they

arrived at Port Royal, they only found five persons--fathers

Biard and Masse, their servant, the apothecary Hébert, and

another. All the rest were absent, either hunting or trading.

They showed the Queen's letter to Hébert, who represented

Biencourt in his absence, and taking the two Jesuits, with

their servant and luggage aboard, again set sail. It was their

intention to establish the colony at Pentagoet, which father

Biard had visited the year previous, but when off Grand Manan

a thick fog came on, which lasted for two days, and when it

became clear, they put into a harbor on the eastern side of

Mount Desert Island, in Maine. The harbor was deep, secure and

commodious, and they judged this would be a favorable site for

the colony, and named the place St. Sauveur. ... La Saussaye

was advised by the principal colonists to erect a sufficient

fortification before commencing to cultivate the soil, but he

disregarded this advice, and nothing was completed in the way

of defence, except the raising of a small palisaded structure,

when a storm burst upon the colony, which was little expected

by its founders. In 1607 a company of London merchants had

founded a colony on the James River, in Virginia, where, after

suffering greatly from the insalubrity of the climate and want

of provisions, they had attained a considerable degree of

property. In 1613 they sent a fleet of eleven vessels to fish

on the coast of Acadia, convoyed by an armed vessel under the

command of Captain Samuel Argal, who had been connected with

the colony since 1609. Argal was one of those adventurers

formed in the school of Drake, who made a trade of piracy, but

confined themselves to the robbery of those who were so

unfortunate as not to be their own countrymen. ... When Argal

arrived at Mount Desert, he was told by the Indians that the

French were there in the harbor with a vessel. Learning that

they were not very numerous, he at once resolved to attack

them. All the French were ashore when Argal approached, except

ten men, most of whom were unacquainted with the working of a

ship. Argal attacked the French with musketry, and at the

second discharge Gilbert Du Thet fell hack, mortally wounded;

four others were severely injured, and two young men, named

Lemoine and Neveau, jumped overboard and were drowned. Having

taken possession of the vessel, Argal went ashore and informed

La Saussaye that the place where they were was English

territory, and included in the charter of Virginia, and that

they must remove; but, if they could prove to him that they

were there under a commission from the crown of France, he

would treat them tenderly. He then asked La Saussaye to show

him his commission; but, as Argal, with unparalleled

indecency, had abstracted it from his chest while the vessel

was being plundered by his men, the unhappy governor was of

course unable to produce it. Argal then assumed a very lofty

tone. ... When Argal arrived in Virginia, he found that his

perfidious theft of the French governor's commission was

likely to cause his prisoners to be treated as pirates. They

were put into prison and in a fair way of being executed, in

spite of Argal's remonstrances, until struck with shame and

remorse, he produced the commission which he had so

dishonestly filched from them, and the prisoners were set

free. But the production of this document, while it saved the

lives of one set of Frenchmen, brought ruin upon all the

others who remained in Acadia. The Virginia colonists ...

resolved to send Argal to destroy all the French settlements

in Acadia, and erase all traces of their power. ... The only

excuse offered for this piratical outrage of Argal--which was

committed during a period of profound peace--was the claim

which was made by England to the whole continent of North

America, founded on the discoveries of the Cabots more than a

century before. That claim might, perhaps, have been of some

value if followed by immediate occupancy, as was the case with

the Spaniards in the South, but that not having been done, and

the French colony being the oldest, it was entitled to, at

least, as much consideration as that of Virginia. Singularly

enough, this act produced no remonstrance from France."

J. Hannay, History of Acadia, chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay, Popular History of the U. S.,

volume 1, chapter 12.

{359}

CANADA: A. D. 1611-1616.

The founding of Montreal.

Champlain's invasion of the Iroquois in New York.

"In 1611 Champlain again returned to America ... and on the

28th of May proceeded in search of his allies, whom he was to

meet by appointment. Not finding them he employed his time in

choosing a site for a new settlement, higher up the river than

Quebec. After a careful survey, he fixed upon an eligible spot

in the vicinity of Mont Royal. His choice has been amply

justified by the great prosperity to which this place, under

the name of Montreal, has subsequently risen. Having cleared a

considerable space of ground, he fenced it in by an earthen

ditch and planted grain in the enclosure. At length, on the

13th of June, three weeks after the time appointed, a party of

his Indian friends appeared. ... As an evidence of their good

will they imparted much valuable information respecting the

geography of this continent, with which they seemed to be

tolerably well acquainted as far south as the Gulf of Mexico.

They readily agreed to his proposal to return shortly with 40

or 50 of his people to prosecute discoveries and form

settlements in their country if he thought proper. They even

made a request that a French youth should accompany them, and

make observations upon their territory and tribe. Champlain

again returned to France, with a view of making arrangements

for more extensive operations; but this object was now of very

difficult accomplishment. De Monts, who had been appointed

governor of Saintonge, was no longer inclined to take the lead

in measures of this kind, and excused himself from going to

court by stating the urgency of his own affairs. He therefore

committed the whole conduct of the settlement to Champlain,

advising him, at the same time, to seek some powerful

protector, whose influence would overcome any opposition which

might be made to his plans. The latter was so fortunate as to

win over, almost immediately, the Count de Soissons to aid him

in his designs. This nobleman obtained the title of

lieutenant-general of New France; and, by a formal agreement,

transferred to Champlain all the functions of that high

office. The Count died soon after, but Champlain found a still

more influential friend in the Prince of Conde, who succeeded

to all the privileges of the deceased, and transferred them to

him in a manner equally ample. These privileges, including a

monopoly of the fur trade, gave great dissatisfaction to the

merchants; but Champlain endeavored to remove their principal

objection, by permitting as many of them as chose to accompany

him to the New World, and to engage in this traffic. In

consequence of this permission, three merchants from Normandy,

one from Rochelle, and one from St. Malo, accompanied him.

They were allowed the privileges of a free trade on

contributing six men each to assist in projects of discovery,

and giving one-twentieth of their profits towards defraying

the expenses of the settlement. In the beginning of March

[1613] the expedition sailed from Harfleur, and on the 7th of

May arrived at Quebec. Champlain now engaged in a new

project." His new project was a voyage of exploration up the

Ottawa River, which he accomplished with great difficulty,

through the aid of his Indian allies, but from which he

returned disappointed in the hope he had entertained of

discovering the northern sea and a way to India thereby. The

next summer found Champlain again in France, where "matters

still continued favorable for the colony. The Prince of Conde

retained his influence at Court, and no difficulty was

consequently found in equipping a small fleet, to carry out

settlers and supplies from Rouen and St. Malo. On board of

this fleet came four fathers of the order of the Recollets,

whose benevolence induced them to desire the conversion of the

Indians to Christianity. These were the first priests who

settled in Canada. Champlain arrived safely, on the 25th of

May, at Tadoussac, whence he immediately pushed forward to

Quebec, and subsequently to the usual place of Indian

rendezvous, at the Lachine Rapids. Here he found his Algonquin

and Huron allies full of projects of war against the Iroquois,

whom they now proposed to assail among the lakes to the

westward, with a force of 2,000 fighting men."

J. MacMullen, History of Canada, chapter 1

"Champlain found the Hurons and their allies preparing for an

expedition against their ancient enemies, the Iroquois.

Anxious to reconnoitre the hostile territory, and also to

secure the friendship of the Canadian savages, the gallant

Frenchman resolved to accompany their warriors. After visiting

the tribes at the head waters of the Ottawa, and discovering

Lake Huron [at Georgian Bay], which, because of its 'great

extent,' he named 'La Mer Douce,' Champlain, attended by an

armed party of ten Frenchmen, accordingly set out toward the

south, with his Indian allies. Enraptured with the 'very

beautiful and pleasant country' through which they passed, and

amusing themselves with fishing and hunting, as they descended

the chain of 'Shallow Lakes,' which discharge their waters

through the River Trent, the expedition reached the banks of

Lake Ontario. Crossing the end of the lake, 'at the outlet of

the great River of Saint Lawrence,' and passing by many

beautiful islands on the way, the invaders followed the

eastern shore of Ontario for fourteen leagues, toward their

enemy's country. ... Leaving the shores of the lake, the

invaders continued their route inland to the southward, for 25

or 30 leagues." After a journey of five days, "the expedition

arrived before the fortified village of the Iroquois, on the

northern bank of the Onondaga Lake, near the site of the

present town of Liverpool. The village was inclosed by four

rows of palisades, made of large pieces of timber closely

interlaced. The stockade was 30 feet high, with galleries

running around like a parapet." In the siege which followed

the Iroquois were dismayed by the firearms of Champlain and

his men, and by the operation of a moveable tower with which

he advanced to their stockade and set fire to it. But his

Indian allies proved incapable of acting in any rational or

efficient way, or to submit to the least direction, and the

attack was abortive. After a few days the invading force

retreated, carrying Champlain with them and forcing him to

remain in the Huron country until the following spring (1616),

when he made his way back to Montreal.

J. R. Brodhead, History of the State of New York,

volume 1, chapter 3.

{360}

The above account, which fixes on Onondaga Lake the site of

the Iroquois fort to which Champlain penetrated, does not

agree with the views of Parkman, O'Callaghan, and some other

historians, who trace Champlain's route farther westward in

New York; but it accepts the conclusions reached by O. H.

Marshall, J. V. H. Clark, and other careful students of the

question. Mr. MacMullen, in the "History of Canada" quoted

above, finds an extraordinary route for the expedition via

Lakes Huron and St. Clair, to the vicinity of Detroit.

J. V. H. Clark, History of Onondaga.

ALSO IN:

O. H. Marshall, Champlain's Expedition against the

Onondagas.--Champlain's Voyages (Prince Society). 1880.

E. B. O'Callaghan, editor, Doc. History of New York,

volume 3, pages 10-24.

CANADA: A. D. 1616-1628.

Champlain and the fur traders.

The first Jesuit mission.

Creation of the Company of the Hundred Associates.

"The exploration in the distant Indian territories which we

have just described in the preceding pages was the last made

by Champlain. He had plans for the survey of other regions yet

unexplored, but the favorable opportunity did not occur.

Henceforth he directed his attention more exclusively than he

had hitherto done to the enlargement and strengthening of his

colonial plantation, without such success, we regret to say,

as his zeal, devotion and labors fitly deserved. The obstacles

that lay in his way were insurmountable. The establishment or

factory, we can hardly call it a plantation, at Quebec, was

the creature of a company of merchants. They had invested

considerable sums in shipping, buildings, and in the

employment of men, in order to carry on a trade in furs and

peltry with the Indians, and they naturally desired

remunerative returns. This was the limit of their purpose in

making the investment. ... Under these circumstances,

Champlain struggled on for years against a current which he

could barely direct, but by no means control. ... He succeeded

at length in extorting from the company a promise to enlarge

the establishment to 80 persons, with suitable equipments,

farming implements, all kinds of seeds, and domestic animals,

including cattle and sheep. But when the time came, this

promise was not fulfilled. Differences, bickerings and feuds

sprang up in the company. Some wanted one thing, and some

wanted another. The Catholics wished to extend the faith of

their church into the wilds of Canada, while the Huguenots

desired to prevent it, or at least not to promote it by their

own contributions. The company, inspired by avarice and a

desire to restrict the establishment to a mere trading post,

raised an issue to discredit Champlain. It was gravely

proposed that he should devote himself exclusively to

exploration, and that the government and trade should

henceforth be under the direction and control of Pont Gravé.

But Champlain ... obtained a decree ordering that he should

have the command at Quebec, and at all other settlements in

New France, and that the company should abstain from any

interference with him in the discharge of the duties of his

office." In 1620 the Prince de Condé sold his viceroyalty to

the Duke de Montmorency, then high-admiral of France, who

commissioned Champlain anew, as his lieutenant, and supported

him vigorously. Champlain had made voyages to Canada in 1617

and 1618, and now, in 1620, he proceeded to his post again. At

Quebec he began immediately the building of a fort, which he

called fort St. Louis. The company of associates opposed this

work, and so provoked the Duke of Montmorency by their conduct

that "in the spring of 1621, he summarily dissolved the

association of merchants, which he denominated the 'Company of

Rouen and St. Malo,' and established another in its place. He

continued Champlain in the office of lieutenant, but committed

all matters relating to trade to William de Caen, a merchant

of high standing, and to Émeric de Caen, the nephew of the

former, a good naval captain." In the course of the following

year, however, the new and the old trading companies were

consolidated in one. "Champlain remained at Quebec four years

before again returning to France. His time was divided between

many local enterprises of great importance. His special

attention was given to advancing the work on the unfinished

fort, in order to provide against incursions of the hostile

Iroquois, who at one time approached the very walls of Quebec,

and attacked unsuccessfully the guarded house of the

Recollects on the St. Charles." In the summer of 1624

Champlain returned again to France, where the Duke de

Montmorency was just selling, or had sold, his viceroyalty to

the Duke de Ventadour. "This nobleman, of a deeply religious

cast of mind, had taken holy orders, and his chief purpose in

obtaining the viceroyalty was to encourage the planting of

Catholic missions in New France. As his spiritual directors

were Jesuits, he naturally committed the work to them. Three

fathers and two lay brothers of this order were sent to Canada

in 1625, and others subsequently joined them. ... Champlain

was reappointed lieutenant, but remained in France two years."

Returning to Quebec in July, 1626, he found, as usual, that

everything but trade had suffered neglect in his absence. Nor

was he able, during the following year, to improve much the

prospects of the colony. As a colony, "it had never prospered.

The average number composing it had not exceeded about 50

persons. At this time it may have been somewhat more, but did

not reach a hundred. A single family only appears to have

subsisted by the cultivation of the soil. The rest were

sustained by supplies sent from France. ... The company as a

mere trading association, was doubtless successful. ... The

large dividends that they were able to make, intimated by

Champlain to be not far from forty per centum yearly, were, of

course, highly satisfactory to the company. ... Nearly twenty

years had elapsed since the founding of Quebec, and it still

possessed only the character of a trading post, and not that

of a colonial plantation. This progress was satisfactory

neither to Champlain, to the Viceroy, nor to the Council of

State. In the view of these several interested parties, the

time had come for a radical change in the organization of the

company. Cardinal de Richelieu had risen by his extraordinary

ability as a statesman, a short time anterior to this, into

supreme authority. ... He lost no time in organizing measures.

... The company of merchants whose finances had been so

skilfully managed by the Caens was by him at once dissolved. A

new one was formed, denominated 'La Compagnie de la

Nouvelle-France,' consisting of a hundred or more members, and

commonly known as the Company of the Hundred Associates. It

was under the control and management of Richelieu himself.

{361}

Its members were largely gentlemen in official positions. ...

Its authority extended over the whole domain of New France and

Florida. ... It entered into an obligation ... within the

space of 15 years to transport 4,000 colonists to New France.

... The organization of the company ... was ratified by the

Council of State on the 6th of May, 1628."

E. F. Slafter, Memoir of Champlain (Voyages:

Prince Society, 1880, volume 1), chapter 9.

ALSO IN:

Père Charlevoix, History of New France, trans.

by J. G. Shea, book 4 (volume 2).

CANADA: A. D. 1628-1635.

Conquest and brief occupation by the English.

Restoration to France.

"The first care of the new Company was to succor Quebec, whose

inmates were on the verge of starvation. Four armed vessels,

with a fleet of transports commanded by Roquemont, one of the

associates, sailed from Dieppe with colonists and supplies in

April, 1628; but nearly at the same time another squadron,

destined also for Quebec, was sailing from an English port.

War had at length broken out in France. The Huguenot revolt

had come to a head. Rochelle was in arms against the king; and

Richelieu, with his royal ward, was beleaguering it with the

whole strength of the kingdom. Charles I. of England, urged by

the heated passions of Buckingham, had declared himself for

the rebels, and sent a fleet to their aid. ... The attempts of

Sir William Alexander to colonize Acadia had of late turned

attention in England towards the New World; and, on the

breaking out of the war, an expedition was set on foot, under

the auspices of that singular personage, to seize on the

French possessions in North America. It was a private

enterprise, undertaken by London merchants, prominent among

whom was Gervase Kirke, an Englishman of Derbyshire, who had

long lived at Dieppe, and had there married a Frenchwoman.

Gervase Kirke and his associates fitted out three small armed

ships, commanded respectively by his sons David, Lewis and

Thomas. Letters of marque were obtained from the king, and the

adventurers were authorized to drive out the French from

Acadia and Canada. Many Huguenot refugees were among the

crews. Having been expelled from New France as settlers, the

persecuted sect were returning as enemies." The Kirkes reached

the St. Lawrence in advance of Roquemont's supply ships,

intercepted the latter and captured or sank the whole. They

then sailed back to England with their spoils, and it was not

until the following summer that they returned to complete

their conquest. Meantime, the small garrison and population at

Quebec were reduced to starvation, and were subsisting on

acorns and roots when, in July 1629, Admiral David Kirke, with

his three ships, appeared before the place. Champlain could do

nothing but arrange a dignified surrender. For three years

following, Quebec and New France remained under the control of

the English. They were then restored, under a treaty

stipulation to France. "It long remained a mystery why Charles

consented to a stipulation which pledged him to resign so

important a conquest. The mystery is explained by the recent

discovery of a letter from the king to Sir Isaac Wake, his

ambassador at Paris. The promised dowry of Queen Henrietta

Maria, amounting to 800,000 crowns, had been but half paid by

the French government, and Charles, then at issue with his

Parliament and in desperate need of money, instructs his

ambassador that, when he receives the balance due, and not

before, he is to give up to the French both Quebec and Port

Royal, which had also been captured by Kirke. The letter was

accompanied by 'solemn instruments under our hand and seal' to

make good the transfer on fulfilment of the condition. It was

for a sum equal to about $240,000 that Charles entailed on

Great Britain and her colonies a century of bloody wars. The

Kirkes and their associates, who had made the conquest at

their own cost, under the royal authority, were never

reimbursed, though David Kirke received the honor of

knighthood, which cost the king nothing,"--and also the grant

of Newfoundland. On the 5th of July, 1632, Quebec was

delivered up by Thomas Kirke to Émery de Caen, commissioned by

the French king to reclaim the place. The latter held command

for one year, with a monopoly of the fur trade; then Champlain

resumed the government, on behalf of the Hundred Associates,

continuing in it until his death, which occurred on Christmas

Day, 1635.

F. Parkman, Pioneers of France in the New

World: Champlain, chapter 16-17.

ALSO IN:

Calendar of State Papers: Colonial

Series, 1574-1660, pages 96-143.

D. Brymuer, Report on Canadian Archives,

pages xi-xiv, and note D.

H. Kirke, First English Conquest of Canada.

See, also,

NEWFOUNDLAND, A. D. 1610-1655.

CANADA: A. D. 1634-1652.

The Jesuit missions and their fate.

The first of the Jesuit missionaries came to Quebec in 1625,

as stated above, but it was not until nearly seven years later

that they made their way into the heart of the Indian country

and began there their devoted work. "The Father Superior of

the Mission was Paul le Jeune, a man devoted in every fibre of

mind and heart to the work on which he had come. He utterly

scorned difficulty and pain. He had received the order to

depart for Canada 'with inexpressible joy at the prospect of a

living or dying martyrdom.' Among his companions was Jean de

Brébœuf, a man noble in birth and aspect, of strong intellect

and will, of zeal which knew no limit, and recognized no

obstacle in the path of duty. ... Far in the west, beside a

great lake of which the Jesuits had vaguely heard, dwelt the

Hurons, a powerful nation with many kindred tribes over which

they exercised influence. The Jesuits resolved to found a

mission among the Hurons. Once in every year a fleet of canoes

came down the great river, bearing six or seven hundred Huron

warriors, who visited Quebec to dispose of their furs, to

gamble and to steal. Brébœuf and two companions took passage

[1634] with the returning fleet, and set out for the dreary

scene of their new apostolate. ... The Hurons received with

hospitable welcome the black-robed strangers. The priests were

able to repay the kindness with services of high value. They

taught more effective methods of fortifying the town in which

they lived. They promised the help of a few French musketeers

against an impending attack by the Iroquois. They cured

diseases; they bound up wounds. They gave simple instruction

to the young, and gained the hearts of their pupils by gifts

of beads and raisins. The elders of the people came to have

the faith explained to them: they readily owned that it was a

good faith for the French, but they could not be persuaded

that it was suitable for the red man.

{362}

The fathers laboured in hope and the savages learned to love them.

... Some of their methods of conversion were exceedingly

rude. A letter from Father Garnier has been preserved in which

pictures are ordered from France for the spiritual improvement

of the Indians. Many representations of souls in perdition

are required, with appropriate accompaniment of

flames, and triumphant demons tearing them with pincers. One

picture of saved souls would suffice, and 'a picture of Christ

without a beard.' They were consumed by a zeal for the baptism

of little children. At the outset the Indians welcomed this

ceremonial, believing that it was a charm to avert sickness

and death. But when epidemics wasted them they charged the

calamity against the mysterious operations of the fathers,

and refused now to permit baptism. The fathers recognized

the hand of Satan in this prohibition, and refused to submit

to it. They baptized by stealth. ... In time, the patient,

self-denying labour of the fathers might have won those

discouraging savages to the cross; but a fatal interruption

was at hand. A powerful and relentless enemy, bent on

extermination, was about to sweep over the Huron territory,

involving the savages and their teachers in one common ruin.

Thirty-two years had passed since those ill judged expeditions

in which Champlain had given help to the Hurons against the

Iroquois. The unforgiving savages had never forgotten the

wrong. ... The Iroquois [1648-1649] attacked in

overwhelming force the towns of their Huron enemies; forced

the inadequate defences; burned the palisades and wooden

huts; slaughtered with indescribable tortures the wretched

inhabitants. In one of these towns they found Brébœuf and one

of his companions. They bound the ill fated missionaries to

stakes; they hung around their necks collars of red-hot iron;

they poured boiling water on their heads; they cut stripes of

flesh from their quivering limbs and ate them in their sight.

To the last Brébœuf cheered with hopes of heaven the native

converts who shared his agony. And thus was gained the crown

of martyrdom for which in the fervour of their enthusiasm,

these good men had long yearned. In a few years the Huron

nation was extinct; famine and small-pox swept off those whom

the Iroquois spared. The Huron mission was closed by the

extirpation of the race for whom it was founded. Many of the

missionaries perished; some returned to France. Their labour

seemed to have been in vain; their years of toil and suffering

left no trace."

R. Mackenzie, America: A History, pages 326-332.

"With the fall of the Hurons, fell the best hope

of the Canadian mission. They, and the stable and populous

communities around them, had been the rude material from which

the Jesuit would have formed his Christian empire in the

wilderness; but, one by one, these kindred peoples were

uprooted and swept away, while the neighboring Algonquins, to

whom they had been a bulwark, were involved with them in a

common ruin. ... In a measure, the occupation of the Jesuits

was gone. Some of them went home, 'well resolved,' writes the

Father Superior, 'to return to the combat at the first sound

of the trumpet'; while of those who remained, about twenty in

number, several soon fell victims to famine, hardship and the

Iroquois. A few years more, and Canada ceased to be a mission.

Political and commercial interests gradually became ascendant,

and the story of Jesuit propagandism was interwoven with her

civil and military annals."

F. Parkman, The Jesuits in N. Am., chapter 34.

ALSO IN:

Father Charlevoix, History of New France, translated by

Shea, book 5-7 (volume 2).

J. G. Shea, The Jesuits, Recollects, and the Indians

(Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 4, chapter 6).

CANADA: A. D. 1634-1673.

Nicolet.

Marquette.

Joliet.

Pioneer exploration in the West and discovery of the Mississippi.

When Champlain gave up his work, the map of New France was

blank beyond Lake Ontario and Georgian Bay. The first of the

French explorers who widened it far westward was a Norman

named Jean Nicolet, who came to America in 1618, and who was

trained for many years in Champlain's service. "After dwelling

some time among the Nipissings, he visited the Far West;

seemingly between the years 1634 and 1640. In a birch-bark

canoe, the brave Norman voyageur crossed or coasted Lake

Huron, entered the St. Mary's River, and, first of white men,

stood at the strait now called Sault Ste Marie. He does not

seem to have known of Lake Superior, but returned down the St.

Mary's River, passed from Lake Huron through the western

detour to Michilimackinac, and entered another fresh-water

sea, Mitchigannon or Michigan, also afterwards known as the

Lake of the Illinois, Lake St. Joseph, Lake Dauphin, or even

Algonquin Lake. Here he visited the Menomonee tribe of

Indians, and after them the Winnibagoes. ... The fierce wrath

of the Iroquois had driven numbers of the Hurons, Ottawas, and

several minor Algonquin tribes westward. The Iroquois, like a

wedge, had split the northern tribes into east and west. Sault

Ste Marie became a central point for the refugees. ... Another

gathering place for the fugitives had been found very near the

south-west corner of this great lake. This was La Pointe, one

of the Apostle Islands, near the present town of Ashland in

Wisconsin. The Jesuits took up these two points as mission

centres. ... In 1669 the Fathers Dablon and Marquette, with

their men, had erected a palisaded fort, enclosing a chapel

and house, at Sault Ste Marie. In the same year Father Allouez

had begun a mission at Green Bay. In 1670 an intrepid

explorer, St. Lusson, under orders from Intendant Talon, came

west searching for copper-mines. He was accompanied by the

afterwards well-known Joliet. When this party arrived at Sault

Ste Marie, the Indians were gathered together in great

numbers, and with imposing ceremonies St. Lusson took

possession of 'Sainte Marie du Saut, as also of Lakes Huron

and Superior, the island of Manetoulin, and all countries,

rivers, lakes, and streams contiguous and adjacent thereunto.'

... It was undoubtedly the pressing desire of the Jesuit

fathers to visit the country of the Illinois and their great

river that led to the discovery of the 'Father of Waters.'

Father Allouez indeed had already ascended the Fox River from

Lake Michigan, and seen the marshy lake which is the head of a

tributary of the Mississippi. At last on June 4th, 1672, the

French minister, Colbert, wrote to Talon: 'As after the

increase of the colony there is nothing more important for the

colony than the discovery of a passage to the South Sea, his

Majesty wishes you to give it your attention.'

{363}

This message to the Intendant came as he was leaving for

France, and he recommended the scheme and the explorer he had

in view for carrying it out to the notice of the Governor,

Frontenac, who had just arrived. Governor Frontenac approved

and the explorer started. The man chosen for the enterprise

was Louis Joliet, who had already been at Sault Ste Marie. He

was of humble birth, and was a native of New France. ... The

French Canadian explorer was acceptable to the missionaries,

and immediately journeyed west to meet Marquette, who was to

accompany him. ... M. Joliet met the priest Marquette at St.

Ignace Mission, Michilimackinac. Jacques Marquette, of whom we

have already heard, was born in 1637 at Laon, Champagne, in

France. He sprang of an ancient and distinguished family. ...

On May 17th, 1673, with deepest religious emotion, the trader

and missionary launched forth on Lake Michigan their two

canoes, containing seven Frenchmen in all, to make the

greatest discovery of the time. They hastened to Green Bay,

followed the course of Father Allouez up the Fox River, and

reached the tribe of the Mascoutins or Fire Nation on this

river. These were new Indians to the explorers. They were

peaceful, and helped the voyagers on their way. With guides

furnished, the two canoes were transported for 2,700 paces,

and the head waters of the Wisconsin were reached. After an

easy descent of 30 or 40 leagues, on June 17th, 1673, the feat

was accomplished, the Mississippi was discovered by white men,

and the canoes shot out upon its surface in latitude 43°.

Sailing down the great river for a month, the party reached

the village of Akansea, on the Arkansas River, in latitude

34°, and on July 17th began their return journey. It is but

just to say that some of the Recollet fathers, between whom

and the Jesuits jealousy existed, have disputed the fact of

Joliet and Marquette ever reaching this point. The evidence

here seems entirely in favour of the explorers. On their

return journey the party turned from the Mississippi into a

tributary river in latitude 38°. This was the Illinois.

Ascending this, the Indian town of Kaskaskia was reached, and

here for a time Father Marquette remained. Joliet and his

party passed on," arriving at Montreal in due time, but losing

all their papers in the rapids of the St. Lawrence. Father

Marquette established a mission among the Illinois Indians,

but his labors were cut short. He died while on a journey to

Green Bay, May 18, 1675. "High encomiums of Father Marquette

fill--and deservedly so--the 'Jesuit Relations.' We have his

autograph map of the Mississippi. This great stream he desired

to call 'Conception River,' but the name, like those of

'Colbert' and 'Buade' [the family name of Count Frontenac],

which were both bestowed upon it, have failed to take the

place of the musical Indian name."

G. Bryce, Short History of the Canadian People,

chapter 5, section 3.

ALSO IN:

F. Parkman, La Salle and the Discovery

of the Great West, chapters 2-5.

C. W. Butterfield, History of the Discovery

of the N. W. by Nicolet.

J. W. Monette, History of the Discovery

and settlement of the Valley of the Mississippi,

book 2, chapter 1 (volume l).

S. S. Hebberd, History of Wisconsin under

the dominion of France, chapter 1-2.

CANADA: A. D. 1637-1657.

The Sulpician settlement of Montreal and religious activity at

Quebec.

Champlain was succeeded as governor of New France by M. de

Châteaufort, of whose brief administration little is known,

and the latter was followed by M. de Montmagny, out of the

translation of whose name the Indians formed the title

Onontio, signifying "Great Mountain," which they afterwards

applied to all the French governors. Montmagny entered with

zeal into the plans of Champlain, "but difficulties

accumulated on all sides. Men and money were wanting, trade

languished, and the Associated Company in France were daily

becoming indifferent to the success of the colony. Some few

merchants and inhabitants of the outposts, indeed, were

enriched by the profitable dealings of the fur-trade, but

their suddenly-acquired wealth excited the jealousy rather

than increased the general prosperity of the settlers. The

work of religious institutions was alone pursued with vigor

and success in those times of failure and discouragement. At

Sillery, one league from Quebec, an establishment was founded

for the instruction of the savages and the diffusion of

Christian light [1637]. The Hotel Dieu owed its existence to

the Duchesse d'Aiguillon two years afterward, and the convent

of the Ursulines was founded by the pious and high-born Madame

de la Peltrie. The partial success and subsequent failure of

Champlain and his Indian allies in their encounters with the

Iroquois had emboldened these brave and politic savages. They

now captured several canoes belonging to the Hurons, laden

with furs, which that friendly people were conveying to

Quebec. Montmagny's military force was too small to allow of

his avenging this insult; he, however, zealously promoted an

enterprise to build a fort and effect a settlement on the

island of Montreal, which he fondly hoped would curb the

audacity of his savage foes. The Associated Company would

render no aid whatever to this important plan, but the

religious zeal of the Abbé Olivier overcame all difficulties.

He obtained a grant of Montreal from the king, and dispatched

the Sieur de Maisonneuve and others to take possession. On the

17th of May, 1641, the place destined for the settlement was

consecrated by the superior of the Jesuits. At the same time

the governor erected a fort at the entrance of the River

Richelieu," which so far checked the Iroquois that they

entered into a treaty of peace and respected it for a brief

period.

E. Warburton, The Conquest of Canada, volume 1, chapter 12.

The settlement of Montreal was undertaken by an association of

thirty-five rich and influential persons in France, among whom

was the Duke de Liancourt de la Hoche Guyon. "This company

obtained a concession of the island in 1640, and a member of

the association arrived at Quebec from France with several

immigrating families, some soldiers, and an armament valued at

25,000 piastres." In 1642 "a reinforcement of colonists

arrived, led by M. d'Ailleboust de Musseau. During the

following year, a second party came. At this time the European

population resident in Canada did not exceed 200 souls. The

immigrants who now entered it had been selected with the

utmost care."

A. Bell, History of Canada, book 3, chapter 1 (volume l).

In 1657 the seigniority of Montreal was ceded to the Seminary

of St. Sulpice in Paris, where the reins of its government

were held until 1692.

Father Charlevoix, History of New France,

translated by Shea, volume 3, page 23.

ALSO IN:

F. Parkman, The Jesuits in North America, chapter 13-15.

{364}

CANADA: A. D. 1640-1700.

The wars with the Iroquois.

"From about the year 1640 to the year 1700, a constant warfare

was maintained between the Iroquois and the French,

interrupted occasionally by negotiations and brief intervals

of peace. As the former possessed both banks of the St.

Lawrence, and the circuits of lakes Erie and Ontario, they

intercepted the fur trade, which the French were anxious to

maintain with the western nations. ... The war parties of the

League ranged through these territories so constantly that it

was impossible for the French to pass in safety through the

lakes, or even up the St. Lawrence above Montreal. ... So

great was the fear of these sudden attacks, that both the

traders and the missionaries were obliged to ascend the Ottawa

river to near its source, and from thence to cross over to the

Sault St. Marie, and the shores of Lake Superior. ... To

retaliate for these frequent inroads, and to prevent their

recurrence, the country of the Iroquois was often invaded by

the French. ... In 1665, M. Courcelles, governor of Canada,

led a strong party into the country of the Mohawks; but the

hardships they encountered rendered it necessary for them to

return without accomplishing their purpose. The next year, M.

de Tracy, Viceroy of New France, with 1,200 French and 600

Indians, renewed the invasion with better success. He captured

Te-ä-ton-ta-ló-ga, one of the principal villages of the

Mohawks, situated at the mouth of the Schoharie Creek; but

after destroying the town, and the stores of corn, which they

found in caches, they were obliged to retire without meeting

an opposing force. Again, in 1684. M. De La Barre, then

governor of Canada, entered the country of the Onondagas, with

about 1,800 men. Having reached Hungry Bay, on the east shore

of lake Ontario, a conference was had with a delegation of

Iroquois chiefs. ... A species of armistice was finally agreed

upon, and thus the expedition ended. A more successful

enterprise was projected and carried into execution in 1687 by

M. De Nonville, then governor of Canada. Having raised a force

of 2,000 French and 600 Indians, he embarked them in a fleet

of 200 bateau, and as many birch bark canoes. After coasting

lake Ontario from Kingston to Irondequoit bay, in the

territory of the Senecas, he landed at the head of this bay,

and found himself within a few miles of the principal villages

of the Senecas, which were then in the counties of Ontario and

Monroe." After one battle with about 500 of the Senecas, the

latter retreated into the interior, and the French destroyed

four of their villages, together with the surrounding fields

of growing corn. "To retaliate for this invasion, a formidable

party of the Iroquois, in the fall of the same year, made a

sudden descent upon Fort Chambly, on the Sorel River, near

Montreal. Unable to capture the fort, which was resolutely

defended by the garrison, they ravaged the settlements

adjacent, and returned with a number of captives. About the

same time, a party of 800 attacked Frontenac, on the site of

Kingston, and destroyed and laid waste the plantations and

establishments of the French without the fortification. In

July of the ensuing year the French were made to feel still

more sensibly the power of their revenge. A band of 1,200

warriors, animated with the fiercest resentment, made a

descent upon the island of Montreal. ... All that were without

the fortifications fell under the rifle or the relentless

tomahawk. Their houses were burned, their plantations ravaged,

and the whole island covered with desolation. About 1,000 of

the French, according to some writers, perished in this

invasion, or were carried into captivity. ... Overwhelmed by

this sudden disaster, the French destroyed their forts at

Niagara and Frontenac, and thus yielded the whole country west

of Montreal to the possession of the Iroquois. At this

critical period Count Frontenac again became governor of

Canada, and during the short residue of his life devoted

himself, with untiring energy, to restore its declining

prosperity."

L. H. Morgan, League of the Iroquois, book 1, chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

W. Kingsford, History of Canada, book 2-4 (volume 1-2).

E. B. O'Callaghan, editor, Doc. History

of New York, volume 1, pages 57-278.

J. R. Brodhead, History of the State of New York, volume 2,

ch.3 and 8.

O. H. Marshall, Expedition of the Marquis de Nonville against

the Senecas (Hist. Writings, pages 123-186).

CANADA: A. D. 1660-1688.

French encroachments and English concessions in Newfoundland.

See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1660-1688.

CANADA: A.D. 1663-1674.

Erected by Colbert into a Royal Province.

Brief career of the French West India Company.

"In 1663 the proceedings of the company [of the hundred

associates] became so obnoxious that the king of France

decided upon the immediate resumption of his rights, and the

erecting of Canada into a royal government: Monsieur de Mésy

was appointed governor, and proceeded from France to Quebec

with 400 regular troops, and 100 families as settlers, with

cattle, horses and implements of agriculture. Under the royal

jurisdiction, the governor, a king's commissioner, an

apostolical vicar, and four other gentlemen, were formed into

a sovereign council, to whom were confided the powers of

cognizance in all causes, civil and criminal, to judge in the

last resort according to the laws and ordinances of France,

and the practice of the Parliament of Paris, reserving the

general legislative powers of the Crown, to be applied

according to circumstances. This Council was further invested

with the regulation of commerce, the expenditure of the public

monies, and the establishment of inferior courts at Three

Rivers and Montreal. This change of Canada from an

ecclesiastical mission to a secular government was owing to

the great Colbert, who was, animated by the example of Great

Britain, to improve the navigation and commerce of his country

by colonial establishments. The enlightened policy of this

renowned financial minister of Louis XIV. was followed by the

success which it deserved. To a regulated civil government was

added increased military protection against the Iroquois

Indians; the emigration of French settlers to New France was

promoted by every possible means, and a martial spirit was

imparted to the population, by the location in the colony of

the disbanded soldiers of the Carignan regiment ... and other

troops, whose officers became the principal Seigneurs of the

colony, on condition of making cessions of land under the

feudal tenure, as it still exists, to the soldiers and other

inhabitants." The ambitious projects of Louis XIV. soon led,

however, to a new measure which proved less satisfactory in

its working.

{365}

"The French West India Company was remodelled [1664], and

Canada added to their possessions, subordinate to the crown of

France, with powers controlled by his Majesty's governors and

Intendants in the different colonies." The domain of the

company embraced all the possessions of France in the New

World and its islands and on the African coast. "The company

was to enjoy a monopoly of the territories and the trade of

the colonies thus conceded for 40 years; it was not only to

enjoy the exclusive navigation, but his Majesty conferred a

bounty of 30 livres on every ton of goods exported to France.

...  The company was not only endowed as Seigneur with all

unconceded lands, but invested with the right of extinguishing

the titles of seigniories granted or sold by previous

companies, on condition of reimbursing the grantees and

purchasers for their costs and improvements." The West India

Company's management soon showed evil effects, and came to an

end after ten years of unsatisfactory trial. "Monsieur De

Talon, the Intendant, a man of profound views, ... perceived

that it was the natural interest of the Company to discourage

colonization. He represented to the minister Colbert the

absolute necessity of the total resumption of the rights of

the crown; drew his attention to the means of obtaining

abundance of warlike instruments and naval stores within the

colony ... and, in fact, at last prevailed; so that, in 1674,

the king of France resumed his rights to all the territories

conceded to the West India Company, assumed their debts and

the current value of their stock, and appointed a governor,

council and judges for the direction of the Canadian colonies.

... From this period (1674), when the population, embracing

converted Indians, did not exceed 8,000, the French settlement

in Canada rapidly progressed, and as it rose in power, and

assumed offensive operations on the New England frontier, the

jealousy of the British colonies became roused, and both

parties, aided alternately by the Indians, carried on a

destructive and harassing border warfare."

R. M. Martin, History of Upper and Lower Canada, chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

A. Bell, History of Canada,

book 3, chapter 3 (volume l).

F. Parkman, The Old Regime in Canada, chapters 10-17.

CANADA: A. D. 1669-1687.

La Salle and the acquisition of Louisiana.

"Second only to Champlain among the heroes of Canadian history

stands Robert Cavelier de la Salle--a man of iron if ever

there was one--a man austere and cold in manner, and endowed

with such indomitable pluck and perseverance as have never

been surpassed in this world. He did more than any other man

to extend the dominion of France in the New World. As

Champlain had founded the colony of Canada and opened the way

to the great lakes, so La Salle completed the discovery of the

Mississippi, and added to the French possessions the vast

province of Louisiana. ... In 1669 La Salle made his first

journey to the west, hoping to find a northwest passage to

China, but very little is known about this expedition, except

that the Ohio river was discovered, and perhaps also the

Illinois. La Salle's feudal domain of St. Sulpice, some eight

miles from Montreal, bears to-day the name of La Chine, or

China, which is said to have been applied to it in derision of

this fruitless expedition. In 1673 the priest Marquette and

the fur-trader Joliet actually reached the Mississippi by way

of the Wisconsin, and sailed down the great river as far as

the mouth of the Arkansas; and now the life-work of La Salle

began in earnest. He formed a grand project for exploring the

Mississippi to its mouth, and determining whether it, flowed

into the Gulf of California or the Gulf of Mexico. The advance

of Spain on the side of Mexico was to be checked forever, the

English were to be confined to the east of the Alleghanies,

and such military posts were to be established as would

effectually confirm the authority of Louis XIV. throughout the

centre of this continent. La Salle had but little ready money,

and was surrounded by rivals and enemies; but he had a

powerful friend in Count Frontenac, the Viceroy of Canada. ...

At length, after surmounting innumerable difficulties, a

vessel [the Griffon or Griffin] was built and launched on the

Niagara river [1679], a small party of 30 or 40 men were

gathered together, and La Salle, having just recovered from a

treacherous dose of poison, embarked on his great enterprise.

His departure was clouded by the news that his impatient

creditors had laid hands upon his Canadian estates; but,

nothing daunted, he pushed on through Lakes Erie and Huron,

and after many disasters reached the southern extremity of

Lake Michigan. The vessel was now sent back, with half the

party, to Niagara, carrying furs to appease the creditors and

purchase additional supplies for the remainder of the journey,

while La Salle with his diminished company pushed on to the

Illinois, where a fort was built, and appropriately named Fort

Crèvecœur, or, as we might translate it, the 'fort of the

breaking heart.' Here, amid perils of famine, mutiny, and

Indian attack, and exposed to death from the wintry cold, they

waited until it became evident to all that their vessel must

have perished. She never was heard from again, and most likely

had foundered on her perilous voyage. To add to the trouble,

La Salle was again poisoned; but his iron constitution, aided

by some lucky antidote, again carried him safely through the

ordeal, and about the 1st of March, 1680, he started on foot

for Montreal. Leaving Fort Crèveœur and its tiny garrison

under command of his faithful lieutenant, Tonty, he set out

with four Frenchmen and one Mohegan guide. ... They made their

way for a thousand miles across Michigan and Western Canada to

Niagara, and so on to Montreal. ... At Niagara La Salle

learned that a ship from France, freighted for him with a

cargo worth more than 20,000 livres, had been wrecked in the

Gulf of St. Lawrence, and nothing had been saved. In spite of

this dreadful blow he contrived to get together supplies and

reenforcements at Montreal, and had returned to Fort

Frontenac, at the lower end of Lake Ontario, when still more

woful tidings were received. Here, toward the end of July, a

message came from the fortress so well named Crèvecœur. The

garrison had mutinied and destroyed the fort, and made their

way back through Michigan." The indomitable La Salle promptly

hunted down the deserters, and sent them in chains to Quebec.

He then "proceeded again to the Illinois to reconstruct his

fort, and rescue, if possible, his lieutenant Tonty and the

few faithful followers who had survived the mutiny. This

little party, abandoned in the wilderness, had found shelter

among the Illinois Indians; but during the summer of 1680 the

great village or town of the Illinois was destroyed by the

Iroquois, and the hard-pressed Frenchmen retreated up the

western shore of Lake Michigan to Green Bay.-

{366}

On arriving at the Illinois, therefore, La Salle found nothing

but the terrible traces of fire and massacre and cannibal

orgies; but he spent the following winter to good purpose in

securing the friendship of the western Indians, and in making

an alliance with them against the Iroquois. Then, in May,

1681, he set out again for Canada, to look after his creditors

and obtain new resources. On the way home, at the outlet of

Lake Michigan, he met his friend Tonty, and together they

paddled their canoes a thousand miles and came to Fort

Frontenac. So, after all this hardship and disaster, the work

was to be begun anew; and the enemies of the great explorer

were exulting in what they imagined must be his despair. But

that was a word of which La Salle knew not the meaning, and

now his fortunes began to change. In Mr. Parkman's words,

'Fate at length seemed tired of the conflict with so stubborn

an adversary.' At this third venture everything went smoothly.

The little fleet passed up the great lakes, from the outlet of

Ontario to the head of Michigan, and gained the Chicago River.

Crossing the narrow portage, they descended the Illinois and

the Mississippi, till they came out upon the Gulf of Mexico;

and on the 9th of April, 1682, the fleurs-de-lis were planted

at the mouth of the great river, and all the country drained

by its tributaries, from the Alleghanies to the Rocky

Mountains, was formally declared to be the property of the

king of France, and named after him Louisiana. Returning up

the river after his triumph, La Salle founded a station or

small colony on the Illinois, which he called St. Louis, and

leaving Tonty in command, kept on to Canada, and crossed to

France for means to circumvent his enemies and complete his

far-reaching schemes. A colony was to be founded at the mouth

of the Mississippi, and military stations were to connect this

with the French settlements in Canada. At the French court La

Salle was treated like a hero, and a fine expedition was soon

fitted out, but everything was ruined by jealousy and ill-will

between La Salle and the naval commander, Beaujeu. The fleet

sailed beyond the mouth of the Mississippi, the colony was

thrown upon the coast of Texas, some of the vessels were

wrecked, and Beaujeu--though apparently without sinister

design--sailed away with the rest, and two years of terrible

suffering followed. At last, in March, 1687, La Salle started

to find the Mississippi, hoping to ascend it to Tonty's fort

on the Illinois, and obtain relief for his followers. But he

had scarcely set out on this desperate enterprise when two or

three mutinous wretches of his party laid an ambush for him in

the forest, and shot him dead. Thus, at the early age of

forty-three, perished this extraordinary man, with his

life-work but half accomplished. Yet his labors had done much

towards building up the imposing dominion with which New

France confronted New England in the following century."

J. Fiske, The Romance of the Spanish and French

Explorers (Harper's Mag., volume 64, pages 446-448.)

ALSO IN:

F. Parkman, La Salle and the Discovery of the Great

West.

Chevalier Tonti, Account of M. de la Salle's last Expedition

(New York Historical Society Collections, volume 2).

J. G. Shea, Discovery and Exploration of the Mississippi

Valley.

C. Le Clercq, First Establishment of the Faith in New

France, translated by Shea, chapter 21-25 (volume 2).

CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.

The first Inter-Colonial War (King William's War):

The Schenectady Massacre.

Montreal threatened, Quebec attacked, and Port Royal taken by

the English.

The Revolution of 1688, in England, which drove James II. from

the throne, and called to it his daughter Mary with her able

husband, William of Orange, produced war between England and

France (see FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690). The French and English

colonies in America were soon involved in the contest, and so

far as it troubled American history, it bears in New England

annals 'the name of King William's War. "If the issue had

depended on the condition of the colonies, it could hardly

have seemed doubtful. The French census for the North American

continent, in 1688, showed but 11,249 persons, scarcely a

tenth part of the English population on its frontiers; about a

twentieth part of English North America. West of Montreal, the

principal French posts, and those but inconsiderable ones,

were at Frontenac, at Mackinaw, and on the Illinois. At,

Niagara, there was a wavering purpose of maintaining a post,

but no permanent occupation. So weak were the garrisons that

English traders, with an escort of Indians, had ventured even

to Mackinaw. ... France, bounding its territory next New

England by the Kennebec, claimed the whole eastern coast, Nova

Scotia, Cape Breton, Newfoundland, Labrador, and Hudson's Bay;

and to assert and defend this boundless region, Acadia and its

dependencies counted but 900 French inhabitants. The

missionaries, swaying the minds of the Abenakis, were the sole

source of hope. On the declaration of war by France against

England, Count Frontenac, once more governor of Canada, was

charged to recover Hudson's Bay; to protect Acadia; and, by a

descent from Canada, to assist a fleet from France in making

conquest of New York. Of that province De Callieres was, in

advance, appointed governor; the English Catholics were to be

permitted to remain,--other inhabitants to be sent into

Pennsylvania or New England. ... In the east, blood was first

shed at Cocheco, where, thirteen years before, an unsuspecting

party of 350 Indians had been taken prisoners and shipped for

Boston, to be sold into foreign slavery. The memory of the

treachery was indelible, and the Indian emissaries of Castin

easily excited the tribe of Penacook to revenge. On the

evening of the 27th of June [1689] two squaws repaired to the

house of Richard Waldron, and the octogenarian magistrate bade

them lodge on the floor. At night, they rise, unbar the gates,

and summon their companions," who tortured the aged Waldron

until he died. "The Indians, burning his house and others that

stood near it, having killed three-and-twenty, returned to the

wilderness with 29 captives." In August, the stockade at

Pemaquid was taken by 100 Indians from the French mission on

the Penobscot. "Other inroads were made by the Penobscot and

St. John Indians, so that the settlements east of Falmouth

were deserted. In September, commissioners from New England

held a conference with the Mohawks at Albany, soliciting an

alliance. 'We have burned Montreal,' said they; 'we are the

allies of the English; we will keep the chain unbroken.'

{367}

But they refused to invade the Abenakis. ... Frontenac ... now

used every effort to win the Five Nations [the Iroquois] to

neutrality or to friendship. To recover esteem in their eyes;

to secure to Durantaye, the commander at Mackinaw, the means

of treating with the Hurons and the Ottawas; it was resolved

by Frontenac to make a triple descent into the English

provinces. From Montreal, a party of 110, composed of French

and of the Christian Iroquois,--having De Mantet and Sainte

Helene as leaders ... --for two and twenty days waded through

snows and morasses, through forests and across rivers, to

Schenectady. The village had given itself calmly to slumber:

through open and unguarded gates the invaders entered silently

[February 8, 1690], and having, just before midnight, reached its

heart, the war-whoop was raised (dreadful sound to the mothers

of that place and their children!), and the dwellings set on

fire. Of the inhabitants, some, half clad, fled through the

snows to Albany; 60 were massacred, of whom 17 were children

and 10 were Africans. ... The party from Three Rivers, led by

Hertel, and consisting of but 52 persons ... surprised the

settlement at Salmon Falls, on the Piscataqua, and, after a

bloody engagement, burned houses, barns, and cattle in the

stalls, and took 54 prisoners, chiefly women and children. ...

Returning from this expedition, Hertel met the war party,

under Portneuf, from Quebec, and, with them and a

reenforcement from Castin, made a successful attack on the

fort and settlement in Casco Bay. Meantime, danger taught the

colonies the necessity of union, and, on the 1st day of May,

1690, New York beheld the momentous example of an American

congress [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690]. ... At

that congress it was resolved to attempt the conquest of

Canada by marching an army, by way of Lake Champlain, against

Montreal, while Massachusetts should, with a fleet, attack

Quebec."

G. Bancroft, History of the U. S., chapter 21 (volume 3), (pt.

3, chapter 11, volume 2, in the "Author's last Revision").

Before the end of the month in which the congress was held,

Port Royal and the whole of Acadia had already been conquered,

having surrendered to an expedition sent out by Massachusetts,

in eight small vessels, under Sir William Phips. The larger fleet

(consisting of 32 ships and carrying 2,000 men) directed

against Quebec, sailed in August from Nastasket, and was,

likewise, commanded by Phips. "The plan of the campaign

contemplated a diversion to be made by an assault on Montreal,

by a force composed of English from Connecticut and New York,

and of Iroquois Indians, at the same time with the attack on

Quebec by the fleet. And a second expedition into Maine under

Captain Church was to threaten the Eastern tribes whose

incursions had, during the last summer, been so disastrous.

... As is so apt to happen when a plan involves the

simultaneous action of distant parties, the condition of

success failed. The movement of Church, who had with him but

300 men, proved ineffective as to any contribution to the

descent upon Canada. ... It was not till after a voyage of

more than six weeks that the fleet from Boston cast anchor

within the mouth of the river St. Lawrence, and meanwhile the

overland expedition against Montreal had miscarried. The

commanders respectively of the Connecticut and the New York

troops had disagreed, and could not act effectively together.

... The supply, both of boats and of provisions, was found to

be insufficient. The disastrous result was that a retreat was

ordered, without so much as an embarkation of the troops on

Lake Champlain. Frontenac was at Montreal, whither he had gone

to superintend the defence, when the intelligence, so

unexpected, reached him from Quebec; and presently after came

the tidings of Phips's fleet being in the St. Lawrence.

Nothing could have been more opportune than this coincidence,

which gave the Governor liberty to hasten down to direct his

little force of 200 soldiers at the capital. The French

historian says that, if he had been three days later, or if

the English fleet had not been delayed by contrary winds, or

had had better pilots in the river, where it was nearly a

fortnight more in making its slow way, Frontenac would have

come down from the upper country only to find the English

commander in his citadel. As it was, there ensued a crushing

mortification and sorrow to Massachusetts. New France was made

much more formidable than ever." The fleet arrived before

Quebec Oct. 6, and retreated on the 11th, after considerable

cannonading and an assault which the French repelled. It

suffered storms and disasters on the return voyage, and lost

altogether some 200 men.

J. G. Palfrey, History of New England,

book 4, chapter 2 (volume 4).

ALSO IN:

F. Parkman, Count Frontenac and New France under Louis

XIV., chapter 10-13.

Doc. History of New York, volume 1-2.

F. Bowen, Life of Sir W. Phips

(Library of American Biog., volume 7), chapter 2-3.

J. R. Brodhead, History of the State of New York,

volume 2, chapter 12.

J. Pearson, et al, History of the Schenectady Patent,

chapter 8-10.

CANADA: A. D. 1692-1697.

The first Inter-Colonial War (King William's War):

Abortive plans of invasion on both sides.

French recovery of Acadia.

"The defeat of the expedition of 1690 was probably

attributable to the want of concert on the part of the troops

from Connecticut and New York and those from Massachusetts,

and the failure of the supplies which were sought from

England. ... But there was mismanagement on all hands in the

conduct of the expedition; and it seems to have been

predestinated that New England should not be delivered from

the presence of the French at the north, until time had

wrought the necessary changes which were to render the

conquest of that country available for the promotion of still

more important ends. Hence a new expedition, projected two

years later, and resolved to be prosecuted in the following

year [1693], was attended with the like circumstances of

mortification and defeat. England herself participated in this

enterprise, and ... the government was informed that it had

'pleased the king, out of his great goodness and disposition

for the welfare of all his subjects, to send a considerable

strength of ships and men into the West Indies, and to direct

Sir Francis Wheeler, the admiral, to sail to New England from

the Caribbee Islands, so as to be there by the last of May or

the middle of June at furthest, with a strength sufficient to

overcome the enemy, if joined and seconded by the forces of

New England.' ... Unfortunately for the success of these

plans, the letter, which should have reached Boston by the

first of April, did not arrive until July; and the mortality

which prevailed in the fleet during its stay in the West

Indies was so great that, when the commander-in-chief, Sir

Francis Wheeler, anchored off Nantasket,--bringing himself the

news of the projected invasion,--he had lost 1,300 out of

2,100 sailors, and 1,800 out of 2,400 soldiers.

{368}

All thoughts of reducing Canada were therefore abandoned; but

a plan for another year was settled with the governor, the

details of which were that 2,000 land forces should be sent

from England to Canseau by the first of June, to be joined by

2,000 from the colonies, and that the whole force should go up

the St. Lawrence, divide and simultaneously attack Montreal

and Quebec. Changes in the government of the province,

however, and other causes, prevented the execution of this

plan, whose success was problematical even if it had been

attempted. But if the plans of the English for the reduction

of Canada were doomed to disappointment, the plans of the

French for the recovery of Acadia were more successful. For

the first year after the conquest of that country, indeed, the

French were as little concerned to regain, as the English were

to retain, the possession of its territory; nor was

Massachusetts able to bear the charge of a sufficient military

force to keep its inhabitants in subjection, though she issued

commissions to judges and other officers, and required the

administration of the oath of fidelity. In the course of that

year [1691], authority was given to Mr. John Nelson, of

Boston, who had taken an active part in the overthrow of

Andros, and who was bound thither on a trading voyage, to be

commander-in-chief of Acadia; but as he neared the mouth of

the St. John's, he was taken by Monsieur Villebon, who, under

a commission from the French king, had touched at Port Royal,

and ordered the English flag to be struck, and the French flag

to be raised in its place. The next year an attempt was made

to dislodge Villebon, but without success. ... In the summer

of 1696, Pemaquid was taken by the French, under D'Iberville

and Castine, and the frontier of the dominion of France was

extended into Maine; and by the treaty of the following year

Acadia was receded to France, and the English relinquished

their claims to the country. The last year of King William's

War, as it was long termed in New England, was a year of

especial alarm to the province [Massachusetts] and rumors were

rife that the French were on the eve of fitting out a

formidable fleet for the invasion of the colonies and the

conquest of New York." According to the plan of the French

undertaking, a powerful fleet from France was to be joined by

a force of 1,500 men, raised by Count Frontenac, in Canada,

and make, first, a conquest of Boston. "When that town was

taken, they were to range the coast to Piscataqua, destroying

the settlements as far back into the country as possible.

Should there be time for further acquisitions, they were next

to go to New York, and upon its reduction the Canadian troops

were to march overland to Quebec, laying waste the country as

they proceeded." This project was frustrated by happenings

much the same in kind as those which thwarted the designs of

the English against Quebec. The fleet was delayed by contrary

winds, and by certain bootless undertakings in Newfoundland,

until the season was too far advanced for the enterprise

contemplated. "The peace of Ryswick, which soon followed, led

to a temporary suspension of hostilities. France, anxious to

secure as large a share of territory in America as possible,

retained the whole coast and adjacent islands from Maine to

Labrador and Hudson's Bay, with Canada, and the Valley of the

Mississippi. The possessions of England were southward from

the St. Croix. But the bounds between the nations were

imperfectly defined, and were, for a long time, a subject of

dispute and negotiation.".

J. S. Barry, History of Massachusetts volume 2, chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

F. Parkman, Count Frontenac and New France under Louis

XIV., chapter 16-19.

J. Hannay, History of Acadia, chapter 14.

See, also, NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.

CANADA: A. D. 1696.

Frontenac's expedition against the Iroquois.

The war with the "Bastonnais" or "Bostonnais," as he called

the New Englanders, did not divert Frontenac's attention from

"the grand castigation which at last he was planning for the

Iroquois. He had succeeded, in 1694, in inducing them to meet

him in general council at Quebec, and had framed the

conditions of a truce; but the English at Albany intrigued to

prevent the fulfilment, and war was again imminent. Both sides

were endeavoring to secure the alliance of the tribes of the

upper lakes. These wavered, and Frontenac saw the peril and

the remedy. His recourse was to attack the Iroquois in their

villages at once, and conquer on the Mohawk the peace he

needed at Michilimackinac. It was Frontenac's last campaign.

Early in July [1696] he left Montreal with 2,200 men. He went

by way of Fort Frontenac, crossed Lake Ontario, landed at

Oswego, and struggled up its stream, and at last set sails to

his canoes on Lake Onondaga. Then his force marched again, and

Frontenac, enfeebled by his years, was borne along in an

arm-chair. Eight or nine miles and a day's work brought them

to the Onondaga village; but its inhabitants had burned it and

fled. Vaudreuil was sent with a detachment which destroyed the

town of the Oneidas. After committing all the devastation of

crops that he could, in hopes that famine would help him,

Frontenac began his homeward march before the English at

Albany were aroused at all. The effect was what Frontenac

wished. The Iroquois ceased their negotiations with the

western tribes, and sued for peace."

G. Stewart, Jr., Frontenac and His Times (Narrative and

Critical History of America, volume 4, chapter 7).

ALSO IN:

F. Parkman, Count Frontenac and New France under Louis

XIV., chapter 18-19.

CANADA: A. D. 1698-1710.

Colonization of Louisiana and the organization of its separate

government.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

The spread of French occupation in the Mississippi Valley and

on the Lakes.

"From the time of La Salle's visit in 1679, we can trace a

continuous French occupation of Illinois. ... He planted his

citadel of St. Louis on the summit of  'Starved Rock,'

proposing to make that the centre of his colony. ... At first

his colony was exceedingly feeble, but it was never

discontinued. 'Joutel found a garrison at Fort St. Louis ...

in 1687, and in 1689 La Hontan bears testimony that it still

continued. In 1696 a public document proves its existence; and

when Tonty, in 1700, again descended the Mississippi, he was

attended by twenty Canadians, residents on the Illinois.'

{369}

Even while the wars named after King William and Queen Anne

were going on, the French settlements were growing in numbers

and increasing in size; those wars over, they made still more

rapid progress. Missions grew into settlements and parishes.

Old Kaskaskia was begun in what La Salle called the

'terrestrial paradise' before the close of the seventeenth

century. The Wabash Valley was occupied about 1700, the first

settlers entering it by the portage leading from the Kankakee.

Later the voyageurs found a shorter route to the fertile

valley. ... The French located their principal missions and

posts with admirable judgment. There is not one of them in

which we cannot see the wisdom of the priest, of the soldier,

and the trader combined. The triple alliance worked for an

immediate end, but the sites that they chose are as important

to-day as they were when they chose them. ... La Salle's

colony of St. Louis was planted in one of the gardens of the

world, in the midst of a numerous Indian population, on the

great line of travel between Lake Michigan and the Mississippi

River. Kaskaskia and the neighboring settlements held the

centre of the long line extending from Canada to Louisiana.

'The Wabash colony commanded that valley and the Lower Ohio.

Detroit was a position so important that, securely held by the

French, it practically banished from the English mind for

fifty years the thought of acquiring the Northwest. ... Then

how unerringly were the French guided to the carrying places

between the Northern and the Southern waters, viz., Green Bay,

Fox River, and the Wisconsin; the Chicago River and the

Illinois; the St. Joseph and the Kankakee; the St. Joseph and

the Wabash; the Maumee and the Wabash; and, later, on the eve

of the war that gave New France to England, the Chautauqua and

French Creek routes from Lake Erie to the Ohio. ... In due

time the French began to establish themselves on the Northern

frontier of the British colonies. They built Fort Niagara in

1726, four years' after the English built Fort Oswego.

Following the early footsteps of Champlain, they ascended to

the head of the lake that bears his name, where they fortified

Crown Point in 1727, and Ticonderoga in 1731. Presque Isle,

the present site of the city of Erie, was occupied about the

time that Vincennes was founded in the Wabash Valley [1735].

Finally, just on the eve of the last struggle between England

and France, the French pressed into the valleys of the

Alleghany and the Ohio, at the same time that the English also

began to enter them."

B. A. Hinsdale, The Old Northwest, chapter 4.

CANADA: A. D. 1702-1710.

The Second Inter-Colonial War (Queen Anne's War):

Border ravages in New England and Acadia.

English Conquest of Acadia.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710.

CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

The Second Inter-Colonial War.

Walker's Expedition against Quebec.

Massacre of Fox Indians.

The Peace of Utrecht.

After the reduction of Port Royal, which was practically the

conquest of Acadia, Colonel Nicholson, who bore the honors of

that achievement, repaired to England and prevailed with the

government to fit out an adequate expedition for the Conquest

of Canada. "The fleet, consisting of 15 ships of war and 40

transports, was placed under the command of Sir Hovenden

Walker; seven veteran regiments from Marlborough's army, with

a battalion of marines, were intrusted to Mrs. Masham's second

brother, whom the queen had pensioned and made a

brigadier-general, whom his bottle companions called honest

Jack Hill. ... From June 25th to the 30th day of July 1711,

the fleet lay at Boston, taking in supplies and the colonial

forces. At the same time, an army of men from Connecticut, New

Jersey, and New York, Palatine emigrants, and about 600

Iroquois, assembling at Albany, prepared to burst upon

Montreal; while in Wisconsin the English had allies in the

Foxes, who were always wishing to expel the French from

Michigan. In Quebec, measures of defence began by a renewal of

friendship with the Indians. To deputies from the Onondagas

and Senecas, the governor spoke of the fidelity with which the

French had kept their treaty; and he reminded them of their

promise to remain quiet upon their mats. A war festival was

next held, at which were present all the savages domiciliated

near the French settlements, and all the delegates of their

allies who had come down to Montreal. In the presence of 700

or 800 warriors, the war song was sung and the hatchet

uplifted. The savages of the remote west were wavering, till

twenty Hurons from Detroit took up the hatchet, and swayed all

the rest by their example. By the influence of the Jesuits

over the natives, an alliance extending to the Ojibways

constituted the defence of Montreal. Descending to Quebec,

Vaudreuil found Abenaki volunteers assembling for his

protection. Measures for resistance had been adopted with

heartiness; the fortifications were strengthened; Beauport was

garrisoned; and the people were resolute and confiding; even

women were ready to labor for the common defence. Toward the

last of August, it was said that peasants at Matanes had

descried 90 or 96 vessels with the English flag. Yet September

came, and still from the heights of Cape Diamond no eye caught

one sail of the expected enemy. The English squadron, leaving

Boston on the 30th of July [1711], after loitering near the

bay of Gaspé, at last began to ascend the St. Lawrence, while

Sir Hovenden Walker puzzled himself with contriving how he

would secure his vessels during the winter at Quebec." At the

same time, the present and actual difficulties of the

expedition were so heedlessly and ignorantly dealt with that

eight ships of the fleet were wrecked among the rocks and

shoals near the Egg Islands, and 884 men were drowned. The

enterprise was then abandoned. "'Had we arrived safe at

Quebec,' wrote the admiral, 'ten or twelve thousand men must

have been left to perish of cold and hunger: by the loss of a

part, Providence saved all the rest.' Such was the issue of

hostilities in the north-east. Their total failure left the

expedition from Albany no option but to return, and Montreal

was unmolested. Detroit, in 1712, almost fell before the valor

of a party of the Ottagamies, or Foxes. ... Resolving to burn

Detroit, they pitched their lodgings near the fort, which Du

Buisson, with but twenty Frenchmen, defended. Aware of their

intention, he summoned his Indian allies from the chase; and,

about the middle of May, Ottawas and Hurons and

Pottawottamies, with one branch of the Sacs, Illinois,

Menomonies, and even Osages and Missouris, each nation with

its own ensign, came to his relief.

{370}

So wide was the influence of the missionaries in the

West. ... The warriors of the Fox nation, far from destroying

Detroit, were themselves besieged, and at last were compelled

to surrender at discretion. Those Who bore arms were

ruthlessly murdered; the rest distributed among the

confederates, to be enslaved or massacred at the will of their

masters. Cherished as the loveliest spot in Canada, the

possession of Detroit secured for Quebec a great highway to

the upper Indian tribes and to the Mississippi. ... In the

meantime, the preliminaries of a treaty had been signed

between France and England; and the war ... was suspended by

negotiations that were soon followed by the uncertain peace of

Utrecht [April 11, 1713]. ... England, by the peace of

Utrecht, obtained from France large concessions of territory

in America. The assembly of New York had addressed the queen

against French settlements in the West; William Penn advised

to establish the St. Lawrence as the boundary on the north,

and to include in our colonies the valley of the Mississippi.

'It will make a glorious country'; such were his prophetic

words. ... The colony of Louisiana excited in Saint-John

'apprehensions of the future undertakings of the French in

North America.' The occupation of the Mississippi valley had

been proposed to Queen Anne; yet, at the peace, that immense

region remained to France. But England obtained the bay of

Hudson and its borders; Newfoundland, subject to the rights of

France in its fisheries; and all Nova Scotia, or Acadia,

according to its ancient boundaries. It was agreed that

'France should never molest the Five Nations subject to the

dominion of Great Britain.' But Louisiana, according to French

ideas, included both banks of the Mississippi. Did the treaty

of Utrecht assent to such an extension of French territory?

And what were the ancient limits of Acadia? Did it include all

that is now New Brunswick? or had France still a large

territory on the Atlantic between Acadia and Maine? And what

were the bounds of the territory of the Five Nations, which

the treaty appeared to recognize as a part of the English

dominions? These were questions which were never to be

adjusted amicably."

G. Bancroft, History of the U. S. (Author's Last

Revision), part 3, chapter 12 (volume 2).

With reference to the destruction of the Fox Indians at

Detroit, a recent writer says: "The French official reports

pretend that the Wisconsin Indians, being in secret alliance

with the Iroquois and the English, had come to Detroit with

the express purpose of besieging the fort and reducing it to

ruins; and their statement has heretofore been unsuspectingly

accepted by all historians. But there is little doubt that the

charge is a shameful falsehood. The Fox Indians had rendered

themselves very obnoxious to the French. Firmly lodged on the

Fox River, they controlled the chief highway to the West; a

haughty, independent and intractable people, they could not be

cajoled into vassalage. It was necessary for the success of

the French policy to get them out of the way. They were

enticed to Detroit in order that they might be slaughtered."

S. S. Hebberd, History of Wisconsin under the dominion of

France, chapter 5-6.

ALSO IN:

Wisconsin Historical Society Collections, volume 5.

W. Kingsford, History of Canada,

book 6, chapter 5-6 (volume 2).

R. Brown, History of the Island of Cape Breton,

letters 8-9.

See, also, UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714,

and NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D.1713.

CANADA: A. D. 1720.

The fortifying of Louisbourg.

See CAPE BRETON: A. D. 1720-1745.

CANADA: A. D. 1744-1748.

The Third Inter-Colonial War (King George's War).

Loss and recovery of Louisbourg and Cape Breton.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

CANADA: A. D. 1748-1754.

Active measures to fortify possession of the Ohio Valley and

the West.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753.

Boundaries disputes with England.

Futile negotiations at Paris.

"For the past three years [1750-1753] the commissioners

appointed under the treaty of Aix-La-Chapelle to settle the

question of boundaries between France and England in America

had been in session at Paris, waging interminable war on

paper; La Galissonière and Silhouette for France, Shirley and

Mildmay for England. By the treaty of Utrecht, Acadia belonged

to England; but what was Acadia? According to the English

commissioners, it comprised not only the peninsula called Nova

Scotia, but all the immense tract of land between the River

St. Lawrence on the north, the Gulf of the same name on the

east, the Atlantic on the south, and New England on the west.

The French commissioners, on their part, maintained that the

name Acadia belonged of right only to about a twentieth part

of this territory, and that it did not even cover the whole of

the Acadian peninsula, but only its southern coast, with an

adjoining belt of barren wilderness. When the French owned

Acadia, they gave it boundaries as comprehensive as those

claimed for it by the English commissionaries; now that it

belonged to a rival, they cut it down to a paring of its

former self. ... Four censuses of Acadia while it belonged to

the French had recognized the mainland as included in it; and

so do also the early French maps. Its prodigious shrinkage was

simply the consequence of its possession by an alien. Other

questions of limits, more important and equally perilous,

called loudly for solution. What line should separate Canada

and her western dependencies from the British colonies?

Various principles of demarcation were suggested, of which the

most prominent was a geographical one. All countries watered

by streams falling into the St. Lawrence, the Great Lakes, and

the Mississippi were to belong to her. This would have planted

her in the heart of New York and along the crests of the

Alleghanies, giving her all the interior of the continent, and

leaving nothing to England but a strip of sea-coast. Yet in

view of what France had achieved; of the patient gallantry of

her explorers, the zeal of her missionaries, the adventurous

hardihood of her bushrangers, revealing to civilized mankind

the existence of this wilderness world, while her rivals

plodded at their workshops, their farms, or their

fisheries,--in view of all this, her pretensions were moderate

and reasonable compared with those of England. The treaty of

Utrecht had declared the Iroquois, or Five Nations, to be

British subjects; therefore it was insisted that all countries

conquered by them belonged to the British Crown. But what was

an Iroquois conquest? The Iroquois rarely occupied the

countries they overran. ... But the range of their war-parties

was prodigious; and the English laid claim to every mountain,

forest or prairie where an Iroquois had taken a scalp.

{371}

This would give them not only the country between the

Alleghanies and the Mississippi, but also that between Lake

Huron and the Ottawa, thus reducing Canada to the patch on the

American map now represented by the province of Quebec,--or

rather by a part of it, since the extension of Acadia to the

St. Lawrence would cut off the present counties of Gaspé,

Rimouski and Bonaventure. Indeed, among the advocates of

British claims there were those who denied that France had any

rights whatever on the south side of the St. Lawrence. Such

being the attitude of the two contestants, it was plain there

was no resort but the last argument of kings. Peace must be

won with the sword."

F. Parkman, Montcalm and Wolfe, chapter 5 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

T. C. Haliburton,  Account of Nova Scotia,

volume 1, pages 143-149.

See, also, NOVA SCOTIA:

CANADA: A. D. 1749-1755.

Relative to the very dubious English claim based on treaties

with the Iroquois,

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1684, and 1726.

CANADA: A. D. 1755 (April).

Plans of the English against the French.

"While the negotiations [between England and France, at Paris]

were pending, Braddock arrived in the Chesapeake. In March

[1755] he reached Williamsburgh, and visited Annapolis; on the

14th of April, he, with Commodore Keppel, held a congress at

Alexandria. There were present, of the American governors,

Shirley, next to Braddock in military rank; Delancey, of New

York; Morris, of Pennsylvania; Sharpe, of Maryland; and

Dinwiddie, of Virginia. ... Between England and France peace

existed under ratified treaties; it was proposed not to invade

Canada, but to repel encroachments on the frontier. For this

end, four expeditions were concerted by Braddock at

Alexandria. Lawrence, the lieutenant-governor of Nova Scotia,

was to reduce that province according to the English

interpretation of its boundaries; Johnson [afterwards Sir

William Johnson, of New York] from his long acquaintance with

the Six Nations, was selected to enroll Mohawk warriors in

British pay and lead them with provincial militia against

Crown Point; Shirley proposed to drive the French from

Niagara; the commander-in-chief was to recover the Ohio

valley."

G. Bancroft, History of the U. S. (Author's last

revision), volume 2, pages 416-419.

CANADA: A. D. 1755 (June).

French disaster at Sea.

Frustrated attempt against Nova Scotia.

The arrival of Dieskau at Quebec.

"In 1754, France fully awakened to the fact that England not

only intended to maintain her position in the wilds of

America, but likewise by sea. She equipped an armament under

the command of admirals Macnamara and Bois de la Mothe, of 18

ships of the line and 9 frigates, having on board, ostensibly

for Canada, eleven battalions of troops under General Dieskau,

an 'élève' of Marshal Saxe. England, apprised of this force

being sent, despatched Vice-Admiral Boscawen with 11 ships of

the line and one frigate to intercept it en route. Both sailed

about the same time, the 22d of April, 1755. The French

ambassador at London being duly notified, replied: 'That his

royal master would consider the first gun fired at sea in a

hostile manner to be a declaration of war.' The esoteric

instructions of the French fleet were to rendezvous at

Chebuctou Harbour, destroy Halifax, and then proceed to

Annapolis for the same purpose. While the instructions were of

necessity secret, it was well known in Acadia that an attempt

would be made by France to recover possession of the province.

It was this fleet, so eagerly expected by the Acadians, that

gave rise to the insolent manner in which they addressed the

Council at Halifax, and which led to an immediate removal of

their arms and subsequent dispersal. Owing to misadventure,

some of the French fleet under Macnamara had to put back to

Brest; the remainder met the English off the coast of

Newfoundland [June 8] in a dense fog; avoiding an engagement,

several of them escaped by taking the northern route via

Belleisle ... successfully reaching their 'harbour of refuge,'

Louisbourg. The 'Lys' and the 'Alcyde' were sufficiently

unfortunate to be compelled to face the guns of the English

frigates 'Dunkirk' and 'Defiance,' and after five hours close

engagement the 'Lys' struck its colors ... followed by the

'Alcyde,' when Hocquart in command became Boscawen's prisoner

by sea for the third time, together with £76,000 sterling in

money, eight companies of soldiers and several officers and

engineers. The unexpected rencontre with Boscawen's fleet, the

loss of two of their vessels, and the knowledge that the

garrison at Halifax was considerably reinforced by the forces

brought out by Boscawen, caused the abandonment of all

attempts to recover Acadia. Dieskau, after landing a few

regiments at Louisbourg, proceeded to Quebec."

G. E. Hart, The Fall of New France, pages 51-54.

ALSO IN:

J. Campbell, Naval History of Great Britain,

volume 5, pages 104-106.

CANADA: A. D. 1755 (July).

Defeat of Braddock's Expedition against Fort Duquesne.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1755.

CANADA: A. D. 1755 (August-October):

The abortive expedition against Niagara.

According to the English plan of campaign, concerted with

Braddock at Alexandria, Governor Shirley was to lead an army

for the conquest of Niagara; but his march westward ended at

Oswego. "Colonel Philip Schuyler led the first regiment of the

expedition. Boats were built at Oswego to convey 600 men by

lake. Shirley followed by way of the Mohawk, and reached

Oswego August 21. He was delayed from various causes, and in

October a council of war decided that the attack on Niagara

should be postponed for a year. Shirley was to have met

Braddock in victory at Niagara. Both branches of the plan had

been shattered. The great western scheme sank to a mere

strengthening of the defences of Oswego. Colonel Mercer was

left in command of a garrison of 700 men, with instructions to

build two new forts, and General Shirley took the remainder of

his force back to Albany. The pitiful failure led to

recriminations relative to the causes of the fatal delays."

E. H. Roberts, New York, volume 1, chapter 20.

ALSO IN:

R. Hildreth, History of the U. S., chapter 26 (volume 2).

{372}

CANADA: A. D. 1755 (September).

The Battle of Lake George and defeat of Dieskau.

"The expedition against Crown Point on Lake Champlain, had

been intrusted to General William Johnson. His troops were

drawn principally from Massachusetts and Connecticut; a

regiment from New Hampshire joined them at Albany. At the head

of boat navigation on the Hudson, a fort was built which, in

honor of their commander, whom they reverenced as 'a brave and

virtuous man,' the soldiers named Fort Lyman. But when Johnson

assumed the command he ungenerously changed the name to Fort

Edward. Leaving a garrison in this fort; Johnson moved with

about 5,000 men to the head of Lake George, and there formed a

camp, intending to descend into Lake Champlain. Hendrick, the

celebrated Mohawk chief, with his warriors, were among these

troops. Israel Putnam, too, was there, as a captain, and John

Stark as a lieutenant, each taking lessons in warfare. The

French were not idle; the district of Montreal made the most

strenuous exertions to meet the invading foe. All the men who

were able to bear arms were called into active service; so

that, to gather in the harvest, their places were supplied by

men from other districts. The energetic Baron Dieskau

resolved, by a bold attack, to terrify the invaders. Taking

with him 200 regulars, and about 1,200 Canadians and Indians,

he set out to capture Fort Edward; but, as he drew near, the

Indians heard that it was defended by cannon, which they

greatly dreaded, and they refused to advance. He now changed

his plan, and resolved to attack Johnson's camp, which was

supposed to be without cannon. Meantime scouts had reported to

Johnson that they had seen roads made through the woods in the

direction of Fort Edward. Not knowing the movements of

Dieskau, a detachment of 1,000 men, under Colonel Ephraim

Williams, of Massachusetts, and 200 Mohawks, under Hendrick,

marched to relieve that post. The French had information of

their approach and placed themselves in ambush. They were

concealed among the thick bushes of a swamp, on the one side,

and rocks and trees on the other. The English recklessly

marched into the defile. They were vigorously attacked [Sept.

5] and thrown into confusion. Hendrick was almost instantly

killed, and in a short time Williams fell also. The detachment

commenced to retreat, occasionally halting to check their

pursuers. The firing was heard in the camp; as the sound drew

nearer and nearer, it was evident the detachment was

retreating. The drums beat to arms, trees were hastily felled

and thrown together to form a breastwork, upon which were

placed a few cannon, just arrived from the Hudson. Scarcely

were these preparations made when the panting fugitives

appeared in sight, hotly pursued by the French and Indians.

Intending to enter the camp with the fugitives, Dieskau urged

forward his men with the greatest impetuosity. The moment the

fugitives were past the muzzles of the cannon they opened with

a tremendous shower of grape, which scattered the terrified

Indians and checked the Canadians, but the regulars pushed on.

A determined contest ensued, which lasted five hours, until

the regulars were nearly all slain, while the Indians and

Canadians did but little execution; they remained at a

respectful distance among the trees. At length the enemy began

to retreat, and the Americans leaped over the breastworks and

pursued them with great vigor. That same evening, after the

pursuit had ceased, as the French were retreating, they were

suddenly attacked with great spirit by the New Hampshire

regiment, which was on its way from Fort Edward. They were so

panic stricken by this new assault that they abandoned

everything and fled for their lives. Dieskau had been wounded

once or twice at the commencement of the battle, but he never

left his post. ... He was taken prisoner, kindly treated, and

sent to England, where he died. Johnson was slightly wounded

at the commencement of the battle, and prudently retired from

danger. To General Lyman belongs the honor of the victory, yet

Johnson, in his report of the battle, did not even mention his

name. Johnson, for his exertions on that day, was made a

baronet, and received from royal favor a gift of $25,000. He

had friends at court, but Lyman was unknown. Colonel Ephraim

Williams, who fell in this battle, while passing through

Albany, had taken the precaution to make his will, in which he

bequeathed property to found a free school in western

Massachusetts. That school has since grown into Williams

College."

J. H. Patton, Concise History of the American People,

volume 1, chapter 22.

ALSO IN:

W. L. Stone, Life and Times of Sir W. Johnson,

volume 1, chapter 16.

F. Parkman, Montcalm and Wolfe, volume 1, chapter 9.

CANADA: A. D. 1755 (October-November).

Removal and dispersion in exile of the French Acadians.

See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1755.

CANADA: A. D. 1756.

Formal declarations of war.

The "Seven Years War" of Europe, called the "French and Indian

War" in British America.

Montcalm sent from France.

"On the 18th of May, 1756, England, after a year of open

hostility, at length declared war. She had attacked France by

land and sea, turned loose her ships to prey on French

commerce, and brought some 300 prizes into her ports. It was

the act of a weak government, supplying by spasms of violence

what it lacked in considerate resolution. France, no match for

her amphibious enemy in the game of marine depredation, cried

out in horror; and to emphasize her complaints and signalize a

pretended good faith which her acts had belied, ostentatiously

released a British frigate captured by her cruisers. She in

her turn declared war on the 9th of June: and now began the

most terrible conflict of the 18th century; one that convulsed

Europe and shook America, India, the coasts of Africa, and the

islands of the sea."

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1754-1755, and after;

also GERMANY: A. D. 1755-1756, and after.

"Henceforth France was to turn her strength against her

European foes; and the American war, the occasion of the

universal outbreak, was to hold in her eyes a second place.

... Still, something must be done for the American war; at

least there must be a new general to replace Dieskau. None of

the court favorites wanted a command in the backwoods, and the

minister of war was free to choose whom he would. His choice

fell on Louis Joseph, Marquis de Montcalm-Gozon de Saint

Véran. ... The Chevalier de Lévis, afterwards Marshal of

France, was named as his second in command. ... The troops

destined for Canada were only two battalions, one belonging to

the regiment of La Sarre, and the other to that of Royal

Roussillon. Louis XV. and Pompadour sent 100,000 men to fight

the battles of Austria, and could spare but 1,200 to

reinforce. New France." Montcalm, who reached Quebec in May,

was placed in difficult relations with the governor-general,

Vaudreuil, by the fact that the latter held command of the

colonial troops. The forces in New France, were of three

kinds,--"the 'troupes de terre,' troops of the line, or

regulars from France; the 'troupes  de la marine,' or colony

regulars; and lastly the militia.

{373}

The first consisted of the four battalions that had come over with

Dieskau and the two that had come with Montcalm, comprising in

all a little less than 3,000 men. Besides these, the

battalions of Artois and Bourgogne, to the number of 1,100

men, were in garrison at Louisbourg." This constituted

Montcalm's command. The colony regulars and the militia

remained subject to the orders of the governor, who manifested

an early jealousy of Montcalm. The former troops numbered less

than 2,000 men. "All the effective male population of Canada,

from 15 years to 60, was enrolled in the militia. ... In 1750

the militia of all ranks counted about 13,000; and eight years

later the number had increased to about 15,000. Until the last

two years of the war, those employed in actual warfare were

but few. ... To the white fighting force of the colony are to

be added the red men. ... The military situation was somewhat

perplexing. Iroquois spies had brought reports of great

preparations on the part of the English. As neither party

dared offend these wavering tribes, their warriors could pass

with impunity from one to the other, and were paid by each for

bringing information, not always trustworthy. They declared

that the English were gathering in force to renew the attempt

made by Johnson the year before against Crown Point and

Ticonderoga, as well as that made by Shirley against Forts

Frontenac and Niagara. Vaudreuil had spared no effort to meet

the double danger. Lotbinière, a Canadian engineer, had been

busied during the winter in fortifying Ticonderoga, while

Pouchot, a captain in the battalion of Béarn, had rebuilt

Niagara, and two French engineers were at work in

strengthening the defenses of Frontenac. ... Indians presently

brought word that 10,000 English were coming to attack

Ticonderoga." Both Montcalm and Lévis, with troops, "hastened

to the supposed scene of danger ... and reached Ticonderoga at

the end of June. They found the fort ... advanced towards

completion. It stood on the crown of the promontory. ... The

rampart consisted of two parallel walls ten feet apart, built

of the trunks of trees, and held together by transverse logs

dovetailed at both ends, the space between being filled with

earth and gravel well packed. Such was the first Fort

Ticonderoga, or Carillon,--a structure quite distinct from the

later fort of which the ruins still stand on the same spot.

... Ticonderoga was now the most advanced position of the

French, and Crown Point, which had before held that perilous

honor, was in the second line. ... The danger from the English

proved to be still remote. ... Meanwhile, at the head of Lake

George, the raw bands of ever-active New England, were

mustering for the fray."

F. Parkman, Montcalm and Wolfe, volume 1, chapter 11.

ALSO IN:

W. Kingsford, History of Canada,

book 11, chapter 9 (volume 3).

CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.

French successes.

Capture of Oswego and Fort William Henry.

Bloody work of the savage allies.

On the death of Braddock, Governor Shirley became

commander-in-chief of the British forces in America, "a

position for which he was not adapted by military knowledge.

... His military schemes for the season of 1756 were grand in

conception and theory, but disastrous failures in practice.

Ten thousand men were to advance against Crown Point--6, 000

for service on Lake Ontario, 3,000 for an attack on Fort

Duquesne, and 2,000 to advance up the river Kennebec, destroy

the settlement adjoining the Chaudière and descending the

mouth of that river within three miles of Quebec, keep all

that part of Canada in alarm. While each of these armies was

being put into motion, the season had become too far advanced

for action at any one point. Moreover, the British Government,

dissatisfied with a Provincial officer being at the head of its

army in America, determined upon sending out General Lord

Loudoun. While Shirley was preparing, Montcalm advanced

against the three forts at Oswego, the terror of the French in

the Iroquois country and which it had been their desire to

destroy for many years back; they likewise commanded the

entrance to Lake Ontario. The English had a garrison of 1,800

men in these divided between Fort Ontario ... Fort Oswego ...

and Fort George, or Rascal ... about a mile distant from each

other." Montcalm took all three of the forts without much

difficulty, and demolished them. "Shirley was much blamed for

this defeat and the failure of his projects, and lost both his

government and command, being succeeded by John Campbell,

fourth Earl of Loudoun, Baron Mauchlaw, one of the sixteen

peers of Scotland, with General Abercromby as second in

command--both notorious for previous incompetency. ... They

were sent out with considerable reinforcements, and had

transferred to them by Shirley 16,000 men in the field, of

whom 6,000 were regulars; but, with that masterly inactivity

and indecision for which Loudoun was most renowned, no further

movement was made this year. The year 1757 was not

distinguished by any military movements of much moment." An

intended attack on Louisbourg was postponed because of news

that a powerful French fleet held possession of its harbor and

that the garrison was very strong. "Montcalm, finding himself

free from attack, penetrated with his army of 7,606 men to

Fort William Henry, at the head of Lake George. Included were

2,000 Indians. The fort was garrisoned by 2,264 regulars under

Colonel Munroe of the 35th Regiment, and in the neighborhood

there was an additional force of 4,600 men under General Webb.

On the 3d of August the fort was invested and, after a summons

to surrender was rejected, the attack was begun and continued

with undiminished fervor until the 9th at noon, when a

capitulation was signed. General Webb did not join Munroe, as

he was instructed to do by Abercromby's plans, some cowardice

being attributed to him by contemporary writers. An incident

of the war which has given rise to a great deal of controversy

and ill-feeling up to the present moment, was the so-called

massacre at Fort William Henry, the outcome of the numerous

horde of savages the French allies had in the engagement. ...

On the morning following the surrender, the garrison was to

march out under a proper escort to protect them from injury at

the hands of the Indians. The evacuation had barely commenced,

when a repetition of the looting of the day previous, which

ensued immediately after the capitulation had been signed, was

attempted.

{374}

An effort being made by the escort to stop it, some drunken

Indians attacked the defile, which resulted in the murdering

and scalping of some 60 or 70 of the prisoners; maltreating

and robbing a large number of others. Upon a careful

investigation of the contemporary authorities, no blame

whatever can be attached to the good fame of the brave and

humane Montcalm or De Lévis. ... Fort George, or William

Henry, as it was indifferently called, like its compeer Fort

Oswego, was razed to the ground and the army retreated into

their winter quarters at Montreal. The termination of the year

left the French masters of Lakes Champlain and George,

together with the chain of great lakes connecting the St.

Lawrence with the Mississippi; also the undisturbed possession

of all the country in dispute west of the Alleghany

Mountains."

G. E. Hart, The Fall of New France, pages 70-79.

ALSO IN:

E. Warburton, Conquest of Canada, volume 2, chapter 2-3.

CANADA: A. D. 1758.

The loss of Louisbourg and Fort Du Quesne.

Bloody defeat of the English at Ticonderoga.

"The affairs of Great Britain in North America wore a more

gloomy aspect, at the close of the campaign of 1757, than at

any former period. By the acquisition of fort William Henry,

the French had obtained complete possession of the lake

Champlain, and George. By the destruction of Oswego, they had

acquired the dominion of those lakes which connect the St.

Lawrence with the waters of the Mississippi, and unite Canada

to Louisiana. By means of fort Du Quêsne, they maintained

their ascendency over the Indians, and held undisturbed

possession of the country west of the Allegheny mountains;

while the English settlers were driven to the blue ridge. The

great object of the war in that quarter was gained, and France

held the country for which hostilities had been commenced. ...

But this inglorious scene was about to be succeeded by one of

unrivalled brilliancy. ... The brightest era of British

history was to commence. ... The public voice had, at length,

made its way to the throne, and had forced, on the unwilling

monarch, a minister who has been justly deemed one of the

greatest men of the age in which he lived. ... In the summer

of 1757, an administration was formed, which conciliated the

great contending interests in parliament; and Mr. Pitt was

placed at its head. ... Possessing the public confidence

without limitation, he commanded all the resources of the

nation, and drew liberally from the public purse. ... In no

part of his majesty's dominions was the new administration

more popular than in his American colonies. ... The circular

letter of Mr. Pitt assured the several governors that, to

repair the losses and disappointments of the last inactive

campaign, the cabinet was determined to send a formidable

force, to operate by sea and land, against the French in

America; and he called upon them to raise as large bodies of

men, within their respective governments, as the number of

inhabitants might allow. ... The legislature of Massachusetts

agreed to furnish 7,000 men; Connecticut 5,000; and New

Hampshire 3,000. ... Three expeditions were proposed. The

first was against Louisbourg; the second against Ticonderoga

and Crown Point; and the third against fort Du Quêsne. The

army destined against Louisbourg, consisting of 14,000 men,

was commanded by major general Amherst. [The expedition was

successful and Louisbourg fell, July 26, 1758.]"

See CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

"The expedition against Ticonderoga and Crown Point was

conducted by General Abercrombie in person. His army,

consisting of near 16,000 effectives, of whom 9,000 were

provincials, was attended by a formidable train of artillery,

and possessed every requisite to ensure success. On the 5th of

July he embarked on lake George, and reached the landing place

early the next morning. A disembarkation being effected

without opposition, the troops were immediately formed in four

columns, the British in the centre, and the provincials on the

flanks; in which order they marched towards the advanced guard

of the French, composed of' one battalion posted in a log

camp, which, on the approach of the English, made a

precipitate retreat. Abercrombie continued his march towards

Ticonderoga, with the intention of investing that place; but,

the woods being thick, and the guides unskilful, his columns

were thrown into confusion, and, in some measure, entangled

with each other. In this situation Lord Howe, at the head of

the right centre column, fell in with a part of the advanced

guard of the French; which, in retreating from lake George,

was likewise lost in the wood. He immediately attacked and

dispersed them; killing several, and taking 148 prisoners,

among whom were five officers. This small advantage was

purchased at a dear rate. Though only two officers, on the

side of the British, were killed, one of these was Lord Howe

himself, who fell on the first fire. This gallant young

nobleman had endeared himself to the whole army. ... Without

farther opposition, the English army took possession of the

post at the Saw Mills, within two miles of Ticonderoga. This

fortress [called Carillon by the French], which commands the

communication between the two lakes, is encompassed on three

sides by water, and secured in front by a morass. The ordinary

garrison amounting to 4,000 men, was stationed under the

cannon of the place, and covered by a breast-work, the

approach to which had been rendered extremely difficult by

trees felled in front, with their branches outward, many of

which were sharpened so as to answer the purpose of

chevaux-de-frize. This body of troops was rendered still more

formidable by its general than by its position. It was

commanded by the marquis de Montcalm. Having learned from his

prisoners the strength of the army under the walls of

Ticonderoga, and that a reinforcement of 3,000 men was daily

expected, general Abercrombie thought it advisable to storm

the place before this reinforcement should arrive. The troops

marched to the assault with great intrepidity; but their

utmost efforts could make no impression on the works. ...

After a contest of near four hours, and several repeated

attacks, general Abercrombie ordered a retreat. The army

retired to the camp from which it had marched in the morning;

and, the next day, resumed its former position on the south

side of lake George. In this rash attempt, the killed and

wounded of the English amounted to near 2,000 men, of whom not

quite 400 were provincials. The French were covered during the

whole action, and their loss was inconsiderable. Entirely

disconcerted by this unexpected and bloody repulse, General

Abercrombie relinquished his designs against Ticonderoga

and Crown Point.

{375}

Searching however for the means of repairing the misfortune,

if not the disgrace, sustained by his arms, he readily acceded

to a proposition made by colonel Bradstreet, for an expedition

against fort Frontignac. This fortress stands on the north

side of Ontario. ... Colonel Bradstreet embarked on the

Ontario at Oswego, and on the 25th of August, landed within

one mile of the fort. In two days, his batteries were opened

at so short a distance that almost every shell took effect;

and the governor, finding the place absolutely untenable,

surrendered at discretion. ... After destroying the fort and

vessels, and such stores as could not be brought off, colonel

Bradstreet returned to the army which undertook nothing

farther during the campaign. The demolition of Fort Frontignac

and of the stores which had been collected there, contributed

materially to the success of the expedition against fort Du

Quêsne. The conduct of this enterprise had been entrusted to

General Forbes, who marched from Philadelphia, about the

beginning of July, at the head of the main body of the army,

destined for this service, in order to join colonel Bouquet at

Raystown. So much time was employed in preparing to move from

this place, that the Virginia regulars, commanded by Colonel

Washington, were not ordered to join the British troops until

the month of September. ... Early in October general Forbes

moved from Raystown; but the obstructions to his march were so

great that he did not reach fort Du Quêsne until late in

November. The garrison, being deserted by the Indians, and too

weak to maintain the place against the formidable army which

was approaching, abandoned the fort the evening before the

arrival of the British, and escaped down the Ohio in boats.

The English placed a garrison in it, and changed its name to

Pittsburg, in compliment to their popular minister. The

acquisition of this post was of great importance to

Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia."

J. Marshall, Life of Washington, volume 1, chapter 13.

ALSO IN:

W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay,

Popular History of the United States, volume 3, chapter 11.

B. Fernow, The Ohio Valley in Colonial Days, chapter 7.

Major R. Rogers, Journals, editor, by Hough, pages 115-123.

W. Irving, Life of Washington, volume 1, chapter 24.

N. B. Craig, The Olden Time, volume 1, pages 177-200.

CANADA: A. D. 1759 (June-September).

The Fall of Quebec.

"Wolfe's name stood high in the esteem of all who were

qualified to judge, but, at the same time, it stood low in the

column of colonels in the Army List. The great minister [Pitt]

thought that the former counterbalanced the latter. ... One of

the last gazettes in the year 1758 announced the promotion of

Colonel James Wolfe to the rank of major-general, and his

appointment to the chief command of the expedition against

Quebec. About the middle of February, 1759, the squadron

sailed from England to Louisbourg, where the whole of the

British force destined for the River St. Lawrence was ordered

to assemble. ... Twenty-two ships of the line, five frigates,

and nineteen smaller vessels of war, with a crowd of

transports, were mustered under the orders of the admiral

[Saunders], and a detachment of artillery and engineers, and

ten battalions of infantry, with six companies of Rangers,

formed Wolfe's command; the right flank companies of the three

regiments which still garrisoned Louisbourg soon after joined

the army, and were formed into a corps called the Louisbourg

Grenadiers. The total of the land forces embarked were

somewhat under 8,000."

E. Warburton, Conquest of Canada, volume 2, chapter 9.

"Wolfe, with his 8,000 men, ascended the St. Lawrence in the

fleet in the month of June. With him came Brigadiers Monckton,

Townshend and Murray, youthful and brave like himself, and,

like himself, already schooled to arms. ... The Grenadiers of

the army were commanded by Colonel Guy Carleton, and part of

the light infantry by Lieutenant-Colonel William Howe, both

destined to celebrity in after years, in the annals of the

American revolution. Colonel Howe was brother of the gallant

Lord Howe, whose fall in the preceding year was so generally

lamented. Among the officers of the fleet was Jervis, the

future admiral, and ultimately Earl St. Vincent; and the

master of one of the ships was James Cook, afterwards renowned

as a discoverer. About the end of June, the troops debarked on

the large, populous, and well-cultivated Isle of Orleans, a

little below Quebec, and encamped in its fertile fields.

Quebec, the citadel of Canada, was strong by nature. It was

built round the point of a rocky promontory, and flanked by

precipices. ... The place was tolerably fortified, but art had

not yet rendered it, as at the present day, impregnable.

Montcalm commanded the post. His troops were more numerous

than the assailants; but the greater part of them were

Canadians, many of them inhabitants of Quebec; and he had a

host of savages. His forces were drawn out along the northern

shore below the city, from the River St. Charles to the Falls

of Montmorency, and their position was secured by deep

intrenchments. ... After much resistance, Wolfe established

batteries at the west point of the Isle of Orleans, and at

Point Levi, on the right (or south) bank of the St. Lawrence,

within cannon range of the city. ... Many houses were set on

fire in the upper town, the lower town was reduced to rubbish;

the main fort, however, remained unharmed. Anxious for a

decisive action, Wolfe, on the 9th of July, crossed over in

boats from the Isle of Orleans to the north bank of the St.

Lawrence, and encamped below the Montmorency. It was an

ill-judged position. ... On the 18th of July, Wolfe made a

reconnoitering expedition up the river, with two armed sloops,

and two transports with troops. He passed Quebec unharmed and

carefully noted the shores above it. Rugged cliffs rose almost

from the water's edge. ... He returned to Montmorency

disappointed, and resolved to attack Montcalm in his camp,

however difficult to be approached, and however strongly

posted. Townshend and Murray, with their brigades, were to

cross the Montmorency at low tide, below the falls, and storm

the redoubt thrown up in front of the ford. Monckton, at the

same time, was to cross, with part of his brigade in boats

from Point Levi. ... As usual in complicated orders, part were

misunderstood, or neglected, and confusion was the

consequence." The assault was repelled and Wolfe fell back

across the river, having lost four hundred men, with two

vessels, which run aground and were burned. He felt the

failure deeply, and his chagrin was increased by news of the

successes of his coadjutors at Ticonderoga and Niagara.

{376}

"The difficulties multiplying around him, and the delay of

General Amherst in hastening to his aid, preyed incessantly on

his spirits. ... The agitation of his mind, and his acute

sensibility, brought on a fever, which for some time

incapacitated him from taking the field. In the midst of his

illness he called a council of war, in which the whole plan of

operations was altered. It was determined to convey troops

above the town, and endeavor to make a diversion in that

direction, or draw Montcalm into the open field. ... The brief

Canadian summer was over; they were in the month of September.

The camp at Montmorency was broken up. The troops were

transported to Point Levi, leaving a sufficient number to man

the batteries on the Isle of Orleans. On the 5th and 6th of

September the embarkation took place above Point Levi, in

transports which had been sent for the purpose. Montcalm

detached De Bougainville with 1,500 men to keep along the

north shore above the town, watch the movements of the

squadron, and prevent a landing. To deceive him, Admiral

Holmes moved with the ships of war three leagues beyond the

place where the landing was to be attempted. He was to drop

down, however, in the night, and protect the landing. ... The

descent was made in flat-bottomed boats, past midnight, on the

13th of September. They dropped down silently, with the swift

current. 'Qui va la?' (who goes there?) cried a sentinel from

the shore. 'La France,' replied a captain in the first boat,

who understood the French language. 'A quel regiment?' was the

demand. 'De la Reine' (the queen's) replied the captain,

knowing that regiment was in De Bougainville's detachment.

Fortunately, a convoy of provisions was expected down from De

Bougainville's, which the sentinel supposed this to be.

'Passe,' cried he, and the boats glided on without further

challenge. The landing took place in a cove near Cape Diamond,

which still bears Wolfe's name. He had marked it in

reconnoitering, and saw that a cragged path straggled up from

it to the Heights of Abraham, which might be climbed, though

with difficulty, and that it appeared to be slightly guarded

at top. Wolfe was among the first that landed and ascended up

the steep and narrow path, where not more than two could go

abreast, and which had been broken up by cross ditches.

Colonel Howe, at the same time, with the light infantry and

Highlanders, scrambled up the woody precipices, helping

themselves by the roots and branches, and putting to flight a

sergeant's guard posted at the summit. Wolfe drew up the men

in order as they mounted; and by the break of day found

himself in possession of the fateful Plains of Abraham.

Montcalm was thunderstruck when word was brought to him in his

camp that the English were on the heights threatening the

weakest part of the town. Abandoning his intrenchments, he

hastened across the river St. Charles and ascended the

heights, which slope up gradually from its banks. His force

was equal in number to that of the English, but a great part

was made up of colony troops and savages. When he saw the

formidable host of regulars he had to contend with, he sent

off swift messengers to summon De Bougainville with his

detachment to his aid; and De Vaudreil to reinforce him with

1,500 men from the camp. In the meantime he prepared to flank

the left of the English line and force them to the opposite

precipices." In the memorable battle which ensued, Wolfe, who

led the English line, received, first, a musket ball in his

wrist, and soon afterward was struck by a second in the

breast. He was borne mortally wounded to the rear, and lived

just long enough to hear a cry from those around him that the

enemy ran. Giving a quick order for Webb's regiment to be

hurried down to the Charles River bridge and there obstruct

the French retreat, he turned upon his side, saying, "Now, God

be praised, I will die in peace," and expired. In the meantime

the French commander, Montcalm, had received his death-wound,

while striving to rally his flying troops. The victory of the

English was complete, and they hastened to fortify their

position on the Plains of Abraham, preparing to attack the

citadel. But, Montcalm dying of his wound the following

morning, no further defence of the place was undertaken. It

was surrendered on the 17th of September to General Townshend,

who had succeeded to the command.

W. Irving, Life of Washington, volume 1, chapter 25.

ALSO IN:

F. Parkman, Montcalm and Wolfe, chapter 27-28 (volume 2).

R. Wright, Life of Wolfe, chapter 21-23.

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope), History of England,

1713-1783, chapter 35 (volume 4).

W. Smith, History of Canada, volume 1, chapter 6.

J. Knox, Historical Journal,

volume 1, pages 255-360; volume 2, pages 1-132.

CANADA: A. D. 1759 (July-August).

The fall of Niagara, Ticonderoga and Crown Point.

"For the campaign of 1759 the British Parliament voted liberal

supplies of men and money, and the American colonies,

encouraged by the successes of the preceding year, raised

large numbers of troops. Amherst superseded Abercrombie as

commander-in-chief. The plan for the year embraced three

expeditions: Fort Niagara was to be attacked by Prideaux,

assisted by Sir William Johnson; Amherst was to march his

force against Ticonderoga and Crown Point; and Quebec was to

be assailed by an army under Wolfe and a fleet under Saunders.

Prideaux and Amherst, after the capture of the forts, were to

descend the St. Lawrence, take Montreal, and join the army

before Quebec. ... Vaudreuil, the Governor, having received

warning from France of the intentions of the English, sent a

small force to Niagara under the engineer Pouchot, not

expecting to be able to hold the post, and not wishing to

sacrifice many men, or to spare the troops from the more

important points. Pouchot repaired the defences, and when the

alarm was given that the English were near, sent for men from

Presqu' Isle, Venango, and Detroit. Prideaux, in command of

two British regiments, a battalion of Royal Americans, two

battalions from New York, and a train of artillery, was joined

by Johnson with a detachment of Indians. They began their

march from Schenectady on the 20th of May, and, after a

difficult journey, reached Oswego, where a detachment under

Colonel Haldimand was left to take possession and form a post,

and the remainder of the forces embarked on Lake Ontario, and

on the 1st of July landed without opposition about six miles

east of the mouth of the Niagara. ... Prideaux began his

trenches on the 10th, and on the 11th a sally was made from

the fort; but the English placed themselves in line of battle,

and the French were obliged to retire. Prideaux was steadily

advancing the work ... when, on the 19th, he was killed by the

bursting of a shell from a Coehorn mortar in one of the

trenches, where he had gone to issue orders.

{377}

Amherst appointed General Gage to succeed him, but

before the arrival of Gage the command devolved upon General

Johnson, who carried on the siege according to the plans of

Prideaux." On the 24th a considerable force of French and

Indians, about 1,600 strong, sent to the relief of the

beleaguered fort, was intercepted and routed, most of the

French officers and men being slain or captured. This took

from Pouchot his last hope, and he surrendered the following

day. "As the stations beyond Niagara were now completely cut

off from communication with the east, and had given up a large

part of their men to join D'Aubry [in the attempt to relieve

Niagara], they were no longer capable of resistance. Presqu'

Isle, Venango, and Le Bœuf were easily taken by Colonel

Bouquet, who had been sent to summon them to surrender." The

detachment left at Oswego, in charge of stores, was attacked

by a body of French and Indians from La Presentation

(Ogdensburg), but the attack failed. "For the reduction of the

forts at Ticonderoga and Crown Point, Amherst had somewhat

more than 11,000 men. He began preparations early in May at

Albany, preparing boats, gathering stores, and disciplining

the new recruits." In June he reached Lake George with his

army, but it was not until late in July that "the army moved

down the lake in four columns, in a fleet of whale-boats,

bateaux, and artillery rafts, very much as Abercromby's men

had gone to their defeat the year before, and left the boats

nearly opposite the former landing-place. The vanguard,

pushing on rapidly over the road to the falls, met a

detachment of French and Indians, whom they overpowered and

scattered after a slight skirmish, and the main body pressed

on and took a position at the saw mills. From prisoners it was

learned that Bourlamaque commanded at Ticonderoga with 3,400

men. Montcalm was at Quebec." The French 'withdrew from their

outer lines into the fort, and made a show of resistance for

several days while they evacuated the place. An explosion,

during the night of the 25th of July, "and the light of the

burning works, assured the English of the retreat of the

French, of which they had already heard from a deserter, and

Colonel Haviland pursued them down the lake with a few troops,

and took sixteen prisoners and some boats laden with powder.

... After the flames were extinguished, Amherst, who had lost

about 75 men, went to work to repair the fortifications and

complete the road from the lake. Some sunken French boats were

raised, and a brig was built. Amherst was slowly preparing to

attack Crown Point, and sent Rogers with his rangers to

reconnoitre. But on the first of August they learned that the

French had abandoned that fort also; and on the 16th that

Bourlamaque's men were encamped on the Isle aux Noix, at the

northern extremity of Lake Champlain, commanding the entrance

to the Richelieu. They had been joined by some small

detachments, and numbered about 3,500 men. Amherst spent his

time in fortifying Crown Point, and building boats and rafts,"

until "it was too late to descend to Montreal and go to the

help of Wolfe; the time for that had been passed in elaborate

and useless preparations."

R. Johnson, History of the French War, chapter 18.

ALSO IN:

E. Warburton, Conquest of Canada, volume 2, chapter 9.

W. L. Stone, Life and Times of Sir W. Johnson,

volume 2, chapter 4.

CANADA: A. D. 1760.

The completion of the English conquest.

The end of "New France."

"Notwithstanding the successes of 1759, Canada was not yet

completely conquered. If Amherst had moved on faster and taken

Montreal, the work would have been finished; but his failure

to do so gave the French forces an opportunity to rally, and

the indefatigable De Levis, who had succeeded Montcalm,

gathered what remained of the army at Montreal, and made

preparations for attempting the recovery of Quebec. ... After

several fruitless attacks had been made on the British

outposts during the winter, De Levis refitted all the vessels

yet remaining early in the spring and gathered the stores

still left at the forts on the Richelieu. On the 17th of

April, he left Montreal with all his force and descended the

river, gathering up the detached troops on the way; the whole

amounting to more than 10,000 men. Quebec had been left in

charge of Murray, with 7,000 men, a supply of heavy artillery,

and stores of ammunition and provisions; but the number of men

had been much reduced by sickness and by hardship encountered

in bringing fuel to the city from forests, some as far as ten

miles away. Their position, however, had been very much

strengthened. ... De Levis encamped at St. Foy, and on the

27th advanced to within three miles of the city."

R. Johnson, History of the French War, chapter 21.

"On the 28th of April, Murray, marching out from the city,

left the advantageous ground which he first occupied,  and

hazarded an attack near Sillery Wood. The advance-guard, under

Bourlamaque, returned it with ardor. In danger of being

surrounded, Murray was obliged to fly, leaving 'his very fine

train of artillery,' and losing 1,000 men. The French appear

to have lost about 300, though Murray's report increased it

more than eightfold. During the next two days, Levi [Levis]

opened trenches against the town; but the frost delayed the

works. The English garrison, reduced to 2,200 effective men,

labored with alacrity; women, and even cripples were set to

light work. In the French army, not a word would be listened

to of the possibility of failure. But Pitt had foreseen and

prepared for all. A fleet at his bidding went to relieve the

city; and to his wife he was able to write in June: 'Join, my

love, with me, in most humble and grateful thanks to the

Almighty. Swanton arrived at Quebec in the Vanguard on the

15th of May, and destroyed all the French shipping, six or

seven in number. The siege was raised on the 17th. with every

happy circumstance. The enemy left their camp standing;

abandoned 40 pieces of cannon. Happy, happy day! My joy and

hurry are inexpressible.' When the spring opened. Amherst had

no difficulties to encounter in taking possession of Canada

but such as he himself should create. A country suffering from

a four years' scarcity, a disheartened peasantry, five or six

battalions, wasted by incredible services and not recruited

from France, offered no opposition. Amherst led the main army

of 10,000 men by way of Oswego; though the labor of getting

there was greater than that of proceeding directly upon

Montreal. He descended the St. Lawrence cautiously, taking

possession of the feeble works at Ogdensburg. Treating the

helpless Canadians with humanity, and with no loss of lives

except in passing the rapids, on the 7th of September, 1760,

he met before Montreal the army of Murray.

{378}

The next day Haviland arrived with forces from Crown Point;

and, in the view of the three armies, the flag of St. George

was raised in triumph over the gate of Montreal. ... The

capitulation [signed by the Marquis de Vaudreuil, governor,

against the protest of Levis] included all Canada, which was

said to extend to the crest of land dividing branches of Lakes

Erie and Michigan from those of the Miami, the Wabash, and the

Illinois rivers. Property and religion were cared for in the

terms of surrender; but for civil liberty no stipulation was

thought of.  ... On the fifth day after the capitulation,

Rogers departed with 200 rangers to carry English banners to

the upper posts. ... The Indians on the lakes were at peace,

united under Pontiac, the great chief of the Ottawas, happy in

a country fruitful of corn and abounding in game. The

Americans were met at the mouth of a river by a deputation of

Ottawas. 'Pontiac,' said they, 'is the chief and lord of the

country you are in; wait till he can see you.' When Pontiac

and Rogers met, the savage chieftain asked: 'How have you

dared to enter my country without my leave?' 'I come,' replied

the English agent, 'with no design against the Indians, but to

remove the French.'" Pontiac, after some delay, smoked the

calumet with Rogers and consented to his mission. The latter

then proceeded to take possession of Detroit. In the following

spring he went on to the French posts in the northwest.

G. Bancroft, History of the United States.

(Author's last revision), volume 2, pages 522-524.

ALSO IN:

W. Smith, History of Canada, volume 1, chapter 7

(giving the Articles of Capitulation in full).

F. Parkman, Montcalm and Wolfe, chapter 29-30 (volume 2).

CANADA: A. D. 1763.

Ceded to England by the Treaty of Paris.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR.

CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

The Province of Quebec created.

Eleven years of military rule.

The Quebec Act of 1774.

Extension of Quebec Province to the

Ohio and the Mississippi.

"For three years after the conquest, the government of Canada

was entrusted to military chiefs, stationed at Quebec,

Montreal and Three Rivers, the headquarters of the three

departments into which General Amherst divided the country.

Military councils were established to administer law, though,

as a rule, the people did not resort to such tribunals, but

settled their difficulties among themselves. In 1763, the

king, George III., issued a proclamation establishing four new

governments, of which Quebec was one. Labrador, from St.

John's River to Hudson's Bay, Anticosti, and the Magdalen

Islands, were placed under the jurisdiction of Newfoundland,

and the islands of St. John (or Prince Edward Island, as it

was afterwards called), and Cape Breton (Ile Royale) with the

smaller islands adjacent thereto, were added to the government

of Nova Scotia. Express power was given to the governors, in

the letters-patent by which these governments were

constituted, to summon general assemblies, with the advice and

consent of His Majesty's Council, 'in such manner and form as

was usual in those colonies and provinces which were under the

King's immediate government.' ... No assembly, however, ever

met, as the French-Canadian population were unwilling to take

the test oath, and the government of the province was carried

on solely by the governor general, with the assistance of an

executive council, composed in the first instance of the two

lieutenant-governors of Montreal and Three Rivers, the chief

justice, the surveyor general of customs, and eight others

chosen from the leading residents in the colony. From 1763 to

1774 the province remained in a very unsettled state, chiefly

on account of the uncertainty that prevailed as to the laws

actually in force. ... The province of Quebec remained for

eleven years under the system of government established by the

proclamation of 1763. In 1774, Parliament intervened for the

first time in Canadian affairs and made important

constitutional changes. The previous constitution had been

created by letters-patent under the great seal of Great

Britain, in the exercise of an unquestionable and undisputed

prerogative of the Crown. The colonial institutions of the old

possessions of Great Britain, now known as the United States

of America, had their origin in the same way. But in 1774, a

system of government was granted to Canada by the express

authority of Parliament. This constitution was known as the

Quebec Act, and greatly extended the boundaries of the

province of Quebec, as defined in the proclamation of 1763. On

one side, the province extended to the frontiers of New

England, Pennsylvania, New York province, the Ohio, and the

left bank of the Mississippi; on the other, to the Hudson's

Bay Territory. Labrador, and the islands annexed to

Newfoundland by the proclamation of 1763, were made part of

the province of Quebec. ... The Act of 1774 was exceedingly

unpopular in England and in the English-speaking colonies,

then at the commencement of the Revolution. Parliament,

however, appears to have been influenced by a desire to adjust

the government of the province so as to conciliate the

majority of the people. ... The new constitution came into

force in October, 1774. The Act sets forth among the reasons

for legislation that the provisions made by the proclamation

of 1763 were  'inapplicable to the state and circumstances of

the said province, the inhabitants whereof amounted at the

conquest, to above 65,000 persons professing the religion of

the Church of Rome, and enjoying an established form of

constitution and system of laws, by which their persons and

property had been protected, governed, and ordered for a long

series of years, from the first establishment of the

province.' Consequently, it is provided that Roman Catholics

should be no longer obliged to take the test oath, but only

the oath of allegiance. The government of the province was

entrusted to a governor and a legislative council, appointed

by the Crown, inasmuch as it was 'inexpedient to call an

assembly.' This council was to comprise not more than

twenty-three, and not less than seventeen members, and had the

power, with the consent of the governor or commander-in-chief

for the time being, to make ordinances for the peace, welfare,

and good government of the province. They had no authority,

however, to lay on any taxes or duties except such as the

inhabitants of any town or district might be authorized to

assess or levy within its precincts for roads and ordinary

local services. No ordinance could be passed, except by a

majority of the council, and every one had to be transmitted

within six months after its enactment to His Majesty for

approval or disallowance.

{379}

It was also enacted that in all matters of controversy,

relative to property and civil rights, recourse should be had

to the French civil procedure, whilst the criminal law of

England should obtain to the exclusion of every other criminal

code which might have prevailed before 1764. ... Roman

Catholics were permitted to observe their religion with

perfect freedom, and their clergy were to enjoy their

'accustomed dues and rights' with respect to such persons as

professed that creed. Consequently, the Roman Catholic

population of Canada were relieved of their disabilities many

years before people of the same belief in Great Britain and

Ireland received similar privileges. The new constitution was

inaugurated by Major General Carleton, afterwards Lord

Dorchester, who nominated a legislative council of

twenty-three members, of whom eight were Roman Catholics."

J. G. Bourinot, Manual of Const. History of Canada,

chapter 2-3.

ALSO IN:

W. Houston, Documents Illustrative of the Canadian

Constitution, pages 90-96.

See, also,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.1774 (MARCH-APRIL).

CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776.

Invasion by the revolting American colonists.

Loss and recovery of Montreal.

Successful defence of Quebec.

At the beginning of the revolt of the thirteen colonies which

subsequently formed, by their separation from Great Britain,

the United States of America, it was believed among them that

Canada would join their movement if the British troops which

occupied the country were driven out. Acting on this belief,

the Continental Congress at Philadelphia, in June, 1775,

adopted a resolution instructing General Schuyler to repair

without delay to Ticonderoga (which had been surprised and

taken a few weeks before by Ethan Allen and his "Green

Mountain Boys"), and "if he found it practicable, and it would

not be disagreeable to the Canadians, immediately to take

possession of St. John's and Montreal, and pursue any other

measures in Canada which might have a tendency to promote the

peace and security of these colonies." General Schuyler found

it difficult to gather troops and supplies for the projected

expedition, and it was the middle of August before he was

prepared to move. His chief subordinate officer was Gen.

Richard Montgomery, an Irishman, formerly in the British

service, but settled latterly in New York; and he was to be

supported by a cooperative movement planned and led by

Benedict Arnold. "General Montgomery, with 3,000 men, would go

down Lake Champlain and attack Montreal; while General Arnold,

with 1,200, was to seek the headwaters of Kennebec River,

cross the height of land, and descend the Chaudiere to the

very gates of Quebec. The brave General Carleton, who had been

with Wolfe at Quebec, was now in command of the forces of

Canada--if 500 British regulars and a few hundred militia

might be so denominated. No doubt Governor Carleton with his

small army undertook too much. He sought to defend the way to

Montreal by holding Fort St. John, and that to Quebec by

defending Chambly. Both these places fell before the

Americans. General Montgomery pushed on down the River

Richelieu and occupied Sorel, throwing forces across the St.

Lawrence, and erected batteries on both sides to prevent

intercourse between Montreal and Quebec. Montreal, now

defenceless, was compelled to surrender on the 13th of

November, and 11 British vessels were given up to the enemy.

It was really a dark hour for Canada. General Carleton has

been severely criticized for dividing his forces. The truth

is, the attack was so unexpected, and so soon after the

outbreak of the rebellion, that no plan of defence for Canada

had been laid. ... General Carleton escaped from Montreal,

and, in a boat, passed the Sorel batteries with muffled oars

under cover of night. The general had but reached Quebec in

time. The expedition of Arnold had already gained the St.

Lawrence on the side opposite the' Ancient Capital.' The

energy displayed by Arnold's men was remarkable. The Kennebec

is a series of rapids. Its swift current hurries over

dangerous rocks at every turn. The highlands when reached

consist of swamps and rocky ridges covered with forest. The

Chaudiere proved worse than the Kennebec, and, the current

being with the boats, dashed them to pieces on the rocks.

Arnold's men, on their six weeks' march, had run short of

food, and were compelled to eat the dogs which had accompanied

them. Not much more than half of Arnold's army reached the St.

Lawrence. Arnold's force crossed the St. Lawrence, landed at

Wolfe's Cove, and built huts for themselves on the Plains of

Abraham. On the 5th of December Montgomery joined the Kennebec

men before Quebec. The united force was of some 3,000 men,

supported by about a dozen light guns. Carleton had, for the

defence of Quebec, only one company of regulars and a few

seamen and marines of a sloop of war at Quebec. The popularity

of the governor was such that he easily prevailed upon the

citizens, both French and English, to enroll themselves in

companies for the defence of their homes. He was able to count

upon about 1,600 bayonets. The defences of Quebec were,

however, too strong for the Americans. On the night of

December 31st, a desperate effort was made to take the city by

escalade. Four attacks were made simultaneously. Arnold sought

to enter by the St. Charles, on the north side of Quebec, and

Montgomery by the south, between Cape Diamond and the St.

Lawrence. Two feints were to be made on the side towards the

Plains of Abraham. The hope of the commanders was to have

forced the gates from the lower to the upper town in both

cases. Arnold failed to reach the lower town, and in a sortie

the defenders cut off nearly the whole of his column. He

escaped wounded. Montgomery was killed at the second

entrenchment of the lower town, and his troops retired in

confusion. The American generals have been criticized by

experts for not making their chief attack on the wall facing

on the Plains of Abraham. ... General Arnold remained before

Quebec, though his troops had become reduced to 800 men.

General Carleton pursued a policy of acting strictly on the

defensive. If he retained Quebec it would be his greatest

success. General Arnold sought to gain the sympathy of the

French Canadian seigniors and people, but without any success.

Three thousand troops, however, came to reinforce Arnold early

in the year, and 4,000 occupied Montreal, St. John's, and

Chambly. But on the 6th of May relief came from England; men

of war and transports, with three brigades of infantry besides

artillery, stores, and ammunition. The Americans withdrew to

Sorel. The British troops followed them, and a brigade

encamped at Three Rivers.

{380}

The Americans attempted to surprise the force at Three Rivers,

but were repulsed with heavy loss. The Americans now fell back

from Montreal, deserted all the posts down to Lake Champlain,

and Governor Carleton had the pleasure of occupying

Isle-aux-Noix as the outpost, leaving Canada as it had been

before the first attack in the year before."

G. Bryce, Short History of the Canadian People,

chapter 6, section 3.

ALSO IN:

B. J. Lossing, Life and Times of Philip Schuyler,

volume 1, chapter 19-29, and volume 2, chapter 1-4.

J. Sparks, Life and Treason of Benedict Arnold,

chapter 3-5 (Library of American Biog., volume 3).

J. Armstrong, Life of Richard Montgomery

(Lib. of American Biog., volume 1).

C. H. Jones, History of the Campaign

for the Conquest of Canada in 1776.

J. J. Henry, Arnold's Campaign against Quebec.

CANADA: A. D. 1776.

General Carleton's unsuccessful advance against Ticonderoga.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777.

CANADA: A. D. 1777.

Burgoyne's disastrous invasion of New York.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777 (JULY-OCTOBER).

CANADA: A. D 1783.

Settlement of boundaries in the Treaty of Peace between Great

Britain and the United States.

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

CANADA: A. D. 1783-1784.

Influx of the "United Empire Loyalists" from the United

States.

See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

CANADA: A. D. 1791

The Constitutional Act.

Division of the province into Upper and Lower Canada.

"In 1791 a bill was introduced by Pitt dividing the Province

into Upper and Lower Canada, the line of division being so

drawn as to give a great majority to the British element in

Upper Canada and a great majority to the French settlers in

Lower Canada. The measure was strongly opposed by Fox, who

urged that the separation of the English and French

inhabitants was most undesirable. ... The act was passed, and

is known as the Constitutional Act of 1791. ... In each

province the legislature was to consist of the Governor, a

Legislative Council and a Legislative Assembly. The Governor

had power to give or withhold the royal assent to bills, or to

reserve them for consideration by the Crown. He could summon,

prorogue, or dissolve the legislature, but was required to

convene the legislature at least once a year. The Legislative

Council in Upper Canada consisted of not less than 7, and in

Lower Canada of not less than 15 members, chosen by the King

for life, the Speaker being appointed by the Governor-General.

The Legislative Assembly was in counties elected by 40s,

freeholders, and in towns by owners of houses of £5 yearly

value and by resident inhabitants paying £10 yearly rent. The

number and limits of electoral districts were fixed by the

Governor-General. Lower Canada had 50 members, Upper Canada 16

members, assigned to their respective legislatures. The new

Constitution did not prove a success. Serious differences

arose between the Legislative Council and the Legislative

Assembly in regard to the control of the revenue and supplies,

differences which were aggravated by the conflict that still

went on between the French and English races. ... The

discontent resulted in the rebellion of 1837-8."

J. E. C. Munro, The Constitution of Canada, chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

W. Houston, Docs. Illustrative of the Canadian Const.,

pages 112-133.

D. Brymner, Report on Canadian Archives, 1890, appendix B.

CANADA: A. D. 1812-1815.

The War of Great Britain with the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER), to 1815 (JANUARY).

CANADA: A. D. 1818.

Convention between Great Britain and the United States

relating to Fisheries, etc.

See FISHERIES, NORTH AMERICAN: A. D. 1814-1818.

CANADA: A. D. 1820-1837.

The Family Compact.

"The Family Compact manifestly grew out of the principles of

the U. E. Loyalists. It was the union of the leaders of the

loyalists with others of kindred spirit, to rule Upper Canada,

heedless of the rights or wishes of its people. We have

admired the patriotic, heroic and sentimental side of U. E.

loyalism; but plainly, as related to civil government, its

political doctrines and practices were tyrannical. Its

prominent members belonged to the class which in the American

colonies, in the persons of Governors Bernard and Hutchinson,

and many others of high office and standing, had plotted to

destroy the liberties of the people and had hastened the

American revolution. ... By the years 1818 or 1820 a junto or

cabal had been formed, definite in its aims and firmly

combined together, known as the Family Compact, not to its

best leaders seeming an embodiment of selfishness, but rather

set for patriotic defence and hallowed with the name of

religion."

G. Bryce, Short History of the Canadian People,

chapter 10, section 2.

"Upper Canada ... has long been entirely governed by a party

commonly designated throughout the Province as the 'Family

Compact,' a name not much more appropriate than party

designations usually are, inasmuch as there is, in truth, very

little of family connection among the persons thus united. For

a long time this body of men, receiving at times accessions to

its members, possessed almost all the highest public offices,

by means of which, and of its influence in the Executive

Council, it wielded all the powers of government; it

maintained influence in the legislature by means of its

predominance in the Legislative Council; and it disposed of a

large number of petty posts which are in the patronage of the

Government all over the Province. Successive Governors, as

they came in their turn, are said to have either submitted

quietly to its influence, or, after a short and unavailing

struggle, to have yielded to this well-organized party the

real conduct of affairs. The bench, the magistracy, the high

offices of the Episcopal Church, and a great part of the legal

profession, are filled by the adherents of this party: by

grant or purchase, they have acquired nearly the whole of the

waste lands of the Province; they are all powerful in the

chartered banks, and, till lately, shared among themselves

almost exclusively all offices of trust and profit. The bulk

of this party consists, for the most part, of native-born

inhabitants of the colony, or of emigrants who settled in it

before the last war with the United States; the principal

members of it belong to the church of England, and the

maintenance of the claims of that church has always been one

of its distinguishing characteristics."

Earl of Durham, Report on the Affairs of British

North America, page 105.

"The influences which produced the Family Compact were not

confined to Upper Canada. In the Lower Province, as well as in

Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, similar causes led to similar

results, and the term Family Compact has at one time or

another been a familiar one in all the British North American

colonies. ... The designation Family Compact, however, did not

owe its origin to any combination of North American colonists,

but was borrowed from the diplomatic history of Europe."

J. C. Dent, The Story of the Upper Canadian Rebellion,

chapter 3.

{381}

CANADA: A. D. 1837.

The Causes of discontent which produced rebellion.

"It was in Lower Canada that the greatest difficulties arose.

A constant antagonism grew up between the majority of the

legislative council, who were nominees of the Crown, and the

majority of the representative assembly, who were elected by

the population of the province [see above: A. D. 1791]. The

home Government encouraged and indeed kept up that most odious

and dangerous of all instruments for the supposed management

of a colony--a 'British party' devoted to the so-called

interests of the mother country, and obedient to the word of

command from their masters and patrons at home. The majority

in the legislative council constantly thwarted the resolutions

of the vast majority of the popular assembly. Disputes arose as

to the voting of supplies. The Government retained in their

service officials whom the representative' assembly had

condemned, and insisted on the right to pay them their

salaries out of certain funds of the colony. The

representative assembly took to stopping the supplies, and the

Government claimed the right to counteract this measure by

appropriating to the purpose such public moneys as happened to

be within their reach at the time. The colony--for indeed on

these subjects the population of Lower Canada, right or wrong,

was so near to being of one mind that we may take the

declarations of public meetings as representing the

colony--demanded that the legislative council should be made

elective, and that the colonial government should not be

allowed to dispose of the moneys of the colony at their

pleasure. The House of Commons and the Government here replied

by refusing to listen to the proposal. ... It is not necessary to

suppose that in all these disputes the popular majority were

in the right and the officials in the wrong. No one can doubt

that there was much bitterness of feeling arising out of the

mere differences of race. ... At last the representative

assembly refused to vote any further supplies or to carry on

any further business. They formulated their grievances against

the home Government. Their complaints were of arbitrary

conduct on the part of the governors; intolerable composition

of the legislative council, which they insisted ought to be

elective; illegal appropriation of the public money, and

violent prorogation of the provincial parliament. One of the

leading men in the movement which afterwards became rebellion

in Lower Canada was Mr. Louis Joseph Papineau. This man had

risen to high position by his talents, his energy, and his

undoubtedly honourable character. He had represented Montreal

in the representative Assembly of Lower Canada, and he

afterwards became Speaker of the House. He made himself leader

of the movement to protest against the policy of the

governors, and that of the Government by whom they were

sustained. He held a series of meetings, at some of which

undoubtedly rather strong language was used. ... Lord Gosford,

the governor, began by dismissing several militia officers who

had taken part in some of these demonstrations; Mr. Papineau

himself was an officer of this force. Then the governor issued

warrants for the apprehension of many members of the popular

Assembly on the charge of high treason. Some of these at once

left the country; others against whom warrants were issued

were arrested, and a sudden resistance was made by their

friends and supporters. Then, in a manner familiar to all who

have read anything of the history of revolutionary movements,

the resistance to a capture of prisoners suddenly transformed

itself into open rebellion."

J. McCarthy, History of Our own Times, volume 1, chapter 3.

Among the grievances which gave rise to discontent in both

Upper and Lower Canada, "first of all there was the chronic

grievance of the Clergy Reserves [which were public lands set

apart by the Act of 1791 for the support of the Protestant

Clergy], common both to British and French, to Upper and to

Lower Canada. In Upper Canada these reserves amounted to

2,500,000 acres, being one-seventh of the lands in the

Province. Three objections were made against continuing these

Reserves for the purpose for which they had been set apart.

The first objection arose from the way in which the Executive

Council wished to apply the revenues accruing from these

lands. According to the Act they were to be applied for

'maintaining the Protestant religion in Canada'; and the

Executive Council interpreted this as meaning too exclusively

the Church of England, which was established by law in the

mother-country. But the objectors claimed a right for all

Protestant denominations to share in the Reserves. The second

objection was that the amount of these lands was too large for

the purpose in view: and the third referred to the way in

which the Reserves were selected. These 2,500,000 acres did

not lie in a block, but, when the early surveys were made,

every seventh lot was reserved; and as these lots were not

cleared for years the people complained that they were not

utilized, and so became inconvenient barriers to uniform

civilization. With the Roman Catholics, both priests and

people, the Clergy Reserves were naturally unpopular. ... An

additional source of complaint was found in the fact that the

government of Upper and Lower Canada had found its way into

the hands of a few powerful families banded together by a

Family Compact [see above: A. D. 1820-1837]. ... But the

Constitutional difficulty was, after all, the great one, and

it lay at the bottom of the whole dispute. ... Altogether the

issues were very complicated in the St. Lawrence Valley

Provinces and the Maritime Provinces ... and so it is not to

be wondered at that some should interpret the rebellion as a

class, and perhaps semi-religious, contest rather than a

race-conflict. The constitutional dead-lock, however, was

tolerably clear to those who looked beneath the surface. ...

The main desire of all was to be freed of the burden of

Executive Councils, nominated at home and kept in office with

or without the wish of the people. In Upper Canada, William

Lyon Mackenzie, and in Lower Canada, Louis Papineau and Dr.

Wolfred Nelson, agitated for independence."

W. P. Greswell, History of the Dominion of Canada, chapter 16.

ALSO IN:

J. McMullen, History of Canada, chapter 19-20.

Earl of Durham, Report and Dispatches.

Sir F. B. Head, Narrative.

Report of Commissioner appointed to inquire into the

grievances complained of in Lower Canada, (House of

Commons, February 20, 1837).

{382}

CANADA: A. D. 1837-1838.

The rebellion under Papineau and Mackenzie, and its suppression.

The Burning of the Caroline.

"Immediately on the breaking out of the rebellion, the

constitution of Lower Canada was suspended; the revolt was put

down at once, and with little difficulty. Though the outbreak

in Upper Canada showed that a comparatively small portion of

the population was disaffected to the government, there were

some sharp skirmishes before the smouldering fire was

completely trodden out. ... On the night of the 4th of

December, 1837, when all Toronto was asleep, except the

policemen who stood sentries over the arms in the city hall,

and a few gentlemen who sat up to watch out the night with the

Adjutant-General of Militia in the Parliament House, the alarm

came that the rebels were upon the city. They were under the

command of a newspaper editor named Mackenzie, whose grotesque

figure was until lately [this was published in 1865] familiar

to the frequenters of the Canadian House of Assembly. Rumours

had been rife for some days past of arming and drilling among

the disaffected in the Home and London districts. ... The

alarm threw Toronto into commotion. ... The volunteers were

formed in the market square during the night and well armed.

In point of discipline, even in the first instance, they were

not wholly deficient, many of them being retired officers and

discharged men from both the naval and military services. ...

Towards morning news came of a smart skirmish which had

occurred during the night, in which a party of the rebels were

driven back and their leader killed. During the succeeding day

and night, loyal yeomen kept pouring in to act in defence of

the crown. Sir Allan, then Colonel, Macnab, the Speaker of the

House of Assembly ... raised a body of his friends and

adherents in the course of the night and following day, and,

seizing a vessel in the harbour at Hamilton, hurried to

Toronto. ... The rebels were defeated and dispersed next day,

at a place some two miles from Toronto. In this action, the

Speaker took the command of the Volunteers, which he kept

during the subsequent campaign on the Niagara frontier, and

till all danger was over. ... Mackenzie soon rallied his

scattered adherents, and seized Navy Island, just above

Niagara Falls, where he was joined by large numbers of

American 'sympathizers,' who came to the spot on the chance of

a quarrel with the English. On receipt of this intelligence,

the Speaker hastened from the neighbourhood of Brantford

(where he had just dispersed a band of insurgents under the

command of a doctor named Duncombe) to reinforce Colonel

Cameron, formerly of the 79th, who had taken up a position at

Chippewa. Navy Island, an eyott some quarter of a mile in

length, lies in the Niagara River within musket-shot of the

Canadian bank. The current runs past the island on both sides

with great velocity, and, immediately below it, hurries over

the two miles of rocks and rapids that precede its tremendous

leap. The rebels threw up works on the side facing the

Canadians. They drew their supplies from Fort Schlosser, an

American work nearly opposite the village of Chippewa." A

small steamboat, named the Caroline, had been secured by the

insurgents and was plying between Fort Schlosser and Navy

Island. She "had brought over several field-pieces and other

military stores; it therefore became necessary to decide

whether it was not expedient for the safety of Canada to

destroy her. Great Britain was not at war with the United

States, and to cut out an American steamer from an American

port was to incur a heavy responsibility. Nevertheless Colonel

Macnab determined to assume it." A party sent over in boats at

night to Fort Schlosser surprised the Caroline at her wharf,

fired her and sent her adrift in the river, to be carried over

the Falls.

Viscount Bury, Exodus of the Western Nations,

volume 2, chapter 12.

"On all sides the insurgents were crushed, jails were filled

with their leaders, and 180 were sentenced to be hanged. Some

of them were executed and some were banished to Van Dieman's

Land, while others were pardoned on account of their youth.

But there was a great revulsion of feeling in England, and

after a few years, pardons were extended to almost all. Even

Papineau and Mackenzie, the leaders of the rebellion, were

allowed to come back, and, strange to say, both were elected

to seats in the Canadian Assembly."

W. P. Greswell, History of the Dominion of Canada.

chapter 16, section 15.

On the American border the Canadian rebellion of 1837-38 was

very commonly called "the Patriot War."

ALSO IN:

C. Lindsey, Life and Times of William Lyon Mackenzie,

volume 2.

J. C. Dent, Story of the Upper Canada Rebellion.

CANADA: A. D. 1840-1841.

International Imbroglio consequent on the burning of the

Caroline.

The McLeod Case.

The burning of the steamer Caroline (see, above, A.. D.

1837-1836) gave rise to a serious question between Great

Britain and the United States. "In the fray which occurred, an

American named Durfree was killed. The British government

avowed this invasion to be a public act and a necessary

measure of self-defence; but it was a question when Mr. Van

Buren [President of the United States] went out of office

whether this avowal had been made in an authentic manner. ...

In November, 1840, one Alexander McLeod came from Canada to

New York, where he boasted that he was the slayer of Durfree,

and thereupon was at once arrested on a charge of murder and

thrown into prison. This aroused great anger in England, and

the conviction of McLeod was all that was needed to cause

immediate war. ... Our [the American] government was, of

course, greatly hampered in action ... by the fact that McLeod

was within the jurisdiction and in the power of the New York

courts, and wholly out reach of those of the United States.

... Mr. Webster [who became Secretary of State under President

Taylor] ... was hardly in office before he received a demand

from Mr. Fox for the release of McLeod, in which full avowal

was made that the burning of the Caroline was a public act.

Mr. Webster determined that ... the only way to dispose of

McLeod was to get him out of prison, separate him,

diplomatically speaking, from the affair of the Caroline, and

then take that up as a distinct matter for negotiation with

the British government. ... His first step was to instruct the

Attorney-General to proceed to Lockport, where McLeod was

imprisoned, and communicate with the counsel for the defence,

furnishing them with authentic information that the

destruction of the Caroline was a public act, and that

therefore, McLeod could not be held responsible. ...

{383}

This threw the responsibility for McLeod, and for consequent

peace or war, where it belonged, on the New York authorities,

who seemed, however, but little inclined to assist the general

government. McLeod came before the Supreme Court of New York

in July, on a writ of habeas corpus, but they refused to

release him on the grounds set forth in Mr. Webster's

instructions to the Attorney-General, and he was remanded for

trial in October, which was highly embarrassing to our

government, as it kept this dangerous affair open." But when

McLeod came to trial in October, 1841, it appeared that he was

a mere braggart who had not even been present when Durfree was

killed. His acquittal happily ended the case, and smoothed the

way to the negotiation of the Ashburton treaty, which opened

at Washington soon afterwards and which settled all questions

between England and the United States.

H. C. Lodge, Daniel Webster, chapter 8.

ALSO IN:

W. H. Seward, Works, chapter 2, pages 547-588.

D. Webster. Works, volume 6, pages 247-269.

CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867.

Reunion of the provinces.

The opposition of races.

Clear Grits and Conservatives.

"The reunion of the two Provinces had been projected before:

it was greatly desired by the British of the Lower Province;

and in 1822 a bill for the purpose had actually been brought

into the Imperial Parliament, but the French being bitterly

opposed to it, the Bill had been dropped. The French were as

much opposed to reunion as ever, clearly seeing, what the

author of the policy [Lord Durham] had avowed, that the

measure was directed against their nationality. But since the

Rebellion they were prostrate. Their Constitution had been

superseded by a Provisional Council sitting under the

protection of Imperial bayonets, and this Council consented to

the union. The two Provinces were now [July, 1840] placed

under a Governor-General with a single legislature,

consisting, like the legislatures of the two Provinces before,

of an Upper House nominated by the Crown and a Lower House

elected by the people. Each province was to have the same

number of representatives, although the population of the

French Province was at that time much larger than that of the

British Province. The French language was proscribed in

official proceedings. French nationality was thus sent,

constitutionally, under the yoke. But to leave it its votes,

necessary and right as that might be, was to leave it the only

weapon which puts the weak on a level with the strong, and

even gives them the advantage, since the weak are the most

likely to hold together and to submit to the discipline of

organised party. ... The French ... 'had the wisdom,' as their

manual of history ... complacently observes, 'to remain united

among themselves, and by that union were able to exercise a

happy influence on the Legislature and the Government.'

Instead of being politically suppressed, they soon, thanks to

their compactness as an interest and their docile obedience to

their leaders, became politically dominant. The British

factions began to bid against each other for their support,

and were presently at their feet. ... The statute proscribing

the use of the French language in official proceedings was

repealed, and the Canadian Legislature was made bi-lingual.

The Premiership was divided between the English and the French

leader, and the Ministries were designated by the double

name--'the Lafontaine--Baldwin,' or 'the Macdonald-Taché.' The

French got their full share of seats in the Cabinet and of

patronage; of public funds they got more than their full

share, especially as being small consumers of imported goods

they contributed far less than their quota to the public

revenue. By their aid the Roman Catholics of the Upper

Province obtained the privilege of Separate Schools in

contravention of the principle of religious equality and

severance of the Church from the State. In time it was

recognized as a rule that a Ministry to retain power must have

a majority from each section of the Province. This practically

almost reduced the Union to a federation, under which French

nationality was more securely entrenched than ever. Gradually

the French and their clergy became, as they have ever since

been, the basis of what styles itself a Conservative party,

playing for French support, by defending clerical privilege,

by protecting French nationality, and, not least, by allowing

the French Province to dip her hand deep in the common

treasury. On the other hand, a secession of thorough-going

Reformers from the Moderates ... gave birth to the party of

the 'Clear Grits,' the leader of which was Mr. George Brown, a

Scotch Presbyterian, and which having first insisted on the

secularization of the Clergy Reserves, became, when that

question was out of the way, a party of general opposition to

French and Roman Catholic influence. ... A change had thus

come over the character and relations of parties. French

Canada, so lately the seat of disaffection, became the basis

of the Conservative party. British Canada became the

stronghold of the Liberals. ... A period of tricky

combinations, perfidious alliances, and selfish intrigues now

commenced, and a series of weak and ephemeral governments was

its fruit."

Goldwin Smith, Canada and the Canadian Question, chapter 7.

ALSO IN:

W. Houston, Docs. Illustrative of the

Canadian Const., pages 149-185.

J. G. Bourinot,

Manual of the Const. History of Canada, chapter 5.

CANADA: A. D. 1842.

Settlement of boundary disputes with the United States by the

Ashburton Treaty.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1842.

CANADA: A. D. 1854.1866.

The Reciprocity Treaty with the United States and its

abrogation.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES AND CANADA):

A. D. 1854-1866.

CANADA: A. D. 1864.

The St. Albans Raid.

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

CANADA: A. D. 1866-1871.

Fenian invasions.

The Fenian movement (see IRELAND: A. D. 1858-1867) had its

most serious outcome in an attempted invasion of Canada from

the United States, which took place in 1866. "Canadian

volunteers were under arms all day on the 17th of March, 1866,

expecting a Fenian invasion, but it was not made: in April an

insignificant attack was made upon New Brunswick. About 900

men, under Colonel O'Neil, crossed from Buffalo to Fort Erie on

the night of May 31st. Moving westward, this body aimed at

destroying the Welland Canal, when they were met by the

Queen's Own Volunteer Regiment of Toronto, and the 13th

battalion of Hamilton Militia, near the village of Ridgeway.

Here, after a conflict of two hours, in which for a time the

Volunteers drove the enemy before them, the Canadian

forces retired to Ridgeway, and thence to Port Colborne, with

a loss of nine killed and 30 wounded.

{384}

Colonel Peacock, in charge of a body of regulars, was marching

to meet the volunteers, so that O'Neil was compelled to flee

to Fort Erie, and, crossing to the United States with his men,

was arrested, but afterwards liberated. The day after the

skirmish the regulars and volunteers encamped at Fort Erie,

and the danger on the Niagara Frontier was past. A Fenian

expedition threatened Prescott, aiming at reaching the capital

at Ottawa, and another band of marauders crossed the border

from St. Albans, Vermont, but both were easily driven back.

The Fenian troubles roused strong feeling in Canada against

the American authorities. ... A Fenian attack was led by Colonel

O'Neil on the Lower Canadian frontier, in 1870, but it was

easily met, and the United States authorities were moved to

arrest the repulsed fugitives. A foolish movement was again

made in 1871 by the same leader, through Minnesota, against

Manitoba. Through the prompt action of the friendly American

commander at Fort Pembina, the United States troops followed

the Fenians across the border, arrested their leader, and,

though he was liberated after a trial at St. Paul, Minnesota,

the expedition ended as a miserable and laughable failure.

These movements of the Fenian Society, though trifling in

effect, yet involved Canada in a considerable expense from the

maintenance of bodies of the Active Militia at different

points along the frontier. The training of a useful force of

citizen soldiery however resulted."

G. Bryce, Short History of the Canadian People, pages 468-470.

ALSO IN:

G. T. Denison, Jr., The Fenian Raid on Fort Erie.

Correspondence Relating to the Fenian Invasion.

Official Report of Gen. John O'Neill.

CANADA: A. D. 1867.

Federation of the provinces of British North America in the

Dominion of Canada.

The constitution of the Dominion.

"The Union between Upper and Lower Canada lasted until 1867,

when the provinces of British North America were brought more

closely together in a federation and entered on a new era in

their constitutional history. For many years previous to 1865,

the administration of government in Canada had become

surrounded with political difficulties of a very perplexing

character. ... Parties at last were so equally balanced on

account of the antagonism between the two sections, that the

vote of one member might decide the fate of an administration,

and the course of legislation for a year or a series of years.

From the 21st of May, 1862, to the end of June, 1864, there

were no less than five different ministries in charge of the

public business. Legislation, in fact, was at last practically

at a dead-lock. ... It was at this critical juncture of

affairs that the leaders of the government and opposition, in

the session of 1864, came to a mutual understanding, after the

most mature consideration of the whole question. A coalition

government was formed on the basis of a federal union of all

the British American provinces, or of the two Canadas, in case

of the failure of the larger scheme. ... It was a happy

coincidence that the legislatures of the lower provinces were

about considering a maritime union at the time the leading

statesmen of Canada had combined to mature a plan of settling

their political difficulties. The Canadian ministry at once

availed themselves of this fact to meet the maritime delegates

at their convention in Charlottetown, and the result was the

decision to consider the question of the larger union at

Quebec. Accordingly, on the 10th of October, 1864, delegates

from all the British North American provinces assembled in

conference, in 'the ancient capital,' and after very ample

deliberations during eighteen days, agreed to 72 resolutions,

which form the basis of the Act of Union. These resolutions

were formally submitted to the legislature of Canada in

January, 1865, and after an elaborate debate, which extended

from the 3d of February to the 14th of March, both houses

agreed by very large majorities to an address to her Majesty

praying her to submit a measure to the Imperial Parliament for

the purpose of uniting the provinces in accordance with the

provisions of the Quebec resolutions.' Some time, however, had

to elapse before the Union could be consummated, in

consequence of the strong opposition that very soon exhibited

itself in the maritime provinces, more especially to the

financial terms of the scheme." Certain modifications of the

terms of the Quebec resolutions were accordingly made, and

"the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick,

being at last in full accord, through the action of their

respective legislatures, the plan of union was submitted on

the 12th of February, 1867, to the Imperial Parliament, where

it met with the warm support of the statesmen of all parties,

and passed without amendment in the course of a few weeks, the

royal assent being given on the 29th of March. The new

constitution came into force on the First of July, [annually

celebrated since, as 'Dominion Day '] 1867, and the first

parliament of the united provinces met on November of the same

year. ... The confederation, as inaugurated in 1867, consisted

only of the four provinces of Ontario [Upper Canada], Quebec

[Lower Canada], Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. By the 146th

section of the Act of Union, provision was made for the

admission of other colonies on addresses from the parliament

of Canada, and from the respective legislatures of

Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, and British Columbia.

Rupert's Land and the North-west Territory might also at any

time be admitted into the Union on the address of the Canadian

Parliament. ... The title of Dominion did not appear in the

Quebec resolutions. The 71st Res. is to the effect that 'Her

Majesty be solicited to determine the rank and name of the

federated Provinces.' The name ['The Dominion of Canada'] was

arranged at the conference held in London in 1866, when the

union bill was finally drafted."

T. G. Bourinot, Manual of Const. History of Canada,

chapter 6-7 (with foot-note).

"The Federal Constitution of the Dominion of Canada is

contained in the British North America Act, 1867, a statute of

the British Parliament (30 Vict., c. 3). I note a few of the

many points in which it deserves to be compared with that of

the United States. The Federal or Dominion Government is

conducted on the so-called 'Cabinet system' of England, i. e.,

the Ministry sit in Parliament, and hold office at the

pleasure of the House of Commons. The Governor-General

[appointed by the Crown] is in the position of an

irresponsible and permanent executive similar to that of the

Crown of Great Britain, acting on the advice of responsible

ministers.

{385}

He can dissolve Parliament. The Upper House or Senate, is

composed of 78 persons, nominated for life by the

Governor-General, i. e., the Ministry. The House of Commons

has at present 210 members, who are elected for five years.

Both senators and members receive salaries. The Senate has

very little power or influence. The Governor-General has a

veto but rarely exercises it, and may reserve a bill for the

Queen's pleasure. The judges, not only of the Federal or

Dominion Courts, but also of the provinces, are appointed by

the Crown, i. e., by the Dominion Ministry, and hold for good

behaviour. Each of the Provinces, at present [1888] seven in

number, has a legislature of its own, which, however, consists

in Ontario, British Columbia, and Manitoba, of one House only,

and a Lieutenant-Governor, with a right of veto on the acts of

the legislature, which he seldom exercises. Members of the

Dominion Parliament cannot sit in a Provincial legislature.

The Governor-General has a right of disallowing acts of a

Provincial legislature, and sometimes exerts it, especially

when a legislature is deemed to have exceeded its

constitutional competence. In each of the Provinces there is a

responsible Ministry, working on the Cabinet system of

England. The distribution of matters within the competence of

the Dominion Parliament and of the Provincial legislatures

respectively, bears a general resemblance to that existing in

the United States; but there is this remarkable distinction,

that whereas in the United States, Congress has only the

powers actually granted to it, the State legislatures

retaining all such powers as have not been taken from them,

the Dominion Parliament has a general power of legislation,

restricted only by the grant of certain specific and exclusive

powers to the Provincial legislatures. Criminal law is

reserved for the Dominion Parliament; and no Province has the

right to maintain a military force. Questions as to the

constitutionality of a statute, whether of the Dominion

Parliament or of a Provincial legislature, come before the

courts in the ordinary way, and if appealed, before the

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England. The

Constitution of the Dominion was never submitted to a popular

vote, and can be altered only by the British Parliament,

except as regards certain points left to its own legislature.

... There exists no power of amending the Provincial

constitutions by popular vote similar to that which the

peoples of the several States exercise in the United States."

J. Bryce, The American Commonwealth,

volume 1, appendix., note (B) to chapter 80.

See CONSTITUTION OF CANADA.

ALSO IN:

J. E. C. Munro, The Constitution of Canada (with text of Act

in appendix) Parl. Debate on Confederation, 3d Sess., 8th Prov.

Parliament of Canada.

W. Houston, Docs. Illustrative of the Canadian Const.,

pages 186-224.

CANADA: A. D. 1869-1873.

Acquisition of the Hudson's Bay Territory.

Admission or Manitoba, British Columbia and Prince Edward's

Island to the Dominion.

"In 1869 ... the Dominion was enlarged by the acquisition of

the famous Hudson's Bay Territory. When the charter of the

Hudson's Bay Company expired in 1869, Lord Granville, then

Colonial Secretary, proposed that the chief part of the

Company's territories should be transferred to the Dominion

for £300,000; and the proposition was agreed to on both sides.

The Hudson's Bay Charter dated from the reign of Charles II.

The region to which it referred carries some of its history

imprinted in its names. Prince Rupert was at the head of the

association incorporated by the Charter into the Hudson's Bay

Company. The name of Rupert's Land perpetuates his memory. ...

The Hudson's Bay Company obtained from King Charles, by virtue

of the Charter in 1670, the sole and absolute government of

the vast watershed of Hudson's Bay, the Rupert's Land of the

Charter, on condition of paying yearly to the King and his

successors 'two elks and two black beavers,' 'whensoever and

all often as we, our heirs and successors, shall happen to

enter into the said countries, territories and regions.' The

Hudson's Bay Company was opposed by the North West Fur Company

in 1788, which fought them for a long time with Indians and

law, with the tomahawk of the red man and the legal judgment

of a Romilly or a Keating. In 1812 Lord Selkirk founded the

Red River Company. This interloper on the battle field was

harassed by the North West Company, and it was not until 1821,

when the Hudson's Bay and North West Companies--impoverished

by their long warfare-amalgamated their interests, that the

Red River settlers were able to reap their harvests in peace,

disturbed only by occasional plagues of locusts and

blackbirds. In 1885, on Lord Selkirk's death, the Hudson's Bay

Company bought the settlement from his executors. It had been

under their sway before that, having been committed to their

care by Lord Selkirk during his lifetime. The privilege of

exclusive trading east of the Rocky Mountains was conferred by

Royal license for twenty-one years in May 1888, and some ten

years later the Company received a grant of Vancouver's Island

for the term of ten years from 1849 to 1859. The Hudson's Bay

Company were always careful to foster the idea that their

territory was chiefly wilderness, and discountenanced the

reports of its fertility and fitness for colonisation which

were from time to time brought to the ears of the English

Government. In 1857, at the instance of Mr. Labouchere, a

Select Committee of the House of Commons was appointed to

enquire into the state of the British possessions under the

Company's administration. Various Government expeditions, and

the publication of many Blue Books, enlightened the public

mind as to the real nature of those tracts of land which the

council from the Fenchurch Street house declared to be so

desolate. ... During the sittings of the Committee there was

cited in evidence a petition from 575 Red River settlers to

the Legislative Assembly of Canada demanding British

protection. This appeal was a proceeding curiously at variance

with the later action of the settlement. When in 1869 the chief

part of the territories was transferred to Canada, on the

proposition of Earl Granville, the Red River country rose in

rebellion, and refused to receive the new Governor. Louis

Riel, the insurgent chief, seized on Fort Garry and the

Company's treasury, and proclaimed the independence of the

settlement. Sir Garnet, then Colonel, Wolseley, was sent in

command of an expedition which reached Fort Garry on August

28, when the insurgents submitted without resistance, and the

district received the name of Manitoba."

J. McCarthy, History of our own Times,

chapter 55 (volume 4).

{386}

Manitoba and the Northwest Territories were admitted to the

Dominion Confederation May 12, 1870; British Columbia, July

20, 1871; Prince Edward Island, July 1, 1873.

J. McCoun, Manitoba and the Great North West.

ALSO IN:

G. M. Adam, The Canadian Northwest, chapter 1-13

G. L. Huyshe, The Red River Expedition.

W. P. Greswell, History of the Dominion of Canada, page 313.

J. E. C. Munro, The Constitution of Canada, chapter 2.

G. E. Ellis, The Hudson Bay Company (Narrative and

Critical History of America, volume 8).

See, also, BRITISH COLUMBIA: A. D. 1858-1871,

and NORTHWEST TERRITORIES of CANADA.

CANADA: A. D. 1871.

The Treaty of Washington.

See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871.

CANADA: A. D. 1877.

The Halifax Fishery Award.

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

CANADA: A. D. 1885-1888.

Termination of the Fishery articles of the Treaty of Washington.

Renewed controversies.

The rejected Treaty.

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

CANAI, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

CANARES, The.

See ECUADOR: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

CANARY ISLANDS, Discovery of the.

The first great step in African exploration "was the discovery

of the Canary Islands. These were the 'Elysian fields' and

'Fortunate islands' of antiquity. Perhaps there is no country

in the world that has been so many times discovered,

conquered, and invaded, or so much fabled about, as these

islands. There is scarcely a nation upon earth of any maritime

repute that has not had to do with them. Phœnicians,

Carthaginians, Romans, Moors, Genoese, Normans, Portuguese,

and Spaniards of every province (Aragonese, Castilians,

Gallicians, Biscayans, Andalucians) have all made their

appearance in these islands. The Carthaginians are said to

have discovered them, and to have reserved them as an asylum

in case of extreme danger to the state. Sertorius, the Roman

general who partook the fallen fortunes of Marius is said to

have meditated retreat to these 'islands of the blessed,' and

by some writers is supposed to have gone there. Juba, the

Mauritanian prince, son of the Jupa celebrated by Sallust,

sent ships to examine them, and has left a description of

them. Then came the death of empires, and darkness fell upon

the human race, at least upon the records of their history.

When the world revived, and especially when the use of the

loadstone began to be known among mariners, the Canary Islands

were again discovered. Petrarch is referred to by Viera to

prove that the Genoese sent out an expedition to these

islands. Las Casas mentions that an English or French vessel

bound from France or England to Spain was driven by contrary

winds to the Canary Islands, and on its return spread abroad

in France an account of the voyage."

A. Helps, Spanish Conquest, book 1, chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,

chapter 20, note E.

CANAS, The.

See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

CANCELLARIUS.

See CHANCELLOR.

CANDAHAR.

Siege and relief of English forces (1880).

See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

CANDIA.

This is the name of the principal town in the island of Crete,

but has been often applied to Crete itself.

See TURKS: A. D. 1645-1669, where an account is given of

the so-called "War of Candia";

also CRETE: A. D. 823.

CANDRAGUPTA, OR CHANDRAGUPTA,

The empire of.

See INDIA.: B. C. 327-312, and 312-.

CANGI, The.

A tribe in early Britain which occupied the westerly part of

Modern Carnarvonshire.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CANICHANAS, The.

See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

CANIENGAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

CANNÆ Battles of (B. C. 216).

See PUNIC WAR: THE SECOND. (B. C. 88).

See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

CANNENEFATES, The.

"On the other bank of the Rhine [on the right bank] next to

the Batavi, in the modern Kennemer district (north Holland,

beyond Amsterdam) dwelt the Cannenefates, closely related to

them but less numerous; they are not merely named among the

tribes subjugated by Tiberius, but were also treated like the

Batavi in the furnishing of soldiers."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 4.

CANNING, Lord, The Indian administration of, A. D. 1856-1862.

CANNING MINISTRY, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1820-1827.

CANOPUS, Decree of.

An important inscribed stone found in 1865 at San, or Tanis,

in Egypt, which is a monument of the reign of Ptolemy

Euergetes, who ascended the throne in 246 B. C. It gives "in

hieroglyphics and Greek (the demotic version is on the edge) a

decree of the priests assembled at Canopus for their yearly

salutation of the king. When they were so assembled, in his

ninth year, his infant daughter Berenice, fell sick and died,

and there was great lamentation over her. The decree first

recounts the generous conduct and prowess of the king, who had

conquered all his enemies abroad, and had brought back from

Persia all the statues of the gods carried off in old time

from Egypt by foreign kings. He had also, in a great

threatening of famine, when the Nile had failed to rise to its

full amount, imported vast quantities of corn from Cyprus,

Phœnicia, &c., and fed his people. Consequently divine honours

are to be paid to him and his queen as 'Benefactor-Gods' in

all the temples of Egypt, and feasts are to be held in their

honour. ... This great inscription, far more perfect and

considerably older than the Rosetta Stone, can now be cited as

the clearest proof of Champollion's reading of the

hieroglyphics."

J. P. Mahaffy, Story of Alexander's Empire., chapter 15, note.

{387}

CANOSSA, Henry IV. at.

In the conflict which arose between the German Emperor, Henry

IV. (then crowned only as King of the Romans) and Pope Gregory

VII. (the inflexible Hildebrand), the former was placed at a

great disadvantage by revolts and discontents in his own

Germanic dominions. When, therefore, on the 22d of February,

A. D. 1076, the audacious pontiff pronounced against the king

his tremendous sentence, not only of excommunication, but of

deposition, releasing all Christians from allegiance to him,

he addressed a large party, both in Germany and Italy, who

were more than willing to accept an excuse for depriving Henry

of his crown. This party controlled a diet held at Tribur, in

October, which declared that his forfeiture of the throne

would be made irrevocable if he did not procure from the pope

a release from his excommunication before the coming

anniversary of its pronunciation, in February. A diet to be

held then at Augsburg, under the presidency of the pope, would

determine the affairs of the Empire. With characteristic

energy, Henry resolved to make his way to the pope, in person,

and to become reconciled with him, before the Augsburg

meeting. Accompanied by the queen, her child, and a few

attendants, he crossed the Alps, with great hardship and

danger, in the midst of an uncommonly cold and snowy winter.

Meantime, the pope had started upon his journey to Augsburg.

Hearing on the way of Henry's movement to meet him, not

desiring the encounter, and distrusting, moreover, the

intentions of his enemy, he took refuge in the strong fortress

of Canossa, high up in the rocky recesses of the Apennines. To

that mountain retreat the desperate king pressed his way. "It

was January 21, 1077, when Henry arrived at Canossa; the cold

was severe and the snow lay deep. He was lodged at the foot of

the castle-steep, and had an interview with the countess

Matilda [mistress of the castle, and devoted friend of the

pope], Hugh, abbot of Clugny, and others, in the Chapel of St.

Nicolas, of which no traces now remain. Three days were spent

in debating terms of reconciliation; Matilda and Hugh

interceded with the pope on the king's behalf, but Gregory was

inexorable; unless Henry surrendered the crown into the pope's

hands the ban should not be taken off. Henry could not stoop

so low as this, but he made up his mind to play the part of a

penitent suppliant. Early on the morning of January 25 he

mounted the winding, rocky path, until he reached the

uppermost of the three walls, the one which enclosed the

castle yard. And here, before the gateway which still exists,

and perpetuates in its name, 'Porta di penitenza,' the memory

of this strange event, the king, barefoot, and clad in a

coarse woolen shirt, stood knocking for admittance. But he

knocked in vain: from morning till evening the heir of the

Roman Empire stood shivering outside the fast-closed door. Two

more days he climbed the rugged path and stood weeping and

imploring to be admitted." At last, the iron-willed pontiff

consented to a parley, and an agreement was brought about by

which Henry was released from excommunication, but the

question of his crown was left for future settlement. In the

end he gained nothing by his extraordinary abasement of

himself. Many of his supporters were alienated by it; a rival

king was elected. Gathering all his energies, Henry then stood

his ground and made a fight in which even Gregory fled before

him; but it was all to no avail. The triumph remained with the

priests.

W. R. W. Stephens, Hildebrand and His Times, chapter 11-15.

ALSO IN:

A. F. Villemain, Life of Gregory VII., book 5.

See, also,

PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122;

ROME: 1081-1084.

CANTABRIA, Becomes Bardulia and Castile.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1026-1230.

CANTABRIANS AND ASTURIANS, The.

The Cantabrians were an ancient people in the north of Spain,

inhabiting a region to the west of the Asturians. They were

not conquered by the Romans until the reign of Augustus, who

led an expedition against them in person, B. C. 27, but was

forced by illness to commit the campaign to his lieutenants.

The Cantabrians submitted soon after being defeated in a great

battle at Vellica, near the sources of the Ebro; but in 22 B.

C. they joined the Asturians in a desperate revolt, which was

not subdued until three years later.

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 34.

ALSO IN:

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 2.

See APPENDIX A, V. 1.

CANTÆ, The.

A tribe in ancient Caledonia.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CANTERBURY. The murder of Becket (1170).

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

CANTERBURY PRIMACY, Origin of the.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 597-685.

CANTII, The.

The tribe of ancient Britons which occupied the region of Kent.

See BRITAIN. CELTIC TRIBES.

CANTON: A. D. 1839-1842.

The Opium War.

Ransom of the city from English assault.

Its port opened to British trade.

See CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

CANTON: A. D. 1856-1857.

Bombardment by the English.

Capture by the English and French.

See CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860.

CANTONS, Latin.

See GENS, ROMAN;

also ALBA.

CANTONS, Swiss.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

CANULEIAN LAW, The.

See ROME: B. C. 445.

CANUTE, OR CNUT,

King of England, A. D.1017-1035,

and King of Denmark, A. D. 1018-1035.

Canute II., King of Denmark, A. D. 1080-1086.

Canute III., King of Denmark, A. D. 1147-1156.

Canute IV., King of Denmark, A. D. 1182-1202.

CANZACA.

See ECBATANA.

CANZACA, OR SHIZ, Battle of.

A battle fought A. D. 591, by the Romans, under Narses,

supporting the cause of Chosroës II. king of Persia, against a

usurper Bahram, who had driven him from his throne. Bahram was

defeated and Chosroës restored.

G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 23.

CAP OF LIBERTY, The.

See LIBERTY CAP.

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1497.

Discovery by John Cabot.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1497.

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1504.

Named by the fishermen from Brittany.

See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1713.

Possession confirmed to France.

See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713.

{388}

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1720-1745.

The fortification of Louisbourg.

After the surrender of Placentia or Plaisance, in

Newfoundland, to England, under the treaty of Utrecht (see

NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1713), the French government determined to

fortify strongly some suitable harbor on the island of Cape

Breton for a naval station, and especially for the protection

of the fisheries of France on the neighboring coasts. The

harbor known previously as Havre a l' Anglois was chosen for

the purpose. "When the French government decided in favour of

Havre a l' Anglois its name was changed to Louisbourg, in

honour of the king; and, to mark the value set upon Cape

Breton it was called Isle Royale, which it retained until its

final conquest in 1758, when its ancient name was resumed." In

1720 the fortifications were commenced, and the work of their

construction was prosecuted with energy and with unstinted

liberality for more than twenty years. "Even the English

colonies contributed a great proportion of the materials used

in their construction. When Messrs. Newton and Bradstreet, who

were sent to confer with M. de St. Ovide [to remonstrate

against the supplying of arms to the Indians in Nova Scotia]

... returned to Annapolis, they reported that during their

short stay at Louisbourg, in 1725, fourteen colonial vessels,

belonging chiefly to New England, arrived there with cargoes

of boards, timber and bricks. ... Louisbourg [described, with

a plan, in the work here quoted] ... had, between the years

1720 and 1745, cost the French nation the enormous sum of

30,000,000 livres, or £1,200,000 sterling; nevertheless, as

Dussieux informs us, the fortifications were still unfinished,

and likely to remain so, because the cost had far exceeded the

estimates; and it was found such a large garrison would be

required for their defence that the government had abandoned

the idea of completing them according to the original design."

R. Brown, History of the Island of Cape Breton, letters 9-11.

"The fort was built of stone, with walls more than 30 feet

high, and a ditch 80 feet wide, over which was a communication

with the town by a drawbridge. It had six bastions and three

batteries, with platforms for 148 cannon and six mortars. On

an islet, which was flanked on one side by a shoal, a battery

of 30 guns, 28 pounders, defended the entrance of the harbor,

which was about 400 yards wide, and was also commanded from

within by the Grand or Royal Battery, mounting as many guns,

of the calibre of 42 pounds. The fort ... was a safe

rendezvous and refuge for French fleets and privateers,

sailing in the Western Hemisphere. It commanded the maritime

way into Canada, and it watched the English settlements all

along the coast. It was a standing threat to the great

business of New England seamen, which was the fishery on the

banks."

J. G. Palfrey, History of New England,

book 5, chapter 9 (volume 5).

"'So great was its strength that it was called the Dunkirk of

America. It had nunneries and palaces, terraces and gardens.

That such a city rose upon a low and desolate island in the

infancy of American colonization appears incredible;

explanation is alone found in the fishing enthusiasm of the

period.'"

C. B. Elliott, The U. S. and the New England Fisheries, page 18.

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1744.

Outbreak of the Third Inter-Colonial War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744.

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1745.

Conquest by the New Englanders.

Fall of Louisbourg.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745;

and ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1747.

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1748.

Restored to France.

See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS;

and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

The final capture and destruction of Louisbourg, by the English.

"In May, 1758 [during the Seven Years War,--see CANADA: A. D.

1750-1753 and after], a powerful fleet, under command of

Admiral Boscawen, arrived at Halifax for the purpose of

recapturing a place [Louisbourg] which ought never to have

been given up. The fleet consisted of 23 ships of the line and

18 frigates, besides transports, and when it left Halifax it

numbered 157 vessels. With it was a land force, under Jeffery

Amherst, of upward of 12,000 men. The French forces at

Louisbourg were much inferior, and consisted of only 8 ships

of the line and 3 frigates, and of about 4,000 soldiers. The

English fleet set sail from Halifax on the 28th of May, and on

the 8th of June a landing was effected in Gabarus Bay. The

next day the attack began, and after a sharp conflict the

French abandoned and destroyed two important batteries. The

siege was then pushed by regular approaches; but it was not

until the 26th of July that the garrison capitulated. By the

terms of surrender the whole garrison were to become prisoners

of war and to be sent to England, and the English acquired 218

cannon and 18 mortars, beside great quantities of ammunition

and military stores. All the vessels of war had been captured

or destroyed; but their crews, to the number of upward of

2,600 men, were included in the capitulation. Two years later,

at the beginning of 1760, orders were sent from England to

demolish the fortress, render the harbor impracticable, and

transport the garrison and stores to Halifax. These orders

were carried out so effectually that few traces of its

fortifications remain, and the place is inhabited only by

fishermen."

C. C. Smith, The Wars on the Seaboard

(Narrative and Critical History of Am., volume 5, chapter 7).

ALSO IN:

F. Parkman, Montcalm and Wolfe, chapter 19 (volume 2).

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

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1763.

Ceded to England by the Treaty of Paris.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR.

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1763.

Added to the government of Nova Scotia.

See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

----------CAPE BRETON ISLAND: End----------

CAPE COLONY.

See SOUTH AFRICA.

CAPE ST. VINCENT, Naval battle of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1797.

CAPETIANS,

Origin and crowning of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 861, and 877-987.

CAPHARSALAMA, Battle of.

One of the victories of the Jewish patriot, Judas Maccabæus

over the Syrian general Nicanor, B. C. 162.

Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, book 12, chapter 10.

CAPHTOR.

An ancient Phœnician settlement on the coast of the Nile

Delta. "From an early period the whole of this district had

been colonised by the Phœnicians, and as Phœnicia itself was

called Keft by the Egyptians, the part of Egypt in which they

had settled went by the name of Keft-ur, or 'Greater

Phœnicia.'"

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

On the other hand, Ewald and other writers say that "the

Philistines came from Caphtor," and that "this now obsolete

name probably designated either the whole or a part of Crete."

CAPHYÆ, Battle of.

Fought B. C. 220 in the Social War of the Achæan and Ætolian

Leagues. The forces of the former were totally routed.

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 63.

{389}

CAPITOLINE HILL AT ROME.

The Capitol.

"In prehistoric times this hill was called the Mons Saturnius,

see Varro, Lin. Lat., volume 41; its name being connected with

that legendary 'golden age' when Saturn himself reigned in

Italy. ... This hill, which, like the other hills of Rome, has

had its contour much altered by cutting away and levelling,

consists of a mass of tufa rock harder in structure than that

of the Palatine hill. It appears once to have been surrounded

by cliffs, very steep at most places, and had only approaches

on one side--that towards the Forum. ... The top of the hill

is shaped into two peaks of about equal height, one of which

was known as the Capitolium, and the other as the Arx, or

Citadel. ... The Capitolium was also in early time known as

the 'Mars Tarpeius,' so called from the familiar legend of the

treachery of Tarpeia. ... In later times the name 'rupes

Tarpeia' was applied, not to the whole peak, but to a part of

its cliff which faced towards the 'Vicus Jugarius' and the

'Forum Magnum.' The identification of that part of the

Tarpeian rock, which was used for the execution of criminals,

according to a very primitive custom, is now almost

impossible. At one place the cliff of the Capitolium is quite

perpendicular, and has been cut very carefully into an upright

even surface; a deep groove, about a foot wide, runs up the

face of this cutting, and there are many rock-cut chambers

excavated in this part of the cliff, some openings into which

appear in the face of the rock. This is popularly though

erroneously known as the Tarpeian rock. ... The perpendicular

cliff was once very much higher than it is at present, as

there is a great accumulation of rubbish at its foot. ... That

this cliff cannot be the Tarpeian rock where criminals were

executed is shown by Dionysius (viii. 78, and vii. 35), who

expressly says that this took place in the sight of people in

the Forum Magnum, so that the popular Rupes Tarpeia is on the

wrong side of the hill."

J. H. Middleton, Ancient Rome in 1885, chapter 7.

See, also, SEVEN HILLS OF ROME, and GENS, ROMAN.

CAPITULARIES.

"It is commonly supposed that the term capitularies applies

only to the laws of Charlemagne; this is a mistake. The word

'capitula,' 'little chapters,' equally applies to all the laws

of the Frank kings. ... Charlemagne, in his capitularies, did

anything but legislate. Capitularies are, properly speaking,

the whole acts of his government, public acts of all kinds by

which he manifested his authority."

F. Guizot, History of Civilization, lecture 21.

ALSO IN:

E. F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the

Middle Ages, book 2.

CAPITULATION OF CHARLES V.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1520-1521.

CAPO D'ISTRIA, Count, The Assassination of.

See GREECE: A. D. 1830-1862.

CAPPADOCIA.

See MITHRIDATIC WARS.

CAPS, Party of the.

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

CAPTAL.

A title, derived from "capitalis," originally equivalent to

count, and anciently borne by several lords in Aquitaine.

"Towards the 14th century there were no more than two captals

acknowledged, that of Buch and that of Franc."

Froissart (Johnes), Chronicles, book 1, chapter 158, note.

CAPTIVITY, Prince of the.

See JEWS: A. D. 200-400.

CAPTIVITY OF THE JEWS, The.

See JEWS: B. C. 604-536.

CAPUA.

Capua, originally an Etruscan city, called Vulturnum, was

taken by the Samnites, B. C. 424, and was afterwards a city in

which Etruscan and neighboring Greek influences were mixed in

their effect on a barbarous new population. "Capua became by

its commerce and agriculture the second city in Italy in point

of size--the first in point of wealth and luxury. The deep

demoralization in which, according to the accounts of the

ancients, that city surpassed all others in Italy, is

especially reflected in the mercenary recruiting and in the

gladiatorial sports, both of which pre-eminently flourished in

Capua. Nowhere did recruiting officers find so numerous a

concourse as in this metropolis of demoralized civilization.

... The gladiatorial sports ... if they did not originate,

were at any rate carried to perfection in Capua. There, sets

of gladiators made their appearance even during banquets."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 5.

CAPUA: B. C. 343.

Surrender to the Romans.

See ROME: B. C. 343-290.

CAPUA: B. C. 216-211.

Welcome to Hannibal.

Siege and capture by the Romans.

The city repeopled.

See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

CAPUA: A. D. 800-1016.

The Lombard principality.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.

CAPUA: A. D. 1501.

Capture, sack and massacre by the French.

See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

----------CAPUA: End----------

CAPUCHINS, The.

"The Capuchins were only a branch of the great Franciscan

order, and their mode of life a modification of its Rule.

Among the Franciscans the severity of their Rule had early

become a subject of discussion, which finally led to a

secession of some of the members, of whom Matteo de' Bassi, of

the convent of Montefalcone was the leading spirit. These were

the rigorists who desired to restore the primitive austerities

of the Order. They began by a change of dress, adding to the

usual monastic habit a 'cappuccio,' or pointed hood, which

Matteo claimed was of the same pattern as that worn by St.

Francis. By the bull 'Religionis zelus' (1528), Matteo

obtained from Pope Clement VII. leave for himself and his

companions to wear this peculiar dress; to allow their beards

to grow; to live in hermitages, according to the rule of St.

Francis, and to devote themselves chiefly to the reclaiming of

great sinners. Paul III. afterwards gave them permission to

settle wheresoever they liked. Consistently with the austerity

of their professions, their churches were unadorned, and their

convents built in the simplest style. They became very

serviceable to the Church, and their fearlessness and

assiduity in waiting upon the sick during the plague, which

ravaged the whole of Italy, made them extremely popular."

J. Alzog, Manual of Universal Church History,

volume 3, page 455.

CAPUCHONS, OR CAPUTIATI.

See WHITE HOODS OF FRANCE.

CARABOBO, Battles of (1821-1822).

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830.

CARACALLA, Roman Emperor, A. D. 211-217.

CARACCAS: A. D. 1812.

Destruction by earthquake.

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

CARAFFA, Cardinal (Pope Paul IV.) and the Counter Reformation.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563, and 1555-1603.

{390}

CARAS, OR CARANS, OR CARANQUIS, The.

See ECUADOR.

CARAUSIUS, Revolt of.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 288-297.

CARAVELS.--GALEONS, Etc.

"The term caravel was originally given to ships navigated

wholly by sails as distinguished from the galley propelled by

oars. It has been applied to a great variety of vessels of

different size and construction. The caravels of the New World

discoverers may be generally described as long narrow boats of

from 20 to 100 tons burden, with three or four masts of about

equal height carrying sometimes square and sometimes lateen

sails, the fourth mast set at the heel of the bow-sprit

carrying square sails. They were usually half-decked, and

adorned with the lofty forecastle and loftier poop of the day.

The latter constituted over that part of the vessel a double

or treble deck, which was pierced for cannon. ... The galera

was a vessel of low bulwarks, navigated by sails and oars,

usually twenty or thirty oars on either side, four or five

oarsmen to a bench. ... The galeaza was the largest class of

galera, or craft propelled wholly or in part by oars. ... A

galeota was a small galera, having only 16 or 20 oarsmen on a

side, and two masts. The galeon was a large armed merchant

vessel with high bulwarks, three or four decks, with two or

three masts, square rigged, spreading courses and top-sails,

and sometimes top-gallant sails. ... Those which plied between

Acapulco and Manila were from 1,200 to 2,000 tons burden. A

galeoncillo was a small galeon. The carac was a large carrying

vessel, the one intended for Columbus' second voyage being

1,250 toneles or 1,500 tons. A nao, or navio, was a large ship

with high bulwarks and three masts. A nave was a vessel with

deck and sails, the former distinguishing it from the barca,

and the absence of oars from a galera. The bergantin, or brig,

had low bulwarks. ... The name brigantine was applied in

America also to an open flat-bottomed boat, which usually

carried one sail and from 8 to 16 men."

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,

volume 1, page 187, foot-note.

See, also, AMERICA: A. D. 1492.

CARBERRY, Mary Stuart's surrender at.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

CARBONARI, Origin and character of the.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1808-1809.

CARCHEMISH.

See HITTITES, THE.

CARCHEMISH, Battle of.

Fought, B. C. 604, between the armies of Necho, the Egyptian

Pharaoh, and Nebuchadnezzar, then crown prince of Babylon.

Necho, being defeated, was driven back to Egypt and stripped

of all his Syrian conquests.

F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History of the East,

book 2, chapter 4.

CARDADEN, Battle of (1808).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (DECEMBER-MARCH).

CARDINAL INFANT, The.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

CARDINALS, College of.

See CURIA, THE ROMAN (PAPAL),

and PAPACY: A. D. 1059.

CARDUCHI, The.

"South of the lake [Lake of Van, in Asia Minor] lay the

Carduchi, whom the later Greeks call the Gordyæans and

Gordyenes; but among the Armenians they were known as

Kordu, among the Syrians as Kardu. These are the ancestors

of the modern Kurds, a nation also of the Aryan stock."

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 2, chapter 12.

See, also, GORDYENE.

Under Saladin and the Ayonbite dynasty the Kurds played an

important part in mediæval history.

See SALADIN, EMPIRE OF.

CARGILLITES, The.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1681-1689.

CARHAM, Battle of.

Fought and won by an army of Scots, under King Malcolm,

invading the then English earldom of Bernicia, A. D. 1018, and

securing the annexation of Lothian to the Scottish kingdom.

The battlefield was near that on which Flodden was afterwards

fought.

E. A. Freeman, Norman Conquest, chapter 6, section 2.

CARIANS, The.

"The Carians may be called the doubles of the Leleges. They

are termed the 'speakers of a barbarous tongue,' and yet, on

the other hand, Apollo is said to have spoken Carian. As a

people of pirates clad in bronze they once upon a time had

their day in the Archipelago, and, like the Normans of the

Middle Ages, swooped down from the sea to desolate the coasts;

but their real home was in Asia Minor, where their settlements

lay between those of Phrygians and Pisidians, and community of

religion united them with the Lydians and Mysians."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 1, chapter 2.

The country of the Carians was the mountainous district in the

southwestern angle of Asia Minor, the coast of which is

indented with gulfs and frayed with long-projecting rocky

promontories. The island of Rhodes lies close to it on the

south. The Carians were subjugated by the Lydian King Crœsus,

and afterwards passed under the Persian yoke. The Persians

permitted the establishment of a vassal kingdom, under a

dynasty which fixed its capital at Halicarnassus, and made

that city one of the splendid Asiatic outposts of Greek art

and civilization, though always faithfully Persian in its

politics. It was to the memory of one of the Carian kings at

Halicarnassus, Mausolus, that the famous sepulchral monument,

which gave its name to all similar edifices, and which the

ancients counted among the seven wonders of the world, was

erected by his widow. Halicarnassus offered an obstinate

resistance to Alexander the Great and was destroyed by that

ruthless conqueror after it had succumbed to his siege.

Subsequently rebuilt, it never gained importance again. The

Turkish town of Budrum now occupies the site.

C. T. Newton, Travels and Discoveries in the Levant, volume 2.

See, also, HAMITES and DORIANS AND IONIANS.

CARIAY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

CARIBBEAN ISLANDS, The.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1493-1496, and WEST INDIES.

CARIBS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS.

CARILLON.

The French name of Fort Ticonderoga.

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

CARINTHIA,

Early mediaeval history.

See SLAVONIC PEOPLES: 6TH-7TH CENTURIES,

and GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.

CARINUS, Roman Emperor. A. D. 283-284.

CARIPUNA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK on COCO GROUP.

CARISBROOK CASTLE, The flight of King Charles to.

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

CARIZMIANS.

See KHUAREZM.

CARL, OR KARL.

See ETHEL.--ETHELING.

{391}

CARLINGS.

See FRANKS (CARLOVINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 768-814.

CARLISLE, Origin of.

See LUGUVALLIUM.

CARLISTS AND CHRISTINOS.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846, and 1873-1885.

CARLOMAN,

King of the Franks (East Franks-Germany-in association with

Louis III.), A. D. 876-881;

(Burgundy and Aquitaine), A. D. 879-894.

Carloman, Duke and Prince of the Franks, A. D. 741-747.

CARLOS.

See CHARLES.

CARLOVINGIANS.

See FRANKS (CAROLINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 768-814.

CARLOWITZ, Peace of.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.

CARLSBAD, Congress of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.

CARMAGNOLE.

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

CARMANIANS, The.

"The Germanians of Herodotus are the Carmanians of the later

Greeks, who also passed with them as a separate nation, though

closely allied to the Persians and Medes. They wandered to and

fro to the east of Persia in the district now called Kirman."

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

CARMATHIANS, The.

"In the 277th year of the Hegira [A. D. 890], and in the

neighbourhood of Cufa, an Arabian preacher of the name of

Carmath assumed the lofty and incomprehensible style of the

Guide, the Director, the Demonstration, the Word, the Holy

Ghost, the Camel, the Herald of the Messiah, who had conversed

with him in a human shape, and the representative of Mohammed

the son of Ali, of St. John the Baptist, and of the Angel

Gabriel." Carmath was one of the eastern proselytes of the

sect of the Ishmaileans or Ishmailites--the same from which

sprang the terrible secret order of the Assassins. He founded

another branch of the Ishmaileans, which, taking his name,

were called the Carmathians. The sect made rapid gains among

the Bedouins and were soon a formidable and uncontrollable

body. "After a bloody conflict they prevailed in the province

of Bahrein, along the Persian Gulf. Far and wide the tribes of

the desert were subject to the sceptre, or rather to the

sword, of Abu Said and his son Abu Taher; and these rebellious

imams could muster in the field 107,000 fanatics. ... The

cities of Racca and Baalbec, of Cufa and Bassorah, were taken

and pillaged; Bagdad was filled with consternation; and the

caliph trembled behind the veils of his palace. ... The rapine

of the Carmathians was sanctified by their aversion to the

worship of Mecca. They robbed a caravan of pilgrims, and

20,000 devout Moslems were abandoned on the burning sands to a

death of hunger and thirst. Another year [A. D. 929] they

suffered the pilgrims to proceed without interruption; but, in

the festival of devotion, Abu Taher stormed the holy city and

trampled on the most venerable relics of the Mahometan faith.

Thirty thousand citizens and strangers were put to the sword;

the sacred precincts were polluted by the burial of 3,000 dead

bodies; the well of Zemzen overflowed with blood; the golden

spout was forced from its place; the veil of the Caaba was

divided among these impious sectaries; and the black stone,

the first monument of the nation, was borne away in triumph to

their capital. After this deed of sacrilege and cruelty they

continued to infest the confines of Irak, Syria and Egypt; but

the vital principle of enthusiasm had withered at the root.

... It is needless to enquire into what factions they were

broken, or by whose swords they were finally extirpated. The

sect of the Carmathians may be considered as the second

visible cause of the decline and fall of the empire of the

caliphs."

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

and note by Dr. Smith.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

See, also, ASSASSINS.

CARMELITE FRIARS.

"About the middle of the [12th] century, one Berthold, a

Calabrian, with a few companions, migrated to Mount Carmel

[Palestine], and in the place where the prophet Elias of old

is said to have hid himself, built a humble cottage with a

chapel, in which he and his associates led a laborious and

solitary life. As others continued to unite themselves with

these residents on Mount Carmel, Albert the patriarch of

Jerusalem, near the commencement of the next century,

prescribed for them a rule of life; which the Pontiffs

afterwards sanctioned by their authority, and also changed in

various respects, and when it was found too rigorous and

burdensome, mitigated considerably. Such was the origin of the

celebrated order of Carmelites, or as it is commonly called

the order of St. Mary of Mount Carmel [and known in England as

the White Friars]; which subsequently passed from Syria into

Europe, and became one of the principal mendicant orders. The

Carmelites themselves reject with disdain this account of

their origin, and most strenuously contend that the holy

prophet Elias of the Old Testament, was the parent and founder

of their society. But they were able to persuade very few, (or

rather none out of their society), that their origin was so

ancient and illustrious."

J. L. von Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History,

book 3, century 12, part 2, chapter 2, section 21.

ALSO IN:

G. Waddington, History of the Church, chapter 19, section 5.

J. Alzog, Manual of Universal Church History,

section 244 (volume 2).

E. L. Cutts, Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages, ch 5.

CARMIGNANO, Battle of (1796).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

CARNABII, OR CORNABII, The.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CARNAC.

See ABURY.

CARNATES, The.

See TURANIAN RACES.

CARNEIAN FESTIVAL, The.

A Spartan festival, said to have been instituted B. C. 676.

"The Carneian festival fell in the Spartan month Carneius, the

Athenian Metageitnon, corresponding nearly to our August. It

was held in honour of Apollo Carneius, a deity worshipped from

very ancient times in the Peloponnese, especially at Amyclæ.

... It was of a warlike character, like the Athenian

Boedrömia."

G. Rawlinson, Note to Herodotus, book 7.

ALSO IN:

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 2, chapter 1.

CARNIANS, The.

See RHÆTIANS.

CARNIFEX FERRY, Battle of:

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861

(AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).

CARNONACÆ, The.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CARNOT, Lazare N. M., and the French Revolution.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER),

to 1797 (SEPTEMBER), and 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).

CARNOT, Sadi, President of the French Republic, 1887--.

{392}

CARNUTES, The.

The Carnutes were a tribe who occupied a region supposed to be

the center of Gaul. The modern city of Chartres stands in the

midst of it. The sacred general meeting place of the Druids

was in the country of the Carnutes.

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 3, chapter 22.

See, also, VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

CAROLINAS, The.

See NORTH CAROLINA, and SOUTH CAROLINA.

CAROLINE, Queen, Trial of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1820-1827.

CAROLINE, The Burning of the.

See CANADA: A. D. 1887-1838, and 1840-1841.

CAROLINE BOOKS, The.

A work put forth by Charlemagne against image-worship, in

considerable sympathy with the views of the Eastern

Iconoclasts and against the decrees of the Second Council of

Nicaea (A. D. 787), is known as the Caroline Books. It is

supposed to have been chiefly the composition of the king’s

learned friend and counsellor; Alcuin, the Englishman.

J. I. Mombert, History of Charles the Great,

book 2, chapter 12.

CAROLINGIA.

On the division of the empire of Charlemagne between his three

grandsons, A. D. 843, the western kingdom, which fell to

Charles, took for a time the name of Carolingia, as part of

Lothar’s middle kingdom took the name of Lotharingia, or

Lorraine. But the name died out, or was slowly superseded by

that of France.

E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe,

chapter 6, section 1.

CAROLINGIANS.

See FRANKS (CAROLINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 768-814.

CARPET-BAGGERS.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866-1871.

CARR DIKE.

A Roman work in Britain, formed for the draining of the

Lincolnshire Fens, and used, also, as a road.

H. M. Scarth, Roman Britain, chapter 16.

CARRACKS, OR CARACS.

"A large species of merchant vessel, principally used in

coasting trade," among the Spaniards of the 15th and 16th

centuries.

W. Irving, Life and Voyages of Columbus,

book 6, chapter 1 (volume 1), foot-note.

See, also, CARAVELS.

CARRARA FAMILY, The:

Its rise to sovereignty at Padua and its struggle with the

Visconti of Milan.

See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1838,

and MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.

CARRHÆ, Battles of (B. C. 53).

See ROME: B. C. 57-52. (A. D. 297).

See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

CARRICK’S FORD, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (JUNE—JULY: WEST VIRGINIA).

CARROCCIO, The.

"The militia of every city [in Lombardy, or northern Italy,

eleventh and twelfth centuries] was divided into separate

bodies, according to local partitions, each led by a

Gonfaloniere, or standard-bearer. They fought on foot, and

assembled round the carroccio, a heavy car drawn by oxen, and

covered with the flags and armorial bearings of the city. A

high pole rose in the middle of this car, bearing the colours

and a Christ, which seemed to bless the army, with both arms

extended. A priest said daily mass at an altar placed in the

front of the car. The trumpeters of the community, seated on

the back part, sounded the charge and the retreat. It was

Heribert, archbishop of Milan, contemporary of Conrad the

Salic, who invented this car in imitation of the ark of

alliance, and caused it to be adopted at Milan. All the free

cities of Italy followed the example: this sacred car,

intrusted to the guardianship of the militia, gave them weight

and confidence."

J. C. L. de Sismondi, History of the Italian Republics,

chapter 1.

CARTERET, Sir George, The Jersey Grant to.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667, to 1688-1738.

CARTERET’S MINISTRY.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1742-1745.

CARTHAGE, The founding of.

Ethbaal, or Ithobaal, a priest of Astarte, acquired possession

of the throne of Tyre B. C. 917, deposing and putting to death

the legitimate prince, a descendant of Hiram, Solomon’s ally

and friend. The Jezebel of Jewish history, who married Ahab,

king of Israel, was the daughter of this king Ethbaal.

"Ethbaal was succeeded by his son Balezor (885-877 B.  C.).

After eight years Balezor left two sons, Mutton and

Sicharbaal, both under age. ... Mutton died in the year 853 B.

C. and again left a son nine years old, Pygmalion, and a

daughter, Elissa, a few years older, whom he had married to

his brother Sicharbaal, the priest of the temple of Melkarth.

Mutton had intended that Elissa and Pygmalion should reign

together, and thus the power really passed into the hands of

Sicharbaal, the husband of Elissa. When Pygmalion reached his

sixteenth year the people transferred to him the sovereignty

of Tyre, and he put Sicharbaal, his uncle, to death ... (846

B. C.). Elissa [or Dido, as she was also called] fled from

Tyre before her brother, as we are told, with others who would

not submit to the tyranny of Pygmalion. The exiles ... are

said ... to have landed on the coast of Africa, in the

neighbourhood of Ityke, the old colony of the Phenicians, and

there to have bought as much land of the Libyans as could be

covered by the skin of an ox. By dividing this into very thin

strips they obtained a piece of land sufficient to enable them

to build a fortress. This new dwelling-place, or the city

which grew up round this fortress, the wanderers called, in

reference to their old home, Karthada (Karta hadasha), i. e.,

'the new city,' the Karchedon of the Greeks, the Carthage of

the Romans. The legend of the purchase of the soil may have

arisen from the fact that the settlers for a long time paid

tribute to the ancient population, the Maxyans, for their

soil."

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 3, chapter 11.

CARTHAGE:

Divisions, Size and Population.

"The city proper, at the time at which it is best known to us,

the period of the Punic wars, consisted of the Byrsa or

Citadel quarter, a Greek word corrupted from the Canaanitish

Bozra, or Bostra, that is, a fort, and of the Cothon or

harbour quarter, so important in the history of the final

siege. To the north and west of these, and occupying all the

vast space between them and the isthmus behind, were the

Megara (Hebrew, Magurim), that is, the suburbs and gardens of

Carthage, which, with the city proper, covered an area of 23

miles in circumference. Its population must have been fully

proportioned to its size. Just before the third Punic war,

when its strength had been drained ... it contained 700,000

inhabitants."

R. B. Smith, Carthage and the Carthaginians, chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

E. A. Freeman, Carthage (Hist. Essays, 4th series).

{393}

CARTHAGE:

The Dominion of.

"All our positive information, scanty as it is, about Carthage

and her institutions, relates to the fourth, third, or second

centuries B. C.; yet it may be held to justify presumptive

conclusions as to the fifth century B. C., especially in

reference to the general system pursued. The maximum of her

power was attained before her first war with Rome, which began

in 264 B. C.; the first and second Punic wars both of them

greatly reduced her strength and dominion. Yet in spite of

such reduction we learn that about 150 B. C. shortly before

the third Punic war, which ended in the capture and

depopulation of the city, not less than 700,000 souls were

computed in it, as occupants of a fortified circumference of

above twenty miles, covering a peninsula with its isthmus.

Upon this isthmus its citadel Byrsa was situated, surrounded

by a triple wall of its own, and crowned at its summit by a

magnificent temple of Æsculapius. The numerous population is

the more remarkable, since Utica (a considerable city,

colonized from Phœnicia more anciently than even Carthage

itself, and always independent of the Carthaginians, though in

the condition of an inferior and discontented ally) was within

the distance of seven miles from Carthage on the one side, and

Tunis seemingly not much further off on the other. Even at

that time, too, the Carthaginians are said to have possessed

300 tributary, cities in Libya. Yet this was but a small

fraction of the prodigious empire which had belonged to them

certainly in the fourth century B. C. and in all probability

also between 480-410 B. C. That empire extended eastward as

far as the Altars of the Philæni, near the Great

Syrtis,--westward, all along the coast to the Pillars of

Herakles and the western coast of Morocco. The line of coast

southeast of Carthage, as far as the bay called the Lesser

Syrtis, was proverbial (under the name of Byzacium and the

Emporia) for its fertility. Along this extensive line were

distributed indigenous Libyan tribes, living by agriculture;

and a mixed population called Liby-Phœnician. ... Of the

Liby-Phœnician towns the number is not known to us, but it

must have been prodigiously great. ... A few of the towns

along the coast,--Hippo, Utica, Adrumetum, Thapsus. Leptis,

&c.--were colonies from Tyre, like Carthage itself. ... Yet

the Carthaginians contrived in time to render every town

tributary, with the exception of Utica. ... At one time,

immediately after the first Punic war, they took from the

rural cultivators as much as one-half of their produce, and

doubled at one stroke the tribute levied upon the towns. ...

The native Carthaginians, though encouraged by honorary marks

to undertake ... military service were generally averse to it,

and sparingly employed. ... A chosen division of 2,500

citizens, men of wealth and family, formed what was called the

Sacred Band of Carthage distinguished for their bravery in the

field as well as for the splendour of their arms, and the gold

and silver plate which formed part of their baggage. We shall

find these citizen troops occasionally employed on service in

Sicily: but most part of the Carthaginian army consists of

Gauls, Iberians, Libyans, &c., a mingled host got together for

the occasion, discordant in language as well as in customs."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 81.

CARTHAGE: B. C. 480.

Invasion of Sicily.

Great defeat at Himera.

See SICILY: B. C. 480.

CARTHAGE: B. C. 409-405.

Invasions of Sicily.

Destruction of Selinus, Himera and Agrigentum.

See Sicily: B. C. 409-405.

CARTHAGE: B. C. 396.

Siege of Syracuse.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.

CARTHAGE: B. C. 383.

War with Syracuse.

See SICILY: B. C. 383.

CARTHAGE: B. C. 310-306.

Invasion by Agathokles.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 317-289.

CARTHAGE: B. C. 264-241.

The first war with Rome.

Expulsion from Sicily.

Loss of maritime supremacy.

See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

CARTHAGE: B. C. 241-238.

Revolt of the mercenaries.

At the close of the First Punic War, the veteran army of

mercenaries with which Hamilcar Barca had maintained himself

so long in Sicily--a motley gathering of Greeks, Ligurians,

Gauls, Iberians, Libyans and others--was sent over to Carthage

for the long arrears of pay due them and for their discharge.

The party in power in Carthage, being both incapable and mean,

and being also embarrassed by an empty treasury, exasperated

this dangerous body of men by delays and by attempts at

bargaining with them for a reduction of their claims, until a

general mutiny was provoked. The mercenaries, 20,000 strong,

with Spendius, a runaway Campanian slave, Matho, an African,

and Autaritus, a Gaul, for their leaders, marched from the

town of Sicca, where they were quartered, and camped near

Tunis, threatening Carthage. The government became

panic-stricken and took no measures which did not embolden the

mutineers and increase their demands. All the oppressed

African peoples in the Carthaginian domain rose to join the

revolt, and poured into the hands of the mercenaries the

tribute money which Carthage would have wrung from them. The

latter was soon brought to a state of sore distress, without

an army, without ships, and with its supplies of food mostly

cut off. The neighboring cities of Utica and Hippo Zarytus

were besieged. At length the Carthaginian government,

controlled by a party hostile to Hamilcar, was obliged to call

him to the command, but associated with him Hanno, his

bitterest personal enemy and the most incompetent leader of

the ruling faction. Hamilcar succeeded, after a desperate and

long struggle, in destroying the mutineers to almost the last

man, and in saving Carthage. But the war, which lasted more

than three years (B. C. 241-238), was merciless and horrible

beyond description. It was known to the ancients as the

"Truceless War" and the "Inexpiable War." The scenes and

circumstances of it have been extraordinarily pictured in

Flaubert's "Salammbo," which is one of the most revolting but

most powerful of historical romances.

R. B. Smith, Carthage and the Carthaginians, chapter 8.

ALSO IN:

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 4, chapter 4.

CARTHAGE: B. C. 237-202.

Hamilcar in Spain.

The second war with Rome.

Hannibal in Italy and Sicily.

Scipio in Africa.

The great defeat at Zama.

Loss of naval dominion and of Spain.

See PUNIC WAR, THE SECOND.

{394}

CARTHAGE: B. C. 146.

Destruction by Scipio.

Carthage existed by Roman sufferance for fifty years after the

ending of the Second Punic War, and even recovered some

considerable prosperity in trade, though Rome took care that

her chances for recovery should be slight. When Hannibal gave

signs of being able to reform the government of the city and

to distinguish himself in statesmanship as he had immortalized

himself in war, Rome demanded him, and he escaped her chains

only by flight. When, even without Hannibal, Carthage slowly

repaired the broken fortunes of her merchants, there was an

enemy at her door always ready, at the bidding of Rome, to

plunder them afresh. This was Massinissa, the Numidian prince,

client and obedient servant of the Roman state. Again and

again the helpless Carthaginians appealed to Rome to protect

them from his depredations, and finally they ventured to

attempt the protection of themselves. Then the patient perfidy

of Roman statecraft grasped its reward. It had waited many

years for the provocations of Massinissa to work their effect;

the maddened Carthaginians had broken, at last, the hard

letter of the treaty of 201 by assailing the friend and ally

of Rome. The pretext sufficed for a new declaration of war,

with the fixed purpose of pressing it to the last extreme. Old

Cato, who had been crying in the ears of the Senate, "Carthago

delenda est," should have his wish. The doomed Carthaginians

were kept in ignorance of the fate decreed, until they had

been foully tricked into the surrender of their arms and the

whole armament of their city. But when they knew the dreadful

truth, they threw off all cowardice and rose to such a majesty

of spirit as had never been exhibited in their history before.

Without weapons, or engines or ships, until they made them

anew, they shut their gates and kept the Roman armies out for

more than two years. It was another Scipio, adopted grandson

and namesake of the conqueror of Hannibal, who finally entered

Carthage (B. C. 146), fought his way to its citadel, street by

street, and, against his own wish, by command of the

implacable senate at Rome, levelled its last building to the

earth, after sending the inhabitants who survived to be sold

as slaves.

R. B. Smith, Carthage and the Carthaginians, chapter 20.

ALSO IN: H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, chapter 46.

CARTHAGE: B. C. 44.

Restoration by Cæsar.

"A settlement named Junonia, had been made at Carthage by C.

Gracchus [which furnished his enemies one of their weapons

against him, because, they said, he had drawn on himself the

curse of Scipio] and it appears that the city of Gracchus

still existed. Cæsar restored the old name, and, as Strabo

says, rebuilt the place: many Romans who preferred Carthage to

Rome were sent there, and some soldiers; and it is now, adds

Strabo [reign of Augustus] more populous than any town in

Libya."

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 5, chapter 32.

CARTHAGE: 2d-4th Centuries.

The Christian Church.

See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 100-312.

CARTHAGE: A. D. 439.

Taken by the Vandals.

Carthage was surprised and captured by the Vandals on the 9th

of Oct., A. D. 439,--nine years after the conquest and

destruction of the African provinces by Genseric began;--585

years after the ancient Carthage was destroyed by Scipio. "A

new city had risen from its ruins, with the title of a colony;

and though Carthage might yield to the royal prerogatives of

Constantinople, and perhaps to the trade of Alexandria or the

splendour of Antioch, she still maintained the second rank in

the West--as the Rome (if we may use the style of

contemporaries) of the African world. ... The buildings of

Carthage were uniform and magnificent. A shady grove was

planted in the midst of the capital; the new port, a secure

and capacious harbour, was subservient to the commercial

industry of citizens and strangers; and the splendid games of

the circus and theatre were exhibited almost in the presence

of the barbarians. The reputation of the Carthaginians was not

equal to that of their country, and the reproach of Punic

faith still adhered to their subtle and faithless character.

The habits of trade and the abuse of luxury had corrupted

their manners. ... The King of the Vandals severely reformed

the vices of a voluptuous people. ... The lands of the

proconsular province, which formed the immediate district of

Carthage, were accurately measured and divided among the

barbarians."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 33.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

See, also, VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.

CARTHAGE: A. D. 533.

Taken by Belisarius.

See VANDALS. A. D. 533-534.

CARTHAGE: A. D. 534-558.

The Province of Africa after Justinian's conquest. "Successive

inroads [of the Moorish tribes] had reduced the province of

Africa to one-third of the measure of Italy; yet the Roman

emperors continued to reign above a century over Carthage and

the fruitful coast of the Mediterranean. But the victories and

the losses of Justinian were alike pernicious to mankind; and

such was the desolation of Africa that a stranger might wander

whole days without meeting the face either of a friend or an

enemy. The nation of the Vandals had disappeared. ... Their

numbers were infinitely surpassed by the number of the Moorish

families extirpated in a relentless war; and the same

destruction was retaliated on the Romans and their allies, who

perished by the climate, their mutual quarrels, and the rage

of the barbarians. When Procopius first landed [with

Belisarius, A. D. 533] he admired the populousness of the

cities and country, strenuously exercised in the labours of

commerce and agriculture. In less than twenty years that busy

scene was converted into a silent solitude; the wealthy

citizens escaped to Sicily and Constantinople; and the secret

historian has confidently affirmed that five millions of

Africans were consumed by the wars and government of the

Emperor Justinian."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 43.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

{395}

CARTHAGE: A. D. 698.

Destruction by the Arabs.

"In the 77th year of the Hegira [A.. D. 698] ... Abd'almalec

[the Caliph] sent Hossan Ibn Anno'man, at the head of 40,000

choice troops, to carry out the scheme of African conquest

[which had languished for some years, during the civil wars

among the Moslems]. That general pressed forward at once with

his troops against the city of Carthage, which, though

declined from its ancient might and glory, was still an

important seaport, fortified with lofty walls, haughty towers

and powerful bulwarks, and had a numerous garrison of Greeks

and other Christians. Hossan proceeded according to the old

Arab mode; beleaguering and reducing it by a long siege; he

then assailed it by storm, scaled its lofty walls with

ladders, and made himself master of the place. Many of the

inhabitants fell by the edge of the sword; many escaped by sea

to Sicily and Spain. The walls were then demolished; the city

was given up to be plundered by the soldiery, the meanest of

whom was enriched by booty. ... The triumph of the Moslem host

was suddenly interrupted. While they were revelling in the

ravaged palaces of Carthage, a fleet appeared before the port;

snapped the strong chain which guarded the entrance, and

sailed into the harbor. It was a combined force of ships and

troops from Constantinople and Sicily; reinforced by Goths

from Spain; all under the command of the prefect John, a

patrician general of great valor and experience. Hossan felt

himself unable to cope with such a force; he withdrew, however

in good order, and conducted his troops laden with spoils to

Tripoli and Caerwan, and, having strongly posted them, he

awaited reinforcements from the Caliph. These arrived in

course of time by sea and land. Hossan again took the field;

encountered the prefect John, not far from Utica, defeated him

in a pitched battle and drove him to embark the wrecks of his

army and make all sail for Constantinople. Carthage was again

assailed by the victors, and now its desolation was complete,

for the vengeance of the Moslems gave that majestic city to

the flames. A heap of ruins and the remains of a noble

aqueduct are all the relics of a metropolis that once

valiantly contended for dominion with Rome."

W. Irving, Mahomet and his Successors, volume 2, chapter 54.

ALSO IN: N. Davis, Carthage and Her Remains.

See, also, MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709.

----------CARTHAGE: End----------

CARTHAGE, Missouri, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI).

CARTHAGENA (NEW CARTHAGE).

The founding of the city.

Hasdrubal, son-in-law and successor of Hamilcar Barca in Spain,

founded New Carthage--modern Carthagena--some time between 229

and 221 B. C. to be the capital of the Carthaginian dominion

in the Spanish peninsula.

R. B. Smith, Carthage and the Carthaginians, chapter 9.

Capture by Scipio.

See PUNIC WAR. THE SECOND.

Settlement of the Alans in.

See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

----------CARTHAGENA: End----------

CARTHAGENA (South America): A. D. 1697.

Taken and sacked by the French.

One of the last enterprises of the French in the war which was

closed by the Peace of Ryswick--undertaken, in fact, while the

negotiations at Ryswick were in progress--was the storming and

sacking of Carthagena by a privateer squadron, from Brest,

commanded by rear-admiral Pointis, April, 1697. "The

inhabitants were allowed to carry away their effects; but all

the gold, silver, and precious stones were the prey of the

conqueror. Pointis ... reentered Brest safe and sound,

bringing back to his ship-owners more than ten millions. The

officers of the squadron and the privateers had well provided

for themselves besides, and the Spaniards had probably lost

more than twenty millions."

H. Martin, History of France: Age of Louis XIV.

(translated by M. L. Booth), volume 2, chapter 2.

CARTHAGENA: A. D. 1741.

Attack and repulse of the English.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.

CARTHAGENA A. D. 1815.

Siege and capture by the Spaniards.

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

----------CARTHAGENA (South America): End----------

CARTHUSIAN ORDER.

La Grande Chartreuse.

"St. Bruno, once a canon of St. Cunibert's, at Cologne, and

afterward chancellor of the metropolitan church of Rheims,

followed by six companions, founded a monastery near Grenoble,

amid the bleak and rugged mountains of the desert of Chartreuse

(A. D. 1084). The rule given by St. Bruno to his disciples was

founded upon that of St. Benedict, but with such modifications as

almost to make of it a new and particular one. The Carthusians

were very nearly akin to the monks of Vallis-Umbrosa and

Camaldoli; they led the same kind of life--the eremitical

joined to the cenobitic. Each religious had his own cell,

where he spent the week in solitude, and met the community

only on Sunday. ... Never, perhaps, had the monastic life

surrounded itself with such rigors and holy austerities. ...

The religious were bound to a life-long silence, having

renounced the world to hold converse with Heaven alone. Like

the solitaries of Thebais they never eat meat, and their

dress, as an additional penance, consisted only of a

sack-cloth garment. Manual labors, broken only by the exercise

of common prayer; a board on the bare earth for a couch; a

narrow cell, where the religious twice a day receives his

slight allowance of boiled herbs;--such is the life of pious

austerities of which the world knows not the heavenly

sweetness. For 800 years has this order continued to edify and

to serve the Church by the practice of the most sublime

virtue; and its very rigor seems to hold out a mysterious

attraction to pious souls. A congregation of women has

embraced the primitive rule."

J. E. Darras, History of the Catholic Church,

volume 3, chapter 4, par. 26, and chapter 10, par. 11.

From the account of a visit to the Grande Chartreuse, the

parent monastery, near Grenoble, made in 1667, by Dom Claude

Lancelot, of Port Royal, the following is taken: "All I had

heard of this astonishing seclusion falls infinitely short of

the reality. No adequate description can be given of the awful

magnificence of this dreary solitude. ... The desert of the

Chartreuse is wholly inaccessible but by one exceedingly

narrow defile. This pass, which is only a few feet wide, is

indeed truly tremendous. It winds between stupendous granite

rocks, which overhang above. ... The monastery itself is as

striking as the approach. ... On the west ... there is a

little space which ... is occupied by a dark grove of pine

trees; on every other side the rocks, which are as steep as so

many walls, are not more than ten yards from the convent. By

this means a dim and gloomy twilight perpetually reigns

within."

M. A. Schimmelpenninck, A tour to Alet and

La Grande Chartreuse, volume 1, pages 6-13.

CARTIER, Jacques,

Exploration of the St. Lawrence by.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535, and 1541-1603.

{396}

CARTOUCHE.

"It is impossible to travel in Upper Egypt without knowing

what is meant by a cartouche. A cartouche is that elongated

oval terminated by a straight line which is to be seen on

every wall of the Egyptian temples, and of which other

monuments also afford us numerous examples. The cartouche

always contains the name of a king or of a queen, or in

some cases the names of royal princesses. To designate a king

there are most frequently two cartouches side by side. The

first is called the prænomen, the second the nomen."

A. Mariette, Monuments of Upper Egypt, page 43.

CARTWRIGHT'S POWER LOOM, The invention of.

See COTTON MANUFACTURE.

CARUCATE.

See HIDE OF LAND.

CARUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 282-283.

CASA MATA, Battle of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

CASALE: A. D. 1628-1631.

Siege by the Imperialists.

Final acquisition by France.

See ITALY: A. D. 1627-1631.

CASALE: A. D. 1640.

Unsuccessful siege by the Spaniards.

See ITALY: A. D. 1635-1659.

CASALE: A. D. 1697.

Ceded to the Duke of Savoy.

See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: A. D. 1580-1713.

----------CASALE: End----------

CASALSECCO, Battle of (1427).

See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

CASAS, Bartolomé de las,

The humane labors of.

See SLAVERY: MODERN--OF THE INDIANS.

CASDIM.

See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.

CASENA, Massacre at.

See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

CASHEL, Psalter of.

See TARA, THE HILL AND THE FEIS OF.

CASHEL, Synod of.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.

CASHMERE: A. D. 1819-1820.

Conquest by Runjet Singh.

See SIKHS.

CASHMERE: A. D. 1846.

Taken from the Sikhs by the English and given as a kingdom to

Gholab Singh.

See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

----------CASHMERE: End----------

CASIMIR I.,    King of Poland, A. D. 1037-1058.

Casimir II.,   Duke of Poland, A. D. 1177-1194.

Casimir III.   (called The Great), King of Poland, A. D. 1333-1370.

Casimir IV.,   King of Poland, A. D. 1445-1492.

Casimir, John, King of Poland, A. D. 1648-1668.

CASKET GIRLS, The.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1728.

CASKET LETTERS, The.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

CASPIAN GATES (PYLÆ CASPIÆ).

An important pass in the Elburz Mountains, so called by the

Greeks. It is identified with the pass known to the modern

Persians as the Girduni Sunlurmh, some fifty miles or more

eastward, or northeastward, from Teheran. "Through this pass

alone can armies proceed from Armenia, Media, or Persia

eastward, or from Turkestan, Khorasan and Afghanistan into the

more western parts of Asia. The position is therefore one of

primary importance. It was to guard it that Rhages was built

so near to the eastern end of its territory."

G. Rawlinson, Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

G. Rawlinson,  Five Great Monarchies: Media, chapter 1.

CASSANDER, and the wars of the Diadochi.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316 to 297-280;

also Greece: B. C. 321-312.

CASSANO, Battles of (1705 and 1799).

See ITALY: A. D. 1701-1713,

and France: A. D. 1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

CASSEL: A. D. 1383.

Burned by the French.

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.

CASSEL, Battles of (1328 and 1677).

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1328,

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

CASSIAN ROAD.

One of the great Roman roads of antiquity, which ran from

Rome, by way of Sutrium and Clusium to Arretium and Florentia.

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 4, chapter 11.

CASSII, The.

A tribe of ancient Britons whose territory was near the Thames.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CASSITERIDES, The.

The "tin islands," from which the Phœnicians and Carthaginians

obtained their supply of tin. Some archæologists identify them

with the British islands, some with the Scilly islands, and

some with the islands in Vigo Bay, on the coast of Spain.

Charles Elton, Origins of English History.

ALSO IN: J. Rhys, Celtic Britain.

CASSOPIANS.

See EPIRUS.

CASTALIAN SPRING.

A spring which issued from between two peaks or cliffs of

Mount Parnassus and flowed downward in a cool stream past the

temple of Apollo at Delphi.

CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA, The.

"The caste system of India is not based upon an exclusive

descent as involving a difference of rank and culture, but

upon an exclusive descent as involving purity of blood. In the

old materialistic religion which prevailed so largely in the

ancient world, and was closely associated with sexual ideas,

the maintenance of purity of blood was regarded as a sacred

duty. The individual had no existence independent of the

family. Male or female, the individual was but a link in the

life of the family; and any intermixture would be followed by

the separation of the impure branch from the parent stem. In a

word, caste was the religion of the sexes, and as such exists

in India to this day. ... The Hindus are divided into an

infinite number of castes, according to their hereditary

trades and professions; but in the present day they are nearly

all comprehended in four great castes, namely, the Brahmans,

or priests; the Kshatriyas, or soldiers; the Vaisyas, or

merchants; and the Sudras, or servile class. The Brahmans are

the mouth of Brahma; the Kshatriyas are his arms; the Vaisyas

are his thighs; and the Sudras are his feet. The three first

castes of priests, soldiers, and merchants, are distinguished

from the fourth caste of Sudras by the thread, or paita, which

is worn depending from the left shoulder and resting on the

right side below the loins. The investiture usually takes

place between the eighth and twelfth year, and is known as the

second birth, and those who are invested are termed the 'twice

born.' It is difficult to say whether the thread indicates a

separation between the conquerors and the conquered; or

whether it originated in a religious investiture from which

the Sudras were excluded."

J. T. Wheeler, History of India, volume 3, pages 114 and 64.

{397}

"Among the delusions about modern India which it seems

impossible to kill, the belief still survives that, although

there have been many changes in the system of caste, it

remains true that the Hindu population is divided into the

four great classes described by Mann: Brahmans, Kshatriyas,

Vaisyas, and Sudras. In India itself this notion is fostered

by the more learned among the Brahmans, who love to make

themselves and others believe in the continuous existence of a

divinely constituted organization. To what extent the

religious and social systems shadowed forth in the ancient

Brahmanical literature had an actual existence it is difficult

to say, but it is certain that little remains of them now. The

Brahmans maintain their exceptional position; but no one can

discern the other great castes which Manu described. Excluding

the Brahmans, caste means for the most part hereditary

occupation, but it also often signifies a common origin of

tribe or race. India, in the words of Sir Henry Maine, is

divided into a vast number of independent, self-acting,

organised social groups--trading, manufacturing, cultivating.

In the enormous majority of instances, caste is only the name

for a number of practices which are followed by each one of a

multitude of groups of men, whether such a group be ancient

and natural or modern and artificial. As a rule, every trade,

every profession, every guild, every tribe, every class, is

also a caste; and the members of a caste not only have their

special objects of worship, selected from the Hindu Pantheon,

or adopted into it, but they exclusively eat together, and

exclusively intermarry.' Mr. Kitts, in his interesting

'Compendium of the Castes and Tribes of India,' compiled from

the Indian Census reports of 1881, enumerates 1929 different

castes. Forty-seven of these have each more than 1,000,000

members; twenty-one have 2,000,000 and upwards. The Brahmans,

Kunbis (agriculturists), and Chumars (workers in leather), are

the only three castes each of which has more than 10,000,000;

nearly 15 per cent. of the inhabitants of India are included

in these three castes. The distinctions and subdivisions of

caste are innumerable, and even the Brahmans, who have this in

common, that they are reverenced by the members of all other

castes, are as much divided among themselves as the rest.

There are nearly 14,000,000 Brahmans; according to Mr.

Sherring, in his work on 'Hindu Tribes and Castes,' there are

more than 1,800 Brahmanical subdivisions; and it constantly

happens that to a Brahman of some particular class or district

the pollution of eating with other Brahmans would be ruinous.

... The Brahmans have become so numerous that only a small

proportion can be employed in sacerdotal functions, and the

charity which it is a duty to bestow upon them could not,

however profuse, be sufficient for their support. They are

found in almost every occupation. They are soldiers,

cultivators, traders, and servants; they were very numerous in

the old Sepoy army, and the name of one of their subdivisions,

'Pande,' became the generic term by which the mutineers of

1857 were commonly known by the English in India. ... Mr.

Ibbetson, in his report on the census in the Punjab, shows how

completely it is true that caste is a social and not a

religious institution. Conversion to Mohammedanism, for

instance, does not necessarily affect the caste of the

convert."

Sir J. Strachey, India, lecture 8.

ALSO IN:

M. Williams, Religious Thought and Life in India, chapter 18.

Sir A. C. Lyall, Asiatic Studies, chapter 7.

Sir H. S. Maine, Village Communities, chapter 2.

CASTEL

See MOGONTIACUM.

CASTELAR AND REPUBLICANISM IN SPAIN.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873, and 1873-1885.

CASTELFIDARDO, Battle of (1860).

See ITALY: A. D. 1859-1861.

CASTELLANO.

See SPANISH COINS.

CASTIGLIONE, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL,-OCTOBER).

CASTILE:

Early inhabitants of.

See CELTIBERIANS.

CASTILE: A. D. 713-1230.

Origin and rise of the kingdom.

See SPAIN: A. D. 713-737, and 1026-1230.

CASTILE: A. D. 1140.

Separation of Portugal as an independent kingdom.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1095-1325.

CASTILE: A. D. 1169.

The first Cortes.

The old monarchical constitution.

See CORTES.

CASTILE: A. D. 1212-1238.

Progress of arms.

Permanent union of the crown with that of Leon.

Conquest of Cordova.

Vassalage imposed on Granada and Murcia.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.

CASTILE: A. D. 1248-1350.

Reigns of St. Ferdinand, Alfonso the Learned, and their three

successors.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1248-1350.

CASTILE: A. D. 1366-1369.

Pedro the Cruel and the invasion of the English Black Prince.

See SPAIN (CASTILE): A. D. 1366-1369.

CASTILE: A. D. 1368-1476.

Under the house of Trastamare.

Discord and civil war.

The triumph of Queen Isabella and her marriage to

Ferdinand of Aragon.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.

CASTILE: A. D. 1515.

Incorporation of Navarre with the kingdom.

See NAVARRE: A. D. 1442-1521.

CASTILE: A. D. 1516.

The crown united with that of Aragon, by Joanna, mother of

Charles V.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517.

----------CASTILE: End----------

CASTILLA DEL ORO.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1509-1511.

CASTILLON, Battle of (1450).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1431-1453.

CASTLE ST. ANGELO.

The Mausoleum of Hadrian, begun by the emperor Hadrian, A. D.

135, and probably completed by Antoninus Pius, "owes its

preservation entirely to the peculiar fitness of its site and

shape for the purposes of a fortress, which it has served

since the time of Belisarius. ... After the burial of Marcus

Aurelius, the tomb was closed until the sack of Rome by Alaric

in 410 A. D., when his barbarian soldiers probably broke it

open in search of treasure, and scattered the ashes of the

Antonines to the winds. From this time, for a hundred years,

the tomb was turned into a fortress, the possession of which

became the object of many struggles in the wars of the Goths

under Vitiges (537 A. D.) and Totilas (killed 552). From the

end of the sixth century, when Gregory the Great saw on its

summit a vision of St. Michael sheathing his sword, in token

that the prayers of the Romans for preservation from the

plague were heard, the Mausoleum of Hadrian was considered as

a consecrated building, under the name of 'S. Angelus inter

Nubes,' 'Usque ad Cœlos,' or 'Inter Cœlos,' until it was

seized in 923 A. D. by Alberic, Count of Tusculum, and the

infamous Marozia, and again became the scene of the fierce

struggles between Popes, Emperors, and reckless adventurers

which marked those miserable times. The last injuries appear

to have been inflicted upon the building in the contest

between the French Pope Clemens VII. and the Italian Pope

Urban VIII. [see PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417]. The exterior was

then finally dismantled and stripped. Partial additions and

restorations soon began to take place. Boniface IX., in the

beginning of the fifteenth century, erected new battlements

and fortifications on and around the building; and since his

time it has remained in the possession of the Papal

government. The strange medley of Papal reception rooms,

dungeons and military magazines which now encumbers the top,

was chiefly built by Paul III. The corridor connecting it with

the Vatican dates from the time of Alexander Borgia (1494 A.

D.), and the bronze statue of St. Michael on the summit, which

replaced an older marble statue, from the reign of Benedict

XIV."

R. Burn, Rome and the Campagna, chapter 11.

ALSO IN: W. W. Story, Castle St. Angelo.

{398}

CASTLENAUDARI, Battle of (1632).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1630-1632.

CASTLEREAGH, Lord, and the union of Ireland with Great Britain:

See IRELAND: A. D. 1798-1800.

CASTOR WARE.

"Durobrivian or Castor ware, as it is variously called, is the

production of the extensive Romano-British potteries on the

River Nen in Northamptonshire and Huntingdonshire, which, with

settlements, are computed to have covered a district of some

twenty square miles in extent. ... There are several varieties

... and two especially have been remarked; the first, blue, or

slate-coloured, the other reddish-brown, or of a dark copper

colour."

L. Jewett, Grave Mounds, page 152.

CASTRA, Roman.

"When a Roman army was in the field it never halted, even for

a single night, without throwing up an entrenchment capable of

containing the whole of the troops and their baggage. This

field-work was termed Castra. ... The form of the camp was a

square, each side of which was 2,017 Roman feet in length. The

defences consisted of a ditch, (fossa,) the earth dug out,

being thrown inwards so as to form a rampart, (agger,) upon

the summit of which a palisade (vallum) was erected of wooden

stakes, (valli--sudes,) a certain number of which were carried

by each soldier, along with his entrenching tools."

W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 12.

CASTRICUM, Battle of.

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

CASTRIOTS, The.

See ALBANIANS: A. D. 1443-1467.

CASTRUCCIO CASTRACANI, The despotism of.

See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

CAT NATION, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS, &c.,

and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR CONQUESTS, &c.

CATACOMBS OF ROME, The.

"The Roman Catacombs--a name consecrated by long usage, but

having no etymological meaning, and not a very determinate

geographical one--are a vast labyrinth of galleries excavated

in the bowels of the earth in the hills around the Eternal

City; not in the hills on which the city itself was built, but

in those beyond the walls. Their extent is enormous, not as to

the amount of superficial soil which they underlie, for they

rarely, if ever, pass beyond the third milestone from the

city, but in the actual length of their galleries; for these

are often excavated on various levels, or piani, three, four,

or even five, one above the other, and they cross and recross

one another, some times at short intervals, on each of these

levels; so that, on the whole, there are certainly not less

that 350 miles of them; that is to say, if stretched out in

one continuous line, they would extend the whole length of

Italy itself. The galleries are from two to four feet in

width, and vary in height according to the nature of the rock

in which they are dug. The walls on both sides are pierced

with horizontal niches, like shelves in a book-case, or berths

in a steamer, and every niche once contained one or more dead

bodies. At various intervals this succession of shelves is

interrupted for a moment, that room may be made for a doorway

opening into a small chamber; and the walls of these chambers

are generally pierced with graves in the same way as the

galleries. These vast excavations once formed the ancient

Christian cemeteries of Rome; they were begun in apostolic

times, and continued to be used as burial-places of the

faithful until the capture of the city by Alaric in the year

410. In the third century, the Roman Church numbered

twenty-five or twenty-six of them, corresponding to the number

of her titles or parishes within the city; and besides these,

there are about twenty others, of smaller dimensions, isolated

monuments of special martyrs, or belonging to this or that

private family. Originally they all belonged to private

families or individuals, the villas or gardens in which they

were dug being the property of wealthy citizens who had

embraced the faith of Christ, and devoted of their substance

to His service. Hence their most ancient titles were taken

merely from the names of their lawful owners, many of which

still survive. ... It has always been agreed among men of

learning who have had an opportunity of examining these

excavations, that they were used exclusively by the Christians

as places of burial and of holding religious assemblies.

Modern research has placed it beyond a doubt, that they were

also originally designed for this purpose and for no other."

J. S. Northcote and W. R. Brownlow,

Roma Sotterranea, book 1, chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

A. P. Stanley, Christian Institutions, chapter 13.

CATALAN GRAND COMPANY, The.

The Catalan Grand Company was a formidable body of military

adventurers--mercenary soldiers--formed in Sicily during the

twenty years of war that followed the Sicilian Vespers. "High

pay and great license drew the best sinews in Catalonia and

Aragon into the mercenary battalions of Sicily and induced

them to submit to the severest discipline." The conclusion of

peace in 1302 threw this trained army out of employment, and

the greater part of its members were enlisted in the service

of Andronicus II., of the restored Greek empire at

Constantinople. They were under the command of one Roger de

Flor, who had been a Templar, degraded from his knighthood for

desertion, and afterwards a pirate; but whose military talents

were undoubted. The Grand Company soon quarrelled with the

Greek emperor; its leader was assassinated, and open war

declared. The Greek army was terribly defeated in a battle at

Apros, A. D. 1307, and the Catalans plundered Thrace for two

years without resistance. Gallipoli, their headquarters, to

which they brought their captives, became one of the great

slave marts of Europe. In 1310 they marched into the heart of

Greece, and were engaged in the service of Walter de Brienne,

Duke of Athens.

{399}

He, too, found them dangerous servants. Quarrels were followed

by war; the Duke perished in a battle (A. D. 1311) with his

Catalan mercenaries on the banks of the Cephissus; his

dukedom, embracing Attica and Bœotia, was the prize of their

victory. The widows and daughters of the Greek nobles who had

fallen were forced to marry the officers of the Catalans, who

thus settled themselves in family as well as estate. They

elected a Duke of Athens; but proceeded afterwards to make the

duchy an appanage of the House of Aragon. The title was held

by sons of the Aragonese kings of Sicily until 1377, when it

passed to Alphonso V., king of Aragon, and was retained by the

kings of Spain after the union of the crowns of Aragon and

Castile. The titular dukes were represented at Athens by

regents. "During the period the duchy of Athens was possessed

by the Sicilian branch of the house of Aragon, the Catalans

were incessantly engaged in wars with all their neighbours."

But, gradually, their military vigor and discipline were lost,

and their name and power in Greece disappeared about 1386,

when Athens and most of the territory of its duchy was

conquered by Nero Acciainoli, a rich and powerful Florentine,

who had become governor of Corinth, but acted as an

independent prince, and who founded a new ducal family.

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,

book 4, chapter 2, section 2.

ALSO IN:

G. Finlay, History of Greece from its Conquest

by the Crusaders, chapter 7, sec. 3.

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

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

CATALANS: A. D. 1151.

The County of Barcelona united by marriage to Aragon.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.

CATALANS: A. D. 12th-15th Centuries.

Commercial importance and municipal freedom of Barcelona.

See BARCELONA: 12th-16th CENTURIES.

CATALANS: A. D. 1461-1472.

Long but unsuccessful revolt against John II. of Aragon.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.

CATALANS: A. D. 1639-1640.

Causes of disaffection and revolt.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1637-1640.

CATALANS: A. D. 1640-1652.

Revolt.

Renunciation of allegiance to the Spanish crown.

Annexation to France offered and accepted.

Re-subjection to Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1640-1642; 1644-1646; 1648-1652.

CATALANS: A. D. 1705.

Adhesion to the Allies in the War of the Spanish Succession.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1705.

CATALANS: A. D. 1713-1714.

Betrayed and deserted by the Allies.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1714.

----------CATALANS: End----------

CATALAUNIAN PLAINS.

See HUNS: A. D. 451.

CATALONIA.

See CATALANS.

CATANA, OR KATANA, Battle of.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396.

CATANIA.

Storming and capture by King Ferdinand (1849).

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

CATAPAN.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.

CATAWBAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

CATEAU-CAMBRESIS, Treaty of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

CATERANS.

"In 1384 an act was passed [by the Scotch parliament] for the

suppression of masterful plunderers, who get in the statute

their Highland name of 'cateran.' ... This is the first of a

long succession of penal and denunciatory laws against the

Highlanders."

J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, volume 3, chapter 27.

CATHARISTS, OR PATARENES.

"Among all the sects of the Middle Ages, very far the most

important in numbers and in radical antagonism to the Church,

were the Cathari, or the Pure, as with characteristic

sectarian assumption they styled themselves. Albigenses they

were called in Languedoc; Patarenes in North Italy; Good Men

by themselves. Stretching through central Europe to Thrace and

Bulgaria, they joined hands with the Paulicians of the East

and shared their errors. Whether these Cathari stood in lineal

historical descent from the old Manichæans, or had generated a

dualistic scheme of their own, is a question hard to answer,

and which has been answered in very different ways. This much,

however, is certain, that in all essentials they agreed with

them."

R. C. Trench, Lectures on Mediæval Church History,

lecture 15.

"In Italy, men supposed to hold the same belief [as that of

the Paulicians, Albigenses, etc.] went by the name of the

Paterini, a word of uncertain derivation, perhaps arising from

their willingness meekly to submit to all sufferings for

Christ's sake (pati), perhaps from a quarter in the city of

Milan named 'Pataria'; and more lately by that of Cathari (the

Pure, Puritans), which was soon corrupted into Gazari, whence

the German 'Ketzer,' the general word for a heretic."

L. Mariotti, Frà Dolcino and his Times, chapter I.

See, also, PAULICIANS, and ALBIGENSES.

CATHAY.

See CHINA: THE NAMES OF THE COUNTRY.

CATHELINEAU AND, THE INSURRECTION IN LA VENDEE.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-APRIL);

(JUNE); and (JULY-DECEMBER).

CATHERINE I., Czarina of Russia, A. D. 1725-1727.

Catherine II., Czarina of Russia, A. D. 1762-1796.

Catherine and Jean d'Albret, Queen and King of Navarre, A. D. 1503-1512.

Catherine de Medici: her part in French history.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547, to 1584-1589.

CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION AND THE CATHOLIC RENT IN IRELAND.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829.

CATHOLIC DEFENDERS.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1760-1798.

CATHOLIC LEAGUE, The.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.

CATHOLIC LEAGUE IN FRANCE, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1576-1585 and after.

CATHOLICS (England): A. D. 1572-1679.

Persecutions.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1572-1603; 1585-1587; 1587-1588; 1678-1679.

CATHOLICS (Ireland): A. D. 1691-1782.

Oppression of the Penal Laws.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1691-1782.

CATHOLICS (England): A. D. 1778-1780.

Repeal of Penal laws.

No-Popery Riots.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.

CATHOLICS (Ireland): A. D. 1795-1796.

Persecution by Protestant mobs.

Formation of the Orange Society.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1795-1796.

CATHOLICS (Ireland): A. D. 1801.

Pitt's promises broken by the King.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1806.

CATHOLICS (England and Ireland): A. D. 1829.

Emancipation from civil disabilities.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1811-1829.

{400}

CATHOLICS, Old.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.

CATILINE, The Conspiracy of.

See ROME: B. C. 63.

CATINI, The.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CATO THE YOUNGER,

and the last years of the Roman Republic.

See ROME: B. C. 63-58, to 47-46.

CATO STREET CONSPIRACY, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1820-1827.

CATRAIL, The.

An ancient rampart, the remains of which are found in southern

Scotland, running from the south-east corner of Peeblesshire

to the south side of Liddesdale. It is supposed to have marked

the boundary between the old Anglian kingdom of Bernicia and

the territory of the British kings of Alcluith (Dumbarton).

W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, volume 1.

CATTANI.--VASSALI.--MASNADA.--SERVI.

The feudal barons of northern Italy were called Cattani. In

the Florentine territory, "many of these Cattani, after having

been subdued and made citizens of Florence, still maintained

their feudal following, and were usually attended by troops of

retainers, half slaves, half freedmen, called 'Uomini di

Masnada,' who held certain possessions of them by the tenure

of military service, took oaths of fidelity, and appear to

have included every rank of person in the different Italian

states according to the quality of the chief; but without any

degradation of character being attached to such employment.

This kind of servitude, which could not be thrown off without

a formal act of manumission, was common in the north of Italy,

and began in the 11th century, when innumerable chieftains

started up owning no superior but the emperor. Being at

constant war with each other they sought every means of

creating a military following by granting lands to all ranks

of people, and it is probable that many slaves were then

partly emancipated for the purpose: such a condition, though

not considered dishonourable, was thus essentially tinged with

the colours of slavery, and so far differed from the 'Vassi'

and 'Vassali,' as well as from the 'Vavasours.' ... Some

slight, perhaps unnecessary distinction is made between the

'Vassi,' who are supposed to have been vassals of the crown,

and the 'Vassali,' who were the vassals of great lords. The

'Vavasours' were the vassals of great vassals. ... This union

[as described above] of 'Servi,' slaves, or vassals of one

chief, was called 'Masnada,' and hence the name 'Masnadieri,'

so often recurring in early Italian history; for the

commanders of these irregular bands were often retained in the

pay of the republic and frequently kept the field when the

civic troops had returned to their homes, or when the war was

not sufficiently important to bring the latter out with the

Carroccio. ... Besides these military Villains, who were also

called 'Fedeli,' there were two other kinds of slaves amongst

the early Italians, namely prisoners of war and the labourers

attached to the soil, who were considered as cattle in every

respect except that of their superior utility and value: the

former species of slavery was probably soon dissolved by the

union of self-interest and humanity: the latter began to

decline in the 12th century, partly continued through the

13th, and vanished entirely in the 14th century."

H. E. Napier, Florentine History, volume 1, page 624.

CATTI, The.

See CHATTI.

CATUVELLANI, The.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CAUCASUS AND THE CIRCASSIANS.

The Russian conquest.

"The Caucasus has always possessed a certain fascination not

for the Russians only, but also for western nations, and is

peculiarly rich in historical traditions, and in memories of

ancient times and ancient nations. Here to the rocks of

Elbruz, Prometheus lay chained; and to Colchis, where the

Phasis flowed towards the sea, through ever green woods, came

the Argonauts. The present Kutais is the old capital of King

Æetes, near which, in the sacred grove of Ares, hung the

golden fleece. The gold mines which the Russians discovered in

1864 were apparently known to the Greeks, whose colony,

Dioscurias, was an assemblage of 300 diverse nationalities.

... Here on the coasts of the stormy and dangerous Black Sea

arose the famous Pontine kingdom [see MITHRIDATIC WARS] which

in spite of its valiant resistance under Mithridates, fell a

victim to Roman aggression. Along the rivers Kura and Rion ran

the old commercial road from Europe to Asia, which enriched

the Venetians and the Genoese in the middle ages. Up to recent

times this trade consisted not only of all sorts of other

merchandise, but of slaves; numberless girls and women were

conveyed to Turkish harems and there exercised an important

influence on the character of the Tartar and Mongol races. In

the middle ages the Caucasus was the route by which the wild

Asiatic hordes, the Goths, Khasars, Huns, Avars, Mongols,

Tartars, and Arabs crossed from Asia into Europe; and

consequently its secluded valleys contain a population

composed of more different and distinct races than any other

district in the world. ... It was in the 16th century, under

Ivan the Terrible, that Russia first turned her attention to

the conquest of the Caucasus; but it was not till 1859 that

the defeat and capture of the famous Schamyl brought about the

final subjugation of the country. ... In 1785 [after the

partial conquest of 1784--see TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792] the

mountaineers had been incited to take arms by a so-called

prophet Scheick Mansur, but he was seized and banished to

Solovetsk, on the White Sea. In 1820 a Mollah, Kasi by name,

made his appearance in Daghestan, and began to preach the

'Kasawat,' that is, holy war against the Russians. To him

succeeded another equally fanatical adventurer, Hamset Beg.

The work which they had begun was carried on by Schamyl, who

far surpassed his predecessors in all the qualities which make

up a successful guerilla chief, and who maintained the unequal

conflict against the enemies of his country for 25 years with

singular good fortune, undaunted courage, untiring energy, and

conspicuous ability. He was of the tribe of the Lesghians in

Daghestan, and was born in 1796, in the village of Gimri, of

poor shepherd parents. In spite of his humble origin he raised

himself to the rank of an Imaum, surrounded himself with a

strong body-guard of devoted adherents, whom he named Murides,

and succeeded in fanning to a flame the patriotic ardour of

his fellow-countrymen. The capture of the mountain fastness of

Achulgo in 1839 seemed to be the death-blow of Schamyl's

cause, for it brought about the loss of the whole of

Daghestan, the very focus of the Murides' activity.

{401}

Schamyl barely escaped being made a prisoner, and was forced

to yield up his son, Djammel-Edden, only nine years of age as

a hostage. The boy was sent to St. Petersburg and placed in a

cadet corps, which he left at the conclusion of his military

education somewhere about 1850 and returned to his native

country in 1854 where he died a few years later. In 1840 the

Tchetchens, who had previously been pacified, rose in arms

once more, and Daghestan and other parts of the country

followed their example. The country of the Tchetchens was a

specially favourable theatre for the conflict with the

Russians; its long mountain chains, rocky fastnesses,

impenetrable forests, and wild precipices and gorges rendered

ambuscades and surprises of constant and, to the Russians,

fatal occurrence. During the earlier stages of the war, Russia

had ransomed the officers taken prisoners by the mountaineers,

but, subsequently, no quarter was given on either side. At

last, by means of a great concentration of troops on all the

threatened points, by fortifying the chief central stations,

find by forming broad military roads throughout the district,

the Russians succeeded in breaking down Schamyl's resistance.

He now suffered one reverse after another. His chief

fastnesses, Dargo, Weden, and Guni, were successively stormed

and destroyed; and, finally, he himself and his family were

taken prisoners. He was astonished and, it is said, not

altogether gratified to find that a violent death was not to

close his romantic career. He and his family were at first

interned at Kaluga in Russia, both a house and a considerable

sum of money for his maintenance being assigned to him. But

after a few years he was allowed to remove to Mecca, where he

died. His sons and grandsons, who have entirely adopted the

manners of the Russians, are officers in the Circassian guard.

In 1864 the pacification of the whole country was

accomplished, and a few years later the abolition of serfdom

was proclaimed at Tifiis. After the subjugation of the various

mountain tribes, the Circassians had the choice given them by

the Government of settling on the low country along the Kuban,

or of emigrating to Turkey. The latter course was chosen by

the bulk of the nation, urged, thereto, in great measure, by

envoys from Turkey. As many as 400,000 are said to have come

to the ports, where the Sultan had promised to send vessels to

receive them; but delays took place, and a large number died

of want and disease. Those who reached Turkey were settled on

the west coasts of the Black Sea, in Bulgaria and near Varna,

and proved themselves most troublesome and unruly subjects.

Most of those who at first remained in Circassia followed

their fellow-countrymen in 1874."

H. M. Chester, Russia, chapter 18.

ALSO IN:

F. Mayne, Life of Nicholas I., part 1, chapter 11 and 14.

S. M. Schmucker, Life and Reign of Nicholas I., chapter 21.

CAUCASUS, The Indian.

"The real Caucasus was the most lofty range of mountains known

to the Greeks before [Alexander's conquests], and they were

generally regarded as the highest mountains in the world.

Hence when the army of Alexander came in sight of the vast

mountain barrier [of the Hindoo Koosh] that rose before them

as they advanced northward from Arachosia, they seem to have

at once concluded that this could be no other than the

Caucasus." Hence the name Caucasus given by the Greeks to

those mountains; "for the name of Hindoo Koosh, by which they

are still known, is nothing more than a corruption of the

Indian Caucasus."

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,

chapter 12, note Q.

CAUCI, The.

See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

CAUCUS.

In 1634--the fourth year of the colony of Massachusetts

Bay--the freemen of the colony chose Dudley instead of

Winthrop for governor. The next year they "followed up the

doctrine of rotation in office by choosing Haynes as governor,

a choice agreed upon by deputies from the towns, who came

together for that purpose previously to the meeting of the

court--the first instance of 'the caucus system' on record."

R. Hildreth, History of the U. S., volume 1, page 224.

See also, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

CAUDINE FORKS, The Romans at the.

See ROME: B. C. 343-290.

CAUSENNÆ, OR ISINÆ.

A town of some importance in Roman Britain. "There can be no

doubt that this town occupied the site of the modern Ancaster,

which has been celebrated for its Roman antiquities since the

time of Leland."

T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.

CAVALIERS, The party of the.

See ENGLAND: A.. D. 1641 (OCTOBER);

also, ROUNDHEADS.

CAVE DWELLERS.

"We find a hunting and fishing race of cave-dwellers, in the

remote pleistocene age, in possession of France, Belgium,

Germany, and Britain, probably of the same stock as the

Eskimos, living and forming part of a fauna in which northern

and southern, living and extinct, species are strangely

mingled with those now living in Europe. In the neolithic age

caves were inhabited, and used for tombs, by men of the

Iberian or Basque race, which is still represented by the

small dark-haired peoples of Europe."

W. B. Dawkins, Cave Hunting, page 430.

CAVE OF ADULLAM.

See ADULLAM, CAVE OF.

CAVOUR, Count, and the unification of Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859, and 1859-1861.

CAVOUR, Treaty of (1561).

See SAVOY: A. D. 1559-1580.

CAWNPUR, OR CAWNPORE: A. D. 1857.

Siege by the Sepoy mutineers.

Surrender and massacre of the English.

See INDIA: A. D. 1857 (MAY-AUGUST),

and 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).

CAXTON PRESS, The.

See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1476-1491.

CAYENNE, Colonization of.

See GUIANA: A. D. 1580-1814.

CAYUGAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

CEADAS, The.

See BARATHRUM.

CEBRENES, The.

See TROJA.

CECIL, Sir William (Lord Burleigh),

The reign of Elizabeth.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1598.

CECORA, Battle of (1621).

See POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648.

CECROPIA.--CECROPIAN HILL.

The Acropolis of Athens.

See ATTICA.

{402}

CEDAR CREEK, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D.1864 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: VIRGINIA).

CEDAR MOUNTAIN OR CEDAR RUN, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862

(JULY-AUGUST: VIRGINIA).

CELESTINE II.,  Pope, A. D. 1143-1144.

Celestine III., Pope, A. D. 1191-1198.

Celestine IV.,  Pope, A. D. 1241..

Celestine V.,   Pope, A. D. 1294, July to December.

CELTIBERIANS, The.

"The Celtiberi occupied the centre of Spain, and a large part

of the two Castiles, an elevated table land bordered and

intersected by mountains. They were the most warlike race in

the Spanish peninsula."

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

"The appellation Celtiberians indicates that in the

north-eastern part of the peninsula [Spain] there was a

mixture of Celts and Iberians. Nevertheless the Iberians must

have been the prevailing race, for we find no indications of

Celtic characteristics in the people."

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 6, note.

See, also, NUMANTIAN WAR.

CELTS, The.

"The Celts form a branch of the great family of nations which

has been variously called Aryan, Indo-European, Indo-Germanic,

Indo-Celtic and Japhetic, its other branches being represented by

the Italians, the Greeks, the Litu-Slaves, the Armenians, the

Persians and the chief peoples of Hindustan. ... The Celts of

antiquity who appeared first and oftenest in history were

those of Gallia, which, having been made by the French into

Gaule, we term Gaul. It included the France and Switzerland of

the present day, and much territory besides. This people had

various names. One of them was Galli, which in their language

meant warriors or brave men; ... but the Gauls themselves in

Cæsar's time appear to have preferred the name which he wrote

Celtæ. This was synonymous with the other and appears to have

meant warriors. ... The Celtic family, so far back as we can

trace it into the darkness of antiquity consisted of two

groups or branches, with linguistic features of their own

which marked them off from one another. To the one belonged

the ancestors of the people who speak Gaelic in Ireland, the

Isle of Man and the Highlands of the North. ... The national

name which the members of this group have always given

themselves, so far as one knows, is that of Gaidhel,

pronounced and spelt in English Gael, but formerly written by

themselves Goidel. ... The other group is represented in point

of speech by the people of Wales and the Bretons. ... The

national name of those speaking these dialects was that of

Briton; but, since that word has now no precise meaning, we

take the Welsh form of it, which is Brython, and call this

group Brythons and Brythonic, whenever it is needful to be

exact. The ancient Gauls must also be classified with them,

since the Brythons may be regarded as Gauls who came over to

settle in Britain."

J. Rhys, Celtic Britain, chapter 1.

See, also, ARYANS, and APPENDIX A, volume 1.

CELTS:

Origin and first meaning of the name.

"Who were the Keltre of Spain? the population whose name

occurs in the word Celtici and Celtiberi, Keltic Iberians or

Iberian Kelts? ... I think, that though used to denominate the

tribe and nations allied to the Gauls, it [the word Celt or

Kelt] was, originally, no Gallic word--as little native as

Welsh is British. I also think that even the first populations

to which it was applied were other than Keltic in the modern

sense of the term. I think, in short, that it was a word

belonging to the Iberian language, applied, until the time of

Cæsar at least, to Iberic populations. ... By the time of

Cæsar, however, a great number of undoubted Gauls were

included under the name Celtæ: in other words, the Iberian

name for an Iberian population was first adopted by the Greeks

as the name for all the inhabitants of south-western Gaul, and

it was then extended by the Romans so as to include all the

populations of Gallia except the Belgæ and Aquitanians."

R G. Latham, Ethnology of Europe, chapter 2.

----------CELTS:  Origin: End----------

CELTS.

A name given among archæologists to certain prehistoric

implements, both stone and bronze, of the wedge, chisel and

axe kind. Mr. Thomas Wright, contends that the term is

properly applied only to the bronze chisels, which the old

antiquary Hearne identified with the Roman celtis, or

chisel--whence the name. It has evidently no connection with

the word Celt used ethnologically.

CELYDDON, Forest of (or Coed Celydon).

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CENABUM.

See GENABUM.

CENOMANIANS, The.

See INSUBRIANS.

CENSORS, The Roman.

"The censorship was an office so remarkable that, however

familiar the subject may be to many readers, it is necessary

here to bestow some notice on it. Its original business was to

take a register of the citizens and of their property; but

this, which seems at first sight to be no more than the

drawing up of a mere statistical report, became in fact, from

the large discretion allowed to every Roman officer, a

political power of the highest importance. The censors made

out the returns of the free population; but they did more;

they divided it according to its civil distinctions, and drew

up a list of the senators, a list of the equites, a list of

the members of the several tribes, or of those citizens who

enjoyed the right of voting, and a list of the ærarians,

consisting of those freedmen, naturalized strangers, and

others, who, being enrolled in no tribe, possessed no vote in

the comitia, but still enjoyed all the private rights of Roman

citizens. Now the lists thus drawn up by the censors were

regarded as legal evidence of a man's condition. ... From

thence the transition was easy, according to Roman notions, to

the decision of questions of right; such as whether a citizen

was really worthy of retaining his rank. ... If a man behaved

tyrannically to his wife or children, if he was guilty of

excessive cruelty even to his slaves, if he neglected his

land, if he indulged in habits of extravagant expense, or

followed any calling which was regarded as degrading, the

offence was justly noted by the censors, and the offender was

struck off from the list of senators, if his rank was so high;

or, if he were an ordinary citizen, he was expelled from his

tribe, and reduced to the class of the ærarians. ... The

censors had the entire management of the regular revenues of

the state, or of its vectigalia. They were the commonwealth's

stewards, and to their hands all its property was entrusted.

... With these almost kingly powers, and arrayed in kingly

state, for the censor's robe was all scarlet ... the censors

might well seem too great for a free commonwealth."

T. Arnold, History of Rome, chapter 17.

See, also, LUSTRUM.

{403}

CENTRAL AMERICA:

Ruins of ancient civilization.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS, and QUICHES;

also, MEXICO, ANCIENT.

CENTRAL AMERICA: Discovery and early settlement.

See AMERICAN: A. D. 1498-1505; 1500-1511; 1513-1517.

CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.

Separation from Spain, and Independence.

Attempted federation and its failures.

Wars and revolutions of the five Republics.

"The central part of the American continent, extending from

the southern boundary of Mexico to the Isthmus of Panama,

consisted in the old colonial times of several Intendancies,

all of which were united in the Captaincy-General of

Guatemala. Like the West Indian Islands, it was a neglected

part of the Spanish Empire. ... Central America has no history

up to the epoch of independence. ... It was not until the

success of the Revolution had become certain on both sides of

them, both in Mexico and New Granada, that the Intendancies

which made up the Captaincy-General of Guatemala declared

themselves also independent of Spain. The cry of liberty had

indeed been raised in Costa Rica in 1813, and in Nicaragua in

1815; but the Revolution was postponed for six years longer.

Guatemala, the seat of government, published its declaration

in September, 1821, and its example was speedily followed by

San Salvador and Honduras. Nicaragua, on proclaiming its

independence, together with one of the departments of

Guatemala, declared its adhesion to what was known in Mexico

as the plan of Ignala [see MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826]. As there

were no Spanish troops in Central America, the recusant

Spanish official party could make no resistance to the popular

movement; and many of them crossed the sea to Cuba or returned

to Spain. ... The Revolution of Central America thus stands

alone in the history of independence, as having been

accomplished without the shedding of blood." During the brief

empire of Iturbide in Mexico [see as above] the Central

American states were annexed to it, though with strong

resistance on the part of all except Guatemala. "On the

proclamation of the Federal Republic in Mexico [1824], the

whole of Central America, except the district of Chiapas,

withdrew from the alliance, and drove out the Mexican

officials as only a year before they had driven out the

Spanish officials. The people now had to face the task of

forming a government for themselves: and ... they now resolved

on combining in a federation, in imitation of the great United

States of North America. Perhaps no states were ever less

suited to form a federal union. The petty territories of

Central America lie on two Oceans, are divided by lofty

mountains, and have scarcely any communication with each

other: and the citizens of each have scarcely any common

interest. A Central American federation, however,  was an

imposing idea, and the people clung to it with great

pertinacity. The first effort for federation was made under

the direction of General Filisola. All the Intendancies

combined in one sovereign state; first under the name of the

'United Provinces,' afterwards (November 22, 1823) under that

of the 'Federal Republic' of Central America. ... A

constitution of the most liberal kind was voted. This

constitution is remarkable for having been the first which

abolished slavery at once and absolutely and declared the

slave trade to be piracy. ... The clerical and oligarchic

party set their faces stubbornly against the execution of the

constitution, and began the revolt at Leon in Nicaragua. The

union broke down in 1826, and though Morazan [of Honduras]

reconstituted it in 1829, its history is a record of continual

rebellion and reaction on the part of the Guatemaltec

oligarchy. Of all South American conservative parties this

oligarchy was perhaps the most despicable. They sank to their

lowest when they raised the Spanish flag in 1832. But in doing

this they went too far. Morazan's successes date from this

time, and having beaten the Guatemaltecs, he transferred the

Federal government in 1834 to San Salvador. But the Federal

Republic of Central America dragged on a precarious existence

until 1838, when it was overthrown by the revolt of Carrera in

Guatemala. From the first the influence of the Federalists in

the capital began to decay, and it was soon apparent that they

had little power except in Honduras, San Salvador and

Nicaragua. The Costa Ricans, a thriving commercial community,

but of no great political importance, and separated by

mountainous wastes from all the rest, soon ceased to take any

part in public business. A second Federal Republic, excluding

Costa Rica, was agreed to in 1842; but it fared no better than

the first. The chief representative of the Federalist

principle in Central America was Morazan, of Honduras, from

whose government Carrera had revolted in 1838. On the failure

of the Federation Morazan had fled to Chile, and on his return

to Costa Rica he was shot at San José by the Carrerists. This

was a great blow to the Liberals, and it was not until 1847

that a third Federation, consisting of Honduras, San Salvador,

and Nicaragua, was organized. For some years Honduras, at the

head of these states, carried on a war against Guatemala to

compel it to join the union. Guatemala was far more than their

match: San Salvador and Nicaragua soon failed in the struggle,

and left Honduras to carry on the war alone. Under General

Carrera Guatemala completely defeated its rival; and to his

successes are due the revival of the Conservative or Clerical

party all over Central America. ... The government of each

state became weaker and weaker: revolutions were everywhere

frequent: and ultimately ... the whole country was near

falling into the hands of a North American adventurer [see

NICARAGUA: A. D. 1855-1860]. In former times the English

government had maintained some connection with the country

[originating with the buccaneers and made important by the

mahogany-cutting] through the independent Indians of the

Mosquito coast, over whom, for the purposes of their trade

with Jamaica, it had maintained a protectorate: and even a

small English commercial colony, called Greytown, had been

founded on this coast at the mouth of the river San Juan.

Towards the close of Carrera's ascendancy this coast was

resigned to Nicaragua, and the Bay Islands, which lie off the

coast, to Honduras: and England thus retained nothing in the

country but the old settlement of British Honduras, with its

capital, Belize. After Carrera's death in 1865, the Liberal

party began to reassert itself: and in 1871 there was a

Liberal revolution in Guatemala itself."

E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, chapter 21.

ALSO IN:

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States.

----------CENTRAL AMERICA: End----------

{404}

CENTRAL ASIA.

See ASIA, CENTRAL.

CENTRE, The.

See RIGHT, &c.

CENTREVILLE, Evacuation of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-MARCH: VIRGINIA).

CENTURIES, Roman.

See COMITIA CENTURIATA.

CENTURION.

The officer commanding one of the fifty-five centuries or

companies in a Roman legion of the empire.

See LEGION, ROMAN.

CENWULF, King of Mercia, A. D. 794-819.

CEORL.

See EORL, and ETHEL.

CEPEDA, Battle of(1859).

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.

CEPHISSUS, Battle of the (A. D. 1311).

See CATALAN GRAND COMPANY.

CERAMICUS OF ATHENS.

The Ceramicus was originally the most important of the

suburban districts of Athens and derived its name from the

potters. "It is probable that about the time of Pisistratus

the market of the ancient suburb called the Ceramicus (for

every Attic district possessed its own market) was constituted

the central market of the city. ... They [the Pisistratidæ]

connected Athens in all directions by roadways with the

country districts: these roads were accurately measured, and

all met on the Ceramicus, in the centre of which an altar was

erected to the Twelve Gods. From this centre of town and

country were calculated the distances to the different country

districts, to the ports, and to the most important sanctuaries

of the common fatherland. ... [In the next century--in the age

of Pericles--the population had extended to the north and west

and] part of the ancient potters' district or Ceramicus had

long become a quarter of the city [the Inner Ceramicus]; the

other part remained suburb [the Outer Ceramicus]. Between the

two lay the double gate or Dipylum, the broadest and most

splendid gate of the city. ... Here the broad carriage-road

which, avoiding all heights, ascended from the market-place of

Hippodamus directly to the city-market of the Ceramicus,

entered the city; from here straight to the west led the road

to Eleusis, the sacred course of the festive processions. ...

From this road again, immediately outside the gate, branched

off that which led to the Academy. ... The high roads in the

vicinity of the city gates were everywhere bordered with

numerous and handsome sepulchral monuments, in particular the

road leading through the outer Ceramicus. Here lay the public

burial-ground for the citizens who had fallen in war; the vast

space was divided into fields, corresponding to the different

battle-fields at home and abroad."

E. Curtius, History of Greece,

book 2, chapter 2, and book 3, chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

W. M. Leake, Topography of Athens, section 3.

CERESTES, OR KERESTES, Battle of (1596).

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1595-1606.

CERIGNOLA, Battle of (1503).

See ITALY: A. D. 1501-1504.

CERISOLES, Battle of (1544).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

CERONES, The.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CERRO GORDO, Battle of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

CESS.

A word, corrupted from "assess," signifying a rate, or tax;

used especially in Scotland, and applied more particularly to

a tax imposed in 1678, for the maintenance of troops, during

the persecution of the Covenanters.

J. H. Thompson, A Cloud of Witnesses,  page 67.

The Imp. Diet.

CEUTA, A. D. 1415.

Siege and capture by the Portuguese.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460.

CEUTA: A. D. 1668.

Ceded to Spain.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.

----------CEUTA: End----------

CÉVENNES,

The prophets of the (or the Cévenol prophets).

The Camisards.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1702-1710.

CEYLON,

3d Century B. C.

Conversion to Buddhism.

See INDIA: B. C. 312-.

CEYLON: A. D. 1802.

Permanent acquisition by England.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

----------CEYLON: End----------

CHACABUCO, Battle of (1817).

See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.

CHACO, The Gran.

See GRAN CHACO.

CHÆRONEA, Battles of (B. C. 338).

See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

CHÆRONEA:(B. C. 86).

See MITHRIDATIC WARS.

CHAGAN.

See KUAN.

CHA'HTAS, OR CHOCTAWS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

CHALCEDON.

An ancient Greek city, founded by the Megarians on the Asiatic

side of the Bosphorus, nearly opposite to Byzantium, like

which city it suffered in early times many changes of masters.

It was bequeathed to the Romans by the last king of Bithynia.

CHALCEDON: A. D. 258.

Capture by the Goths.

See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

CHALCEDON: A. D. 616-625.

The Persians in possession.

See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

----------CHALCEDON: End----------

CHALCEDON, The Council of (A. D. 451).

See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

CHALCIS AND ERETRIA.

"The most dangerous rivals of Ionia were the towns of Eubœa,

among which, in the first instance, Cyme, situated in an

excellent bay of the east coast, in a district abounding in

wine, and afterwards the two sister-towns on the Euripus,

Chalcis and Eretria, distinguished themselves by larger

measures of colonization. While Eretria, the 'city of rowers,'

rose to prosperity especially by means of purple-fisheries and

a ferry-navigation conducted on a constantly increasing scale,

Chalcis, the 'bronze city,' on the double sea of the Bœotian

sound, contrived to raise and employ for herself the most

important of the many treasures of the island--its copper. ...

Chalcis became the Greek centre of this branch of industry; it

became the Greek Sidon. Next to Cyprus there were no richer

stores of copper in the Greek world than on Eubœa, and in

Chalcis were the first copper-works and smithies known in

European Greece."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 2, chapter 3.

The Chalcidians were enterprising colonists, particularly in

Thrace, in the Macedonian peninsula, where they are said to

have founded thirty-two towns, which were collectively called

the Chalcidice, and in southern Italy and Sicily. It was the

abundant wealth of Thrace in metallic ores which drew the

Chalcidians to it. About 700 B. C. a border feud between

Chalcis and Eretria, concerning certain "Lelantian fields"

which lay between them, grew to such proportions and so many

other states came to take part in it, that, "according to

Thucydides no war of more universal importance for the whole

nation was fought between the fall of Troja and the Persian

war."

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

Chalcis was subdued by the Athenians in B. C. 506.

See ATHENS: B. C. 509-506;

also KLERUCHS, and EUBŒA.

{405}

CHALCUS.

See TALENT.

CHALDEA.--CHALDEES.

See BABYLONIA.

CHALDEAN CHURCH.

See NESTORIANS.

CHALDIRAN, Battle of (1514).

See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

CHALGROVE FIELD, Fall of Hampden at.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

CHALONS, Battles at (A. D. 271).

Among the many pretenders to the Roman imperial throne--"the

thirty tyrants," as they were called--of the distracted reign

of Gallienus, was Tetricus, who had been governor of

Aquitaine. The dangerous honor was forced upon him, by a

demoralized army, and he reigned against his will for several

years over Gaul, Spain and Britain. At length, when the

iron-handed Aurelian had taken the reins of government at

Rome, Tetricus secretly plotted with him for deliverance from

his own uncoveted greatness. Aurelian invaded Gaul and

Tetricus led an army against him, only to betray it, in a

great battle at Chalons (271), where the rebels were cut to

pieces.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 11.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

CHALONS: A. D. 366.

See ALEMANNI, INVASION OF GAUL BY THE.

CHALONS: A. D. 451.

See HUNS: A. D. 451, ATTILA'S INVASION OF GAUL.

----------CHALONS: End----------

CHALYBES, The.

The Chalybes, or Chalybians, were an ancient people in Asia

Minor, on the coast of the Euxine, probably east of the Halys,

who were noted as workers of iron.

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geog., chapter 22, note A.

CHAMAVI, The.

See BRUCTERI;

also, FRANKS;

also, GAUL: A. D. 355-361.

CHAMBERS OF REANNEXATON, French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

CHAMBERSBURG, Burning of.

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

VIRGINIA-MARYLAND).

CHAMPAGNE:

Origin of the county.

In the middle years of the revolt that dethroned the

Carlovingians and raised the Capetians to a throne which they

made the throne of a kingdom of France, Count Herbert of

Vermandois allied himself with the party of the latter, and

began operations for the expanding of his domain. "The

Champaign of Rheims, the 'Campania Remensis'--a most

appropriate descriptive denomination of the region--an

extension of the plains of Flanders--but not yet employed

politically as designating a province--was protected against

Count Herbert on the Vermandois border by the Castrum

Theodorici--Château Thierry. ... Herbert's profuse promises

induced the commander to betray his duty. ... Herbert, through

this occupation of Château Thierry, obtained the city of

Troyes and all the 'Campania Remensis,' which, under his

potent sway, was speedily developed into the magnificent

County of Champagne. Herbert and his lineage held Champagne

during three generations, until some time after the accession

of the Capets, when the Grand Fief passed from the House of

Vermandois to the House of Blois."

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England,

volume 2, page 192.

CHAMPEAUBERT, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

CHAMPIGNY, Sortie of(1870).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

CHAMPION'S HILL, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (APRIL-JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

CHAMPLAIN, Samuel.

Explorations and Colonizations.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1603-1605; 1608-1611;

and 1611-1616.

CHAMPLAIN, Lake: A. D. 1776.

Arnold's naval battle with Carleton.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777.

CHAMPLAIN, Lake: A. D. 1814.

Macdonough's naval victory.

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

----------CHAMPLAIN, End----------

CHAMPS DE MARS.--CHAMPS DE MAI.

When the Merovingian kings of the Franks summoned their

captains to gather for the planning and preparing of

campaigns, the assemblies were called at first the Champs de

Mars, because the meeting was in earliest spring--in March.

"But as the Franks, from serving on foot, became cavaliers

under the second [the Carlovingian] race, the time was changed

to May, for the sake of forage, and the assemblies were called

Champs de Mai."

E. E. Crowe, History of France, chapter 1.

See, also, MALLUM,

and PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.

CHANCAS, The.

See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

CHANCELLOR, The.

"The name [of the Chancellor], derived probably from the

cancelli or screen behind which the secretarial work of the

royal household was carried on, claims a considerable

antiquity; and the offices which it denotes are various in

proportion. The chancellor of the Karolingian sovereigns,

succeeding to the place of the more ancient referendarius, is

simply the royal notary; the archi-cancellarius is the chief

of a large body of such officers associated under the name of

the chancery, and is the keeper of the royal seal. It is from

this minister that the English chancellor derives his name and

function. Edward the Confessor, the first of our sovereigns

who had a seal, is also the first who had a chancellor; from

the reign of the Conqueror the office has descended in regular

succession. It seems to have been to a comparatively late

period, generally if not always, at least in England, held by

an ecclesiastic who was a member of the royal household and on

a footing with the great dignitaries. The chancellor was the

most dignified of the royal chaplains, if not the head of that

body. The whole secretarial work of the household and court

fell on the chancellor and the chaplains. ... The chancellor

was, in a manner, the secretary of state for all departments."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,

chapter 11, section 121.

{406}

"In the reign of Edward I. we begin to perceive signs of the

rise of the extraordinary or equitable jurisdiction of the

Chancellor. The numerous petitions addressed to the King and

his Council, seeking the interposition of the royal grace and

favour either to mitigate the harshness of the Common Law or

supply its deficiencies, had been in the special care of the

Chancellor, who examined and reported upon them to the King.

... At length, in 1348, by a writ or ordinance of the 22d year

of Edward III. all such matters as were 'of Grace' were

directed to be dispatched by the Chancellor or by the Keeper

of the Privy Seal. This was a great step in the recognition of

the equitable jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, as

distinct from the legal jurisdiction of the Chancellor and of

the Courts of Common Law; although it was not until the

following reign that it can be said to have been permanently

established."

T. P. Taswell-Langmead, English Constitutional History,

pages 173-174.

"The Lord Chancellor is a Privy Councillor by his office; a

Cabinet Minister; and, according to Lord Chancellor Ellesmere,

prolocutor [chairman, or Speaker] of the House of Lords by

prescription."

A. C. Ewald, The Crown and its Advisers, lecture 2.

ALSO IN:

E. Fischel, The English Constitution, book 5, chapter 7.

CHANCELLOR'S ROLLS.

See EXCHEQUER.--EXCHEQUER ROLLS.

CHANCELLORSVILLE, Battles of.

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

CHANCERY.

See CHANCELLOR.

CHANDRAGUPTA, OR CANDRAGUPTA, The empire of.

See INDIA: B. C. 327-312, and 312.

CHANEERS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

CHANTILLY, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862

(AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: VIRGINIA).

CHANTRY PRIESTS.

"With the more wealthy and devout [in the 14th, 15th and 16th

centuries] it was the practice to erect little chapels, which

were either added to churches or enclosed by screens within

them, where chantry priests might celebrate mass for the good

of their souls in perpetuity. ... Large sums of money were ...

devoted to the maintenance of chantry priests, whose duty it

was to say mass for the repose of the testator's soul. ... The

character and conduct of the chantry priests must have become

somewhat of a lax order in the 16th century."

R. R. Sharpe, Introduction to "Calendar of Wills in

the Court of Husting, London," volume 2, page viii.

CHAOUANONS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SHAWANESE.

CHAPAS, OR CHAPANECS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, &c.

CHAPULTEPEC, Battle of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

CHARCAS, Las.

The Spanish province which now forms the Republic of Bolivia.

Also called, formerly, Upper Peru, and sometimes the province

of Potosi.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777;

and BOLIVIA: A. D. 1825-1826.

CHARIBERT I.,

King of Aquitaine, A. D. 561-567.

Charibert II., King of Aquitaine, A. D. 628-631.

CHARITON RIVER, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A.. D. 1862

(JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

CHARLEMAGNE'S EMPIRE.

See

FRANKS (CARLOVINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 768-814;

ROMAN EMPIRE: A. D. 800;

LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774;

SAXONS: A. D. 772-804;

AVARS: 791-805;

and SPAIN: A. D. 778.

CHARLEMAGNE'S SCHOOL OF THE PALACE.

See SCHOOL OF THE PALACE.

CHARLEROI: A. D. 1667.

Taken by the French.

See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.

CHARLEROI: A. D. 1668.

Ceded to France.

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

CHARLEROI: A. D. 1679.

Restored to Spain.

See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.

CHARLEROI: A. D. 1693.

Siege and capture by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1693 (JULY).

CHARLEROI: A. D. 1697.

Restored to Spain.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1697.

CHARLEROI: A. D. 1713.

Ceded to Holland.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714.

CHARLEROI: A. D. 1746-1748.

Taken by French and ceded to Austria.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747,

and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS.

----------CHARLEROI: End----------

CHARLES

(called The Great--Charlemagne),

King of Neustria, A. D. 768;

of all the Franks, A. D. 771;

of Franks and Lombardy, 774;

Emperor of the West, 800-814.

Charles of Austria, Archduke, Campaigns of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER);

1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL);

1797 (APRIL-MAY);

1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL);

1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER);

also GERMANY: 1809 (JANUARY-.JUNE), (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

Charles of Bourbon,

King of Naples or the Two Sicilies, 1734-1759.

Charles

(called The Bold), Duke of Burgundy, 1467-1477.

Charles I.,

King of England, 1625-1649.

Trial and execution.

See ENGLAND: A. D.1649 (JANUARY).

Charles I. (of Anjou),

King of Naples and Sicily, 1266-1282;

King of Naples, 1282--1285.

Charles I.,

King of Portugal, 1889-.

Charles II. (called The Bald),

Emperor, and King of Italy, A. D. 875-877;

King of Neustria and Burgundy, 840-877.

Charles II.,

King of England, 1660-1685.

(By a loyal fiction, supposed to have

reigned from 1649, when his father was beheaded;

though the throne was in Cromwell's possession).

Charles II., King of Naples, 1285-1309.

Charles II., King of Navarre, 1349-1387.

Charles II., King of Spain, 1665-1700.

Charles III. (called The Fat),

Emperor, King of the East Franks (Germany),

and King of Italy, A. D. 881-888;

King of the West Franks (France), 884-888.

Charles III. (called The Simple),

King of France, A. D. 892-929.

Charles III., King of Naples, 1381-1386.

Charles III., King of Navarre, 1387-1425.

Charles III., King of Spain, 1759-1788.

Charles IV.,

Emperor, and King of Italy, 1355-1378;

King of Bohemia, 1346-1378;

King of Germany, 1347-1378;

King of Burgundy, 1365-1378.

Charles IV.,

King of France, and of Navarre (Charles I.),1322--1328.

Charles IV., King of Spain, 1788-1808.

Charles V.,

Emperor, 1519-1558;

Duke of Burgundy, 1506-1555;

King of Spain (as Charles I.) and of Naples,

or the Two Sicilies, 1516-1556.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1496-1526.

Charles V. (called The Wise), King of France, 1364-1380.

Charles VI.,

Germanic Emperor, and King of Hungary and Bohemia, 1711-1740.

Charles VI. (called The Well-loved), King of France, 1380-1422.

Charles VII. (of Bavaria) Germanic Emperor, 1742-1745.

Charles VII., King of France, 1422-1461.

{407}

Charles VIII., King of France, 1483-1498.

Charles IX., King of France, 1560-1574.

Charles IX., King of Sweden, 1604-1611.

Charles X., King of France

(the last of the House of Bourbon), 1824-1830.

Charles X., King of Sweden, 1654-1660.

Charles XI., King of Sweden, 1660-1697.

Charles XII., King of Sweden, 1697-1718.

Charles XIII., King of Sweden, 1809-1818.

Charles XIV. (Bernadotte), King of Sweden, 1818-1844.

Charles XV., King of Sweden, 1859-1872.

Charles Albert, Duke of Savoy and King of Sardinia, 1831-1849.

Charles Emanuel, Duke of Savoy, 1580-1630.

Charles Emanuel II., Duke of Savoy, 1638-1675.

Charles Emanuel III., Duke of Savoy and King of Sardinia, 1730-1773.

Charles Emanuel IV.,

Duke of Savoy

and King of Sardinia, 1796-1802.

Charles Felix,

Duke of Savoy

and King of Sardinia, 1821-1831.

Charles Martel,

Duke of Austrasia and Mayor of the Palace (of the King of the

Franks), A. D. 715-741.

Charles Robert, or Charobert, or Caribert,

King of Hungary, 1308-1342.

Charles Swerkerson,

King of Sweden, 1161-1167.

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1680.

The founding of the city.

See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1670-1696.

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1706.

Unsuccessful attack by the French.

See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1701-1706.

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775-1776.

Revolutionary proceedings.

See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1775 and 1776.

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1776.

Sir Henry Clinton's attack and repulse.

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

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1780.

Siege by the British.

Surrender of the city.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST).

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860.

The splitting of the National Democratic Convention.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860.

The adoption of the Ordinance of Secession.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860

(NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1860.

Major Anderson at Fort Sumter.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER).

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1861 (April).

The Beginning of war.

Bombardment of Fort Sumter.

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

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (April).

The attack and repulse of the Monitor fleet.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (APRIL: SOUTH

CAROLINA).

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (July).

The Union troops on Morris Island.

Assault on Fort Wagner.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (JULY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1863 (August-December).

Siege of Fort Wagner.

Bombardment of the city.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: SOUTH CAROLINA).

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1865 (February).

Evacuation by the Confederates.

Occupation by Federal troops.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865 (FEBRUARY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

----------CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: End----------

CHARLESTOWN, Massachusetts: A. D. 1623.

The first settlement.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630.

CHARTER OAK, The.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.

CHARTER OF FORESTS.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1216-1274.

CHARTERHOUSE, OR CHARTREUSE.

See CARTHUSIAN ORDER.

CHARTISTS.--CHARTISM.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1838-1842 and 1848.

CHARTRES, Defeat of the Normans at.

The Norman, Rollo, investing the city of Chartres, sustained

there, on the 20th of July, A. D. 911, the most serious

defeat which he and his pirates ever suffered.

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England,

book 1, chapter 5.

CHARTREUSE, La Grande.

See CARTHUSIAN ORDER.

CHASIDIM, OR CHASIDEES, OR ASSIDEANS, The.

A name, signifying the godly or pious, assumed by a party

among the Jews, in the second century B. C., who resisted the

Grecianizing tendencies of the time under the influence of the

Græco-Syrian domination, and who were the nucleus of the

Maccabean revolt. The later school of the Pharisees is

represented by Ewald (

History of Israel, book 5, section

2) to have been the product of a narrowing transformation

of the school of the Chasidim; while the Essenes, in his view,

were a purer residue of the Chasidim "who strove after piety,

yet would not join the Pharisees"; who abandoned "society as

worldly and incurably corrupt," and in whom "the conscience of

the nation, as it were, withdrew into the wilderness."

H. Ewald, History of Israel, book 5, section 2.

A modern sect, borrowing the name, founded by one Israel Baal

Schem, who first appeared in Podolia, in 1740, is said to

embrace most of the Jews in Galicia, Hungary, Southern Russia,

and Wallachia.

H. C. Adams, History of the Jews, page 333.

ALSO IN:

H. Graetz, History of the Jews, volume 5, chapter 9.

CHASUARII, The.

See FRANKS: ORIGIN, ETC.

CHÂTEAU CAMBRESIS, Treaty of (1559):

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

CHÂTEAU GALLAIRD.

This was the name given to a famous castle, built by Richard

Cœur de Lion in Normandy, and designed to be the key to the

defences of that important duchy. "As a monument of warlike

skill, his 'Saucy Castle,' Château Gaillard, stands first

among the fortresses of the Middle Ages. Richard fixed its

site where the Seine bends suddenly at Gaillon in a great

semicircle to the north, and where the Valley of Les Andèlys

breaks the line of the chalk cliffs along its bank. The castle

formed part of an intrenched camp which Richard designed to

cover his Norman capital. . . . The easy reduction of Normandy

on the fall of Chateau Gaillard at a later time [when it was

taken by Philip Augustus, of France] proved Richard's

foresight."

J. R. Green, Short History

of the English People, chapter 2, section 9.

CHATEAU THIERRY, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

CHATEAUVIEUX, Fête to the soldiers of.

See LIBERTY CAP.

CHATHAM, Lord; Administration of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1757-1760; 1760-1763, and 1765-1768.

And the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (JANUARY-MARCH).

CHATILLON, Battles of (1793).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).

CHATILLON-SUR-SEINE,

Congress of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

{408}

CHATTANOOGA:

The name.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE).

CHATTANOOGA: A. D. 1862.

Secured by the Confederates.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JUNE-OCTOBER: TENNESSEE-KENTUCKY).

CHATTANOOGA: A. D. 1863 (August).

Evacuation by the Confederates.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE).

CHATTANOOGA: A. D. 1863 (October-November).

The siege.

The battle on Lookout Mountain.

The assault of Missionary Ridge.

The Routing of Bragg's army.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

----------CHATTANOOGA: End----------

CHATTI, OR CATTI, The.

"Beyond [the Mattiaci] are the Chatti, whose settlements begin

at the Hercynian forest, where the country is not so open and

marshy as in the other cantons into which Germany stretches.

They are found where there are hills, and with them grow less

frequent, for the Hercynian forest keeps close till it has

seen the last of its native Chatti. Hardy frames, close-knit

limbs, fierce countenances, and a peculiarly vigorous courage,

mark the tribe. For Germans, they have much intelligence and

sagacity. ... Other tribes you see going to battle, the Chatti

to a campaign."

"The settlements of the Chatti, one of the chief German

tribes, apparently coincide with portions of Westphalia,

Nassau, Hesse-Darmstadt and Hesse-Cassel. Dr. Latham assumes

the Chatti of Tacitus to be the Suevi of Cæsar. The fact that

the name Chatti does not occur in Cæsar renders this

hypothesis by no means improbable."

Tacitus, Germany, translated by Church and Brodribb,

and note.

See, also, SUEVI.

CHAUCER, and his times.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1350-1400.

CHAUCI AND CHERUSCI, The.

"The tribe of the Chauci ... beginning at the Frisian

settlements and occupying a part of the coast, stretches along

the frontier of all the tribes which I have enumerated, till

it reaches with a bend as far as the Chatti. This vast extent

of country is not merely possessed but densely peopled by the

Chauci, the noblest of the German races, a nation who would

maintain their greatness by righteous dealing. Without

ambition, without lawless violence, ... the crowning proof of

their valour and their strength is, that they keep up their

superiority without harm to others. ... Dwelling on one side

of the Chauci and Chatti, the Cherusci long cherished,

unassailed, an excessive and enervating love of peace. This

was more pleasant than safe, ... and so the Cherusci, ever

reputed good and just, are now called cowards and fools, while

in the case of the victorious Chatti success has been

identified with prudence. The downfall of the Cherusci brought

with it also that of the Fosi, a neighbouring tribe."

"The settlements of the Chauci ... must have included almost

the entire country between the Ems and the Weser--that is,

Oldenburg and part of Hanover--and have taken in portions of

Westphalia about Munster and Paderborn. The Cherusci ...

appear to have occupied Brunswick and the south part of

Hanover. Arminius who destroyed the Roman army under Varus,

was a Cheruscan chief. ... The Fosi ... must have occupied

part of Hanover."

Tacitus, Minor Works, trans. by Church and Brodribb: The

Germany, with Geographical notes.

Bishop Stubbs conjectures that the Chauci, Cherusci, and some

other tribes may have been afterwards comprehended under the

general name "Saxon."

See SAXONS.

CHAZARS, The.

See KHAZARS.

CHEAT SUMMIT, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-DECEMBER: WEST VIRGINIA).

CHEBUCTO.

The original name of the harbor chosen for the site of the

city of Halifax.

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

HALIFAX: A. D. 1749.

CHEIROTONIA.

A vote by show of hands, among the ancient Greeks.

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

part 3, chapter 3.

CHEMI.

See EGYPT: ITS NAMES.

CHEMNITZ, Battle of (1639).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

CHERBOURG.

Destroyed by the English.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1758 (JULY-AUGUST).

CHEROKEE WAR, The.

See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.

CHEROKEES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHEROKEES.

CHERRONESUS, The proposed State of.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1784.

CHERRY VALLEY, The massacre at.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER)

CHERSON.

See BOSPHORUS: A. D. 565-574.

CHERSON: A. D. 988.

Taken by the Russians.

"A thousand years after the rest of the Greek nation was sunk

in irremediable slavery, Cherson remained free. Such a

phenomenon as the existence of manly feeling in one city, when

mankind everywhere else slept contented in a state of

political degradation, deserved attentive consideration. ...

Cherson retained its position as an independent State until

the reign of Theophilus [Byzantine emperor A. D. 829-842], who

compelled it to receive a governor from Constantinople; but,

even under the Byzantine government, it continued to defend

its municipal institutions, and, instead of slavishly

soliciting the imperial favour, and adopting Byzantine

manners, it boasted of its constitution and self government.

But it gradually lost its former wealth and extensive trade,

and when Vladimir, the sovereign of Russia, attacked it in

988, it was betrayed into his hands by a priest, who informed

him how to cut off the water. ... Vladimir obtained the hand

of Anne, the sister of the emperors Basil II. and Constantine

VIII., and was baptised and married in the church of the

Panaghia at Cherson. To soothe the vanity of the Empire, he

pretended to retain possession of his conquest as the dowry of

his wife. Many of the priests who converted the Russians to

Christianity, and many of the artists who adorned the earliest

Russian churches with paintings and mosaics, were natives of

Cherson."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire from 716 to

1057.

CHERSONESE, The Golden.

See CHRYSE.

CHERSONESUS.

The Greek name for a peninsula, or "land-island," applied most

especially to the long tongue of land between the Hellespont

and the Gulf of Melas.

CHERUSCI, The.

See CHAUCI.

{409}

CHESAPEAKE AND SHANNON, The fight of the.

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

CHESS, Origin of the game of.

"If we wished to know, for instance, who has taught us the

game of chess, the name of chess would tell us better than

anything else that it came to the West from Persia. In spite

of all that has been written to the contrary, chess was

originally the game of Kings, the game of Shahs. This word

Shah became in Old French eschac, Italian scacco, German

Schach; while the Old French eschecs was further corrupted

into chess. The more original form chec has likewise been

preserved, though we little think of it when we draw a cheque,

or when we suffer a check, or when we speak of the Chancellor

of the Exchequer. The great object of the chess-player is to

protect the king, and when the king is in danger, the opponent

is obliged to say 'check,' i. e., Shah, the king. ... After

this the various meanings of check, cheque, or exchequer

become easily intelligible, though it is quite true that if

similar changes of meaning, which in our case we can watch by

the light of history, had taken place in the dimness of

prehistoric ages, it would be difficult to convince the

sceptic that exchequer, or scaccarium, the name of the

chess-board was afterwards used for the checkered cloth on

which accounts were calculated by means of counters, and that

a checkered career was a life with many cross-lines."

F. Max Müller, Biog. of Words, chapter 4.

CHESTER, Origin of.

See DEVA.

CHESTER, The Palatine Earldom.

See PALATINE, THE ENGLISH COUNTIES;

also WALES, PRINCE OF.

CHESTER, Battle of.

One of the fiercest of the battles fought between the Welsh

and the Angles, A. D. 613. The latter were the victors.

CHEVY CHASE.

See OTTER BURN, BATTLE OF.

CHEYENNES, OR SHEYENNES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

CHIAPAS: Ruins of ancient civilization in.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS; and MEXICO, ANCIENT.

CHIARI, Battle Of(1701).

See ITALY (SAVOY AND PIEDMONT): A. D. 1701-1713.

CHIBCHAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHIBCHAS.

CHICAGO: A. D. 1812.

Evacuation of the Fort Dearborn Post, and massacre of most of

the retreating garrison.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

CHICAGO: A. D. 1860.

The Republican National Convention.

Nomination of Lincoln.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

CHICAGO: A. D. 1871.

The great Fire.

"The greatest event in the history of Chicago was the Great

Fire, as it is termed, which broke out on the evening of Oct.

8, 1871. Chicago was at that time [except in the business

centre] a city of wood. For a long time prior to the evening

referred to there had been blowing a hot wind from the

southwest, which had dried everything to the inflammability of

tinder, and it was upon a mass of sun and wind-dried wooden

structures that the fire began its work. It is supposed to

have originated from the accidental upsetting of a kerosene

lamp in a cow barn [Mrs. O'Leary's] on De Koven Street, near

the corner of Jefferson, on the west side of the river. This

region was composed hugely of shanties, and the fire spread

rapidly, very soon crossing the river to the South Side, and

fastening on that portion of the city which contained nearly

all the leading business houses, and which was built up very

largely with stone and brick. But it seemed to enkindle as if

it were tinder. Some buildings were blown up with gunpowder,

which, in connection with the strong southwest gale, prevented

the extension of the flames to the south. The fire swept on

Monday steadily to the north, including everything from the

lake to the South Branch, and then crossed to the North Side,

and, taking in everything from the lake to the North Branch,

it burned northward for a distance of three miles, where it

died out at the city limits, when there was nothing more to

burn. In the midst of this broad area of devastation, on the

north side of Washington Square, between Clark Street and

Dearborn Avenue, the well-known Ogden house stands amid trees

of the ancient forest and surrounded by extensive grounds, the

solitary relic of that section of the city before the fiery

flood. The total area of the land burned over was 2,100 acres.

Nearly 20,000 buildings were consumed; 100,000 people were

rendered homeless; 200 lives were lost, and the grand total of

values destroyed is estimated at $200,000,000. Of this vast

sum, nearly one-half was covered by insurance, but under the

tremendous losses many of the insurance companies were forced

to the wall, and went into liquidation, and the victims of the

conflagration recovered only about one-fifth of their aggregate

losses. Among the buildings which were burned were the

court-house, custom-house and post office, chamber of

commerce, three railway depots, nine daily newspaper offices,

thirty-two hotels, ten theatres and halls, eight public

schools and some branch school buildings, forty-one churches,

five elevators, and all the national banks. If the Great Fire

was an event without parallel in its dimensions and the

magnitude of its dire results, the charity which followed it

was equally unrivalled in its extent. ... All the civilized

world appeared to instantly appreciate the calamity. Food,

clothing, supplies of every kind, money, messages of

affection, sympathy, etc., began pouring in at once in a

stream that appeared endless and bottomless. In all, the

amount contributed reached over $7,000,000. ... It was

believed by many that the fire had forever blotted out Chicago

from the list of great American cities, but the spirit of her

people was undaunted by calamity, and, encouraged by the

generous sympathy and help from all quarters, they set to work

at once to repair their almost ruined fortunes. ... Rebuilding

was at once commenced, and, within a year after the fire, more

than $40,000,000 were expended in improvements. The city came

up from its ruins far more palatial, splendid, strong and

imperishable than before. In one sense the fire was a benefit.

Its consequence was a class of structures far better, in every

essential respect, than before the conflagration. Fire-proof

buildings became the rule, the limits of wood were carefully

restricted, and the value of the reconstructed portion

immeasurably exceeded that of the city which had been

destroyed."

Marquis' Handbook of Chicago, page 22.

{410}

"Thousands of people on the North Side fled far out on the

prairie, but other thousands, less fortunate, were

hemmed in before they could reach the country, and were driven

to the Sands, a group of beach-hillocks fronting on Lake

Michigan. These had been covered with rescued merchandise and

furniture. The flames fell fiercely upon the heaps of goods,

and the miserable refugees were driven into the black waves,

where they stood neck-deep in chilling water, scourged by

sheets of sparks and blowing sand. A great number of horses

had been collected here, and they too dashed into the sea,

where scores of them were drowned. Toward evening the Mayor

sent a fleet of tow-boats which took off the fugitives at the

Sands. When the next day [Tuesday, October 10] dawned, the

prairie was covered with the calcined ruins of more than

17,000 buildings. ... This was the greatest and most

disastrous conflagration on record. The burning of Moscow, in

1812, caused a loss amounting to £30,000,000; but the loss at

Chicago was in excess of this amount. The Great Fire of

London, in 1006, devastated a tract of 430 acres, and

destroyed 13,000 buildings; but that of Chicago swept over

1,900 acres, and burned more than 17,000 buildings."

M. F. Sweetser, Chicago ("Cities of the World," volume 1).

The following is the statement of area burned over, and of

property destroyed, made by the Chicago Relief and Aid

Society, and which is probably authoritative: "The total area

burned over in the city, including streets, was 2,124 acres,

or nearly three and one-third square miles. This area

contained about 73 miles of streets, 18,000 buildings, and the

homes of 100,000 people."

A. T. Andreas, History of Chicago, volume 2, page 760.

ALSO IN:

E. Colbert and E. Chamberlain, Chicago and the Great

Conflagration.

CHICAGO: A. D. 1886-1887.

The Haymarket Conspiracy.

Crime of the Anarchists.

Their trial and execution.

"In February, 1886, Messrs. McCormick, large

agricultural-machine makers of Chicago, refusing to yield to

the dictation of their workmen, who required them to discharge

some non-Union hands they had taken on, announced a

'lock-out,' and prepared to resume business as soon as

possible with a new staff. Spies, Lingg, and other German

Anarchists saw their opportunity. They persuaded the ousted

workmen to prevent the 'scabs,'--anglicé, 'blacklegs,'--from

entering the works on the day of their reopening. Revolvers,

rifles, and bombs were readily found, the latter being

entrusted principally to the hands of professional 'Reds.' The

most violent appeals were made to the members of Unions and

the populace generally; but though a succession of riots were

got up, they were easily quelled by the resolute action of the

police, backed by the approval of the immense majority of the

people of Chicago. Finally, a mass meeting in arms was called

to take place on May 4th, 1886, at 7.30 p.m., in the

Haymarket, a long and recently widened street of the town, for

the express purpose of denouncing the police. But the

intention of the Anarchists was not merely to denounce the

police: this was the pretext only. The prisons were to be

forced, the police-stations blown up, the public buildings

attacked, and the onslaught on property and capital to be

inaugurated by the devastation of one of the fairest cities of

the Union. By 8 p. m. a mob of some three or four thousand

persons had been collected, and were regaled by speeches that

became more violent as the night wore on. At 10 p. m. the

police appeared in force. The crowd were commanded to disperse

peaceably. A voice shouted: 'We are peaceable.' Captain

Schaack says this was a signal. The words were hardly uttered

when a spark flashed through the air. It looked like the

lighted remnant of a cigar, but hissed like a miniature

sky-rocket.' It was a bomb, and fell amid the ranks of the

police. A terrific explosion followed, and immediately

afterwards the mob opened fire upon the police. The latter,

stunned for a moment, soon recovered themselves, returned the

fire, charged the mob, and in a couple of minutes dispersed it

in every direction. But eight of their comrades lay dead upon

the pavement, and scores of others were weltering in their

blood around the spot. Such was the Chicago outrage of May

4th, 1886."

The Spectator, April 19, 1890 (reviewing Shaack's "Anarchy

and Anarchists").

The Anarchists who were arrested and brought to trial for this

crime were eight in number,--August Spies, Michael Schwab,

Samuel Fielden, Albert H. Parsons, Adolph Fischer, George

Engel, Louis Lingg, and Oscar W. Neebe. The trial began July

14, 1886. The evidence closed on the 10th of August; the

argument of council consumed more than a week, and on the 20th

of August the jury brought in a verdict which condemned Neebe

to imprisonment for fifteen years, and all the other prisoners

to death. Lingg committed suicide in prison; the sentences of

Schwab and Fielding were commuted by the Governor to

imprisonment for life; the remaining four were hanged on the

11th of November, 1887.

Judge Gary, The Chicago Anarchists of 1886 (Century Mag.,

April, 1893).

ALSO IN:

M. T. Schaack, Anarchy and Anarchists.

CHICAGO: A. D. 1892-1893.

The World's Columbian Exposition.

"As a fitting mode of celebrating the four hundredth

anniversary of the landing of Columbus on Oct. 12, 1492, it

was proposed to have a universal exhibition in the United

States, The idea was first taken up by citizens of New York,

where subscriptions to the amount of $5,000,000 were obtained

from merchants and capitalists before application was made for

the sanction and support of the Federal Government. When the

matter came up in Congress the claims of Chicago were

considered superior, and a bill was passed and approved on

April 25, 1890, entitled 'An Act to provide for celebrating

the four hundredth anniversary of the discovery of America by

Christopher Columbus, by holding an international exhibition

of arts, industries, manufactures, and the products of the

soil, mine, and sea in the city of Chicago, in the State of

Illinois.' The act provided for the appointment of

commissioners who should organize the exposition. ... When the

organization was completed and the stipulated financial

support from the citizens and municipality of Chicago assured,

President Harrison, on Dec. 24, 1890, issued a proclamation

inviting all the nations of the earth to participate in the

World's Columbian Exposition. Since the time was too short to

have the grounds and buildings completed for the summer of

1892, as was originally intended, the opening of the

exposition was announced for May, 1893. When the work was

fairly begun it was accelerated, as many as 10,000 workmen

being employed at one time, in order to have the buildings

ready to be dedicated with imposing ceremonies on Oct. 12.

1892. in commemoration of the exact date of the discovery of

America."

Appleton's Annual Cyclopædia, 1891, page 837.

SEE ALSO

C. D. Arnold and H. D. Higinbotham,

Official Views Of The World's Columbian Exposition

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22847

On May 1, 1893, the Fair was opened with appropriate

ceremonies by President Cleveland.

{411}

CHICASAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY;

also, LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.

CHICHIMECS, The.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

CHICKAHOMINY,

Battles on the (Gaines' Mill, 1862; Cold Harbor, 1864).

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

and 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

CHICKAMAUGA, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE).

CHICORA.

The name given to the region of South Carolina by its Spanish

discoverers.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1525.

CHILDEBERT I.

King of the Franks, at Paris, A. D. 511-558.

Childebert II., King of the Franks (Austrasia), A. D. 575-596;

(Burgundy), 593-596.

Childebert III., King of the Franks

(Neustria and Burgundy), A. D. 695-711.

CHILDERIC II.,

King of the Franks (Austrasia), A. D. 660-673.

Childeric III., King of the Franks (Neustria), A. D. 742-752.

CHILDREN OF REBECCA.

See REBECCAITES.

CHILDREN'S CRUSADE, The.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1212.

CHILE:

The Araucanians.

"The land of Chili, from 30° Ssouth latitude, was and is still

in part occupied by several tribes who speak the same

language. They form the fourth and most southern group of the

Andes people, and are called Araucanians. Like almost all

American tribal names, the term Araucanian is indefinite;

sometimes it is restricted to a single band, and sometimes so

extended as to embrace a group of tribes. Some regard them as

a separate family, calling them Chilians, while others, whom

we follow, regard them as the southern members of the Andes

group, and still others class them with the Pampas Indians.

The name Araucanian is an improper one, introduced by the

Spaniards, but it is so firmly fixed that it cannot be

changed. The native names are Moluche (warriors) and Alapuche

(natives). Originally they extended from Coquimbo to the

Chonos Archipelago and from ocean to ocean, and even now they

extend, though not very far, to the east of the Cordilleras.

They are divided into four (or, if we include the Picunche,

five) tribes, the names of which all end in 'tche' or 'che,'

the word for man. Other minor divisions exist. The entire

number of the Araucanians is computed at about 30,000 souls,

but it is decreasing by sickness as well as by vice. They are

owners of their land and have cattle in abundance, pay no

taxes, and even their labor in the construction of highways is

only light. They are warlike, brave, and still enjoy some of

the blessings of the Inca civilization; only the real, western

Araucanians in Chili have attained to a sedentary life. Long

before the arrival of the Spaniards the government of the

Araucanians offered a striking resemblance to the military

aristocracy of the old world. All the rest that has been

written of their high stage of culture has proved to be an

empty picture of fancy. They followed agriculture, built fixed

houses, and made at least an attempt at a form of government,

but they still remain, as a whole, cruel, plundering savages."

The Standard Natural History (J. S. Kingsley, editor),

volume 6, pages 232-234.

"The Araucanians inhabit the delightful region between the

Andes and the sea, and between the rivers Bio-bio and

Valdivia. They derive the appellation of Araucanians from the

province of Arauco. .... The political division of the

Araucanian state is regulated with much intelligence. It is

divided from north to south into four governments. ... Each

government is divided into five provinces, and each province

into nine counties. The state consists of three orders of

nobility, each being subordinate to the other, and all having

their respective vassals. They are the Toquis, the

Apo-Ulmenes, and the Ulmenes. The Toquis, or governors, are

four in number. They are independent of each other, but

confederated for the public welfare. The Arch-Ulmenes govern

the provinces under their respective Toquis. The Ulmenes

govern the counties. The upper ranks, generally, are likewise

comprehended under the term Ulmenes."

R. G. Watson, Spanish and Portuguese South America,

volume 1, chapter 12.

ALSO IN:

J. I. Molina, Geographical, Natural and Civil History

of Chili, volume 2, book 2.

CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

The Spanish conquest.

The Araucanian War of Independence.

"In the year 1450 the Peruvian Inca, Yupanqui, desirous of

extending his dominions towards the south, stationed himself

with a powerful army at Atacama. Thence he dispatched a force

of 10,000 men to Chili, under the command of Chinchiruca, who,

overcoming almost incredible obstacles, marched through a

sandy desert as far as Copiapo, a distance of 80 leagues. The

Copiapins flew to arms, and prepared to resist this invasion.

But Chinchiruca, true to the policy which the Incas always

observed, stood upon the defensive, trusting to persuasion

rather than to force for the accomplishment of his designs.

... While he proffered peace, he warned them of the

consequences of resisting the 'Children of the Sun.'" After

wavering for a time, the Copiapins submitted themselves to the

rule of the Incas. "The adjoining province of Coquimbo was

easily subjugated, and steadily advancing, the Peruvians, some

six years after their first entering the country, firmly

established themselves in the valley of Chili, at a distance

of more than 200 leagues from the frontier of Atacama. The

'Children of the Sun' had met thus far with little resistance,

and, encouraged by success, they marched their victorious

armies against the Purumancians, a warlike people living

beyond the river Rapel." Here they were desperately resisted,

in a battle which lasted three days, and from which both

armies withdrew, undefeated and unvictorious. On learning this

result, the Inca Yupanqui ordered his generals to relinquish

all attempts at further conquest, and to "seek, by the

introduction of wise laws, and by instructing the people in

agriculture and the arts, to establish themselves more firmly

in the territory already acquired. To what extent the

Peruvians were successful in the endeavor to ingraft their

civilization, religion, and customs upon the Chilians, it is

at this distant day impossible to determine, since the

earliest historians differ widely on the subject.

{412}

Certain it is, that on the arrival of the Spaniards the Incas,

at least nominally, ruled the country, and received an annual

tribute of gold from the people. In the year 1535, after the

death of the unfortunate Inca Atahuallpa, Diego Almagro, fired

by the love of glory and the thirst for gold, yielded to the

solicitations of Francisco Pizarro, the conqueror of Peru, and

set out for the subjection of Chili, which, as yet, had not

been visited by any European. His army consisted of 570

Spaniards, well equipped, and 15,000 Peruvian auxiliaries.

Regardless of difficulties and dangers this impetuous soldier

selected the near route that lay along the summits of the

Andes, in preference to the more circuitous road passing

through the desert of Atacama. Upon the horrors of this march,

of which so thrilling an account is given by Prescott in the

'Conquest of Peru,' it is unnecessary for us to dwell; suffice

it to state that, on reaching Copiapo no less than one-fourth

of his Spanish troops, and two-thirds of his Indian

auxiliaries, had perished from the effects of cold, fatigue

and starvation. ... Everywhere the Spaniards met with a

friendly reception from the natives, who regarded them as a

superior race of beings, and the after conquest of the country

would probably have been attended with no difficulty had a

conciliatory policy been adopted; but this naturally

inoffensive people, aroused by acts of the most barbarous

cruelty, soon flew to arms. Despite the opposition of the

natives, who were now rising in every direction to oppose his

march, Almagro kept on, overcoming every obstacle, until he

reached the river Cachapoal, the northern boundary of the

Purumancian territory." Here he met with so stubborn and

effective a resistance that he abandoned his expedition and

returned to Peru, where, soon after, he lost his life [see

PERU: A. D. 1533-1548] in a contest with the Pizarros.

"Pizarro, ever desirous of conquering Chili, in 1540

dispatched Pedro Valdivia for that purpose, with some 200

Spanish soldiers and a large body of Peruvians;" The invasion

of Valdivia was opposed from the moment he entered the

country; but he pushed on until he reached the river Mapoclio,

and "encamped upon the site of the present capital of Chili.

Valdivia, finding the location pleasant, and the surrounding

plain fertile, here founded a city on the 24th of February,

1541. To this first European settlement in Chili he gave the

name of Santiago, in honor of the patron saint of Spain. He

laid out the town in Spanish style; and as a place of refuge

in case of attack, erected a fort upon a steep rocky hill,

rising some 200 feet above the plain." The Mapochins soon

attacked the infant town, drove its people to the fort and

burned their settlement; but were finally repulsed with

dreadful slaughter. "On the arrival of a second army from

Peru, Valdivia, whose ambition had always been to conquer the

southern provinces of Chili, advanced into the country of the

Purumancians. Here history is probably defective, as we have

no account of any battles fought with these brave people. ...

We simply learn that the Spanish leader eventually gained

their good-will, and established with them an alliance both

offensive and defensive. ... In the following year (1546) the

Spanish forces crossed the river Maulé, the southern boundary

of the Purumancians, and advanced toward the Itata. While

encamped near the latter river, they were attacked at dead of

night by a body of Araucanians. So unexpected was the approach

of this new enemy, that many of the horses were captured, and

the army with difficulty escaped total destruction. After this

terrible defeat, Valdivia finding himself unable to proceed,

returned to Santiago." Soon afterwards he went to Peru for

reinforcements and was absent two years; but came back, at the

end of that time, with a large band of followers, and marched

to the South. "Reaching the bay of Talcahuano without having

met with any opposition, on the 5th of October, 1550, he

founded the city of Concepcion on a site at present known as

Penco." The Araucanians, advancing boldly upon the Spaniards

at Concepcion, were defeated in a furious battle which cost

the invaders many lives. Three years later, in December, 1553,

the Araucanians had their revenge, routing the Spaniards

utterly and pursuing them so furiously that only two of their

whole army escaped. Valdivia was among the prisoners taken and

was slain. Again and again, under the lead of a youthful hero,

Lautaro, and a vigorous toqui, or chief, named Caupolican, the

Araucanians assailed the invaders of their country with

success; but the latter increased in numbers and gained

ground, at last, for a time, building towns and extending

settlements in the Araucanian territory. The indomitable

people were not broken in spirit, however; and in 1598, by an

universal and simultaneous rising, they expelled the Spaniards

from almost every settlement they had made. "In 1602 ... of

the numerous Spanish forts and settlements south of the

Bio-Bio, Nacimiento and Arauco only had not fallen. Valdivia

and Osorno were afterward rebuilt. About the same time a fort

was erected at Boroa. This fort was soon after abandoned.

Valdivia, Osorno, Nacimiento, and Arauco still remain. But of

all the 'cities of the plain' lying within the boundaries of

the haughty Araucanians, not one ever rose from its ashes;

their names exist only in history; and the sites where they

once flourished are now marked by ill-defined and grass-grown

ruins. From the period of their fall dates the independence of

the Araucanian nation; for though a hundred years more were

wasted in the vain attempt to reconquer the heroic people ...

the Spaniards, weary of constant war, and disheartened by the

loss of so much blood and treasure, were finally compelled to

sue for peace; and in 1724 a treaty was ratified,

acknowledging their freedom, and establishing the limits of

their territory."

E. H. Smith, The Araucanians, chapter 11-14.

ALSO IN:

R. G. Watson, Spanish and Portuguese S. Am.,

volume 1, chapter 12-14.

J. I. Molina; Geographical, Natural and Civil History of Chili,

volume 2, book 1, 3-4.

CHILE: A. D. 1568.

The Audiencia established.

See AUDIENCIAS.

{413}

CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.

The achievement of independence.

San Martin, the Liberator.

"Chili first threw off the Spanish yoke in September, 1810 [on

the pretext of fidelity to the Bourbon king dethroned by

Napoleon], but the national independence was not fully

established till April 1818. During the intermediate period,

the dissensions of the different parties; their disputes as to

the form of government and the law of election; with other

distracting causes, arising out of the ambition of turbulent

individuals, and the inexperience of the whole nation in

political affairs; so materially retarded the union of the

country, that the Spaniards, by sending expeditions from Peru,

were enabled, in 1814, to regain their lost authority in

Chili. Meanwhile the Government of Buenos Ayres, the

independence of which had been established in 1810 [see

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820], naturally dreaded that

the Spaniards would not long be confined to the western side

of the Andes; but would speedily make a descent upon the

provinces of the River Plate, of which Buenos Ayres is the

capital. In order to guard against this formidable danger,

they bravely resolved themselves to become the invaders, and

by great exertions equipped an army of 4,000 men. The command

of this force was given to General Don José de San Martin, a

native of the town of Yapeyu in Paraguay; a man greatly

beloved by all ranks, and held in such high estimation by the

people, that to his personal exertions the formation of this

army is chiefly due. With these troops San Martin entered

Chili by a pass over the Andes heretofore deemed inaccessible,

and on the 12th of February, 1817, attacked and completely

defeated the royal army at Chacabuco. The Chilians, thus freed

from the immediate presence of the enemy, elected General

O'Higgins [see PERU: A. D. 1550-1816] as Director; and he, in

1818, offered the Chilians a constitution, and nominated five

senators to administer the affairs of the country. This

meritorious officer, an Irishman by descent, though born in

Chili, has ever since [1825] remained at the head of the

government. It was originally proposed to elect General San

Martin as Director; but this he steadily refused, proposing

his companion in arms, O'Higgins, in his stead. The remnant of

the Spanish army took refuge in Talcuhuana, a fortified

sea-port near Conception, on the southern frontier of Chili.

Vigorous measures were taken to reduce this place, but, in the

beginning of 1818, the Viceroy of Peru, by draining that

province of its best troops, sent off a body of 5,000 men

under General Osorio, who succeeded in joining the Spaniards

shut up in Talcuhuana. Thus reinforced, the Royal army,

amounting in all to 8,000, drove back the Chilians, marched on

the capital, and gained other considerable advantages;

particularly in a night attack at Talca, on the 19th of March

1818, where the Royalists almost entirely dispersed the

Patriot forces. San Martin, however, who, after the battle of

Chacabuco, had been named Commander-in-chief of the united

armies of Chili and Buenos Ayres," rallied his army and

equipped it anew so quickly that, "on the 5th of April, only

17 days after his defeat, he engaged, and, after an obstinate

and sanguinary conflict, completely routed the Spanish army on

the plains of Maypo. From that day Chili may date her complete

independence; for although a small portion of the Spanish

troops endeavoured to make a stand at Conception, they were

soon driven out and the country left in the free possession of

the Patriots. Having now time to breathe, the Chilian

Government, aided by that of Buenos Ayres, determined to

attack the Royalists in their turn, by sending an armament

against Peru [see PERU; A. D. 1820-1826]--a great and bold

measure, originating with San Martin."

Capt. B. Hall, Extracts from a Journal, volume 1, chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

J. Miller, Memoirs of General Miller, chapter 4-7 (volume 1).

T. Sutcliffe, Sixteen Years in Chili and Peru chapter 2-4.

Gen. B. Mitre, The Emancipation of S. America:

History of an Martin.

CHILE: A. D. 1820-1826.

Operations in Peru.

See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.

A successful oligarchy and its constitution.

The war with Peru and Bolivia.

"After the perfection of its national independence, the

Chilean government soon passed into the permanent control of

civilians, 'while the other governments of the west coast

remained prizes for military chieftains.' Its present

constitution was framed in 1833, and though it is only half a

century old 'it is the oldest written national constitution in

force in all the world except our own, unless the Magna Charta

of England be included in the category.' The political history

of Chile during the fifty years of its life has been that of a

well ordered commonwealth, but one of a most unusual and

interesting sort. Its government has never been forcibly

overthrown, and only one serious attempt at revolution has

been made. Chile is in name and in an important sense a

republic, and yet its government is an oligarchy. Suffrage is

restricted to those male citizens who are registered, who are

twenty-five years old if unmarried and twenty-one if married,

and who can read and write; and there is also a stringent

property qualification. The consequence is that the privilege

of voting is confined to an aristocracy: in 1876, the total

number of ballots thrown for president was only 46,114 in a

population of about two and a quarter millions. The president

of Chile has immense powers of nomination and appointment, and

when he is a man of vigorous will he tyrannically sways public

policy, and can almost always dictate the name of his

successor. The government has thus become practically vested

in a comparatively small number of leading Chilean families.

There is no such thing as 'public opinion' in the sense in

which we use the phrase, and the newspapers, though ably

conducted, do not attempt, as they do not desire, to change

the existing order of things. 'History,' says Mr. Browne,

'does not furnish an example of a more powerful political

"machine" under the title of republic; nor, I am bound to say,

one which has been more ably directed so far as concerns the

aggrandizement of the country, or more honestly administered

so far as concerns pecuniary corruption.' The population of

Chile doubled between 1843 and 1875; the quantity of land

brought under tillage was quadrupled; ... more than 1,000

miles of railroad were built; a foreign export trade of

$31,695,039 was reported in 1878; and two powerful iron-clads,

which were destined to playa most important part in Chilean

affairs, were built in England. Meanwhile, the constitution

was officially interpreted so as to guarantee religious

toleration, and the political power of the Roman Catholic

priesthood diminished. Almost everything good, except home

manufactures and popular education, flourished. The

development of the nation in these years was on a wonderful

scale for a South American state, and the contrast between

Chile and Peru was peculiarly striking. ... Early in 1879

began the great series of events which were to make the

fortune of Chile. We use the word 'great,' in its low,

superficial sense, and without the attribution of any moral

significance to the adjective.

{414}

The aggressor in the war between Chile and Peru was inspired

by the most purely selfish motives, and it remains to be seen

whether the just gods will not win in the long run, even

though the game of their antagonists be played with heavily

plated iron-clads. ... At the date last mentioned Chile was

suffering, like many other nations, from a general depression

in business pursuits. Its people were in no serious trouble,

but as a government it was in a bad way. ... The means to keep

up a sinking fund for the foreign debt had failed, and the

Chilean five per cents were quoted in London at sixty-four. 'A

political cloud also was darkening again in the north, in the

renewal of something like a confederation between Peru and

Bolivia.' In this state of things the governing oligarchy of

Chile decided, rather suddenly, Mr. Browne thinks, upon a

scheme which was sure to result either in splendid prosperity

or absolute ruin, and which contemplated nothing less than a

war of conquest against Peru and Bolivia, with a view to

seizing the most valuable territory of the former country.

There is a certain strip of land bordering upon the Pacific

and about 400 miles long, of which the northern three quarters

belonged to Peru and Bolivia, the remaining one quarter to

Chile. Upon this land a heavy rain never falls, and often

years pass in which the soil does not feel a shower. ... Its

money value is immense. 'From this region the world derives

almost its whole supply of nitrates--chiefly saltpetre--and

of iodine;' its mountains, also, are rich in metals, and great

deposits of guano are found in the highlands bordering the

sea. The nitrate-bearing country is a plain, from fifty to

eighty miles wide, the nitrate lying in layers just below a

thin sheet of impacted stones, gravel, and sand. The export of

saltpetre from this region was valued in 1882 at nearly

$30,000,000, and the worth of the Peruvian section, which is

much the largest and most productive, is estimated, for

government purposes, at a capital of $600,000,000. Chile was,

naturally, well aware of the wealth which lay so close to her

own doors, and to possess herself thereof, and thus to

rehabilitate her national fortunes, she addressed herself to

war. The occasion for war was easily found. Bolivia was first

attacked, a difficulty which arose at her port of Antofagasta,

with respect to her enforcement of a tax upon some nitrate

works carried on by a Chilean company, affording a good

pretext; and when Peru attempted intervention her envoy was

confronted with Chile's knowledge of a secret treaty between

Peru and Bolivia, and war was formally declared by Chile upon

Peru, April 5, 1879. This war lasted, with some breathing

spaces, for almost exactly five years. At the outset the two

belligerent powers--Bolivia being soon practically out of the

contest--seemed to be about equal in ships, soldiers, and

resources; but the supremacy which Chile soon gained upon the

seas substantially determined the war in her favor. Each

nation owned two powerful iron-clads, and six months were

employed in settling the question of naval superiority. ... On

the 21st of May, 1879, the Peruvian fleet attacked and almost

destroyed the Chilean wooden frigates which were blockading

Iquique; but in chasing a Chilean corvette the larger Peruvian

iron-clad--the Independencia--ran too near the shore, and was

fatally wrecked. 'So Peru lost one of her knights. The game

she played with the other--the Huascar--was admirable, but a

losing one;' and on the 8th of October of the same year the

Huascar was attacked by the Chilean fleet, which included two

iron-clads, and was finally captured' after a desperate

resistance.'... From this moment the Peruvian coast was at

Chile's mercy: the Chilean arms prevailed in every pitched

battle, at San Francisco [November 16, 1879], at Tacna [May

26, 1880], at Arica [June 7, 1880]; and finally, on the 17th

of January, 1881, after a series of actions which resembled in

some of their details the engagements that preceded our

capture of the city of Mexico [ending in what is known as the

Battle of Miraflores], the victorious army of Chile took

possession of Lima, the capital of Peru. ... The results of

the war have thus far exceeded the wildest hopes of Chile. She

has taken absolute possession of the whole nitrate region, has

cut Bolivia off from the sea, and achieved the permanent

dissolution of the Peru-Bolivian confederation. As a

consequence, her foreign trade has doubled, the revenue of her

government has been trebled, and the public debt greatly

reduced. The Chilean bonds, which were sold at 64 in London in

January, 1879, and fell to 60 in March of that year, at the

announcement of the war, were quoted at 95 in January, 1884."

The Growing Power of the Republic of Chile (Atlantic

Monthly, July, 1884).

ALSO IN:

H. Birkedal, The late War in South America (Overland Monthly,

January, February, and March, 1884).

C. R. Markham, The War between Peru and Chile.

R. N. Boyd, Chile, chapter 16-17.

Message of the President of the U. S., transmitting Papers

relating to the War in South America, January 26, 1882.

T. W. Knox, Decisive Battles since Waterloo; chapter 23.

See, also, PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.

CHILE: A. D. 1885-1891.

The presidency and dictatorship of Balmaceda.

His conflict with the Congress.

Civil war.

"Save in the one struggle in which the parties resorted to

arms, the political development of Chili was free from civil

disturbances, and the ruling class was distinguished among the

Spanish-American nations not only for wealth and education,

but for its talent for government and love of constitutional

liberty. The republic was called 'the England of South

America,' and it was a common boast that in Chili a

pronunciamiento or a revolution was impossible. The spirit of

modern Liberalism became more prevalent, ... As the Liberal

party became all-powerful it split into factions, divided by

questions of principle and by struggles for leadership and

office. ... The patronage of the Chilian President is

enormous, embracing not only the general civil service, but

local officials, except in the municipalities, and all

appointments in the army and navy and in the telegraph and

railroad services and the giving out of contracts. The

President has always been able to select his successor, and

has exercised this power, usually in harmony with the wishes

of influential statesmen, sometimes calling a conference of

party chiefs to decide on a candidate. In the course of time

the more advanced wing of the Liberals grew more numerous than

the Moderates. The most radical section had its nucleus in a

Reform Club in Santiago, composed of young university men, of

whom Balmaceda was the finest orator. Entering Congress in

1868, he took a leading part in debates. ...

{415}

In 1885 he was the most popular man in the country; but his

claim to the presidential succession was contested by various

other aspirants--older politicians and leaders of factions

striving for supremacy in Congress. He was elected by an

overwhelming majority, and as President enjoyed an unexampled

degree of popularity. For two or three years the politicians

who had been his party associates worked in harmony with his

ideas. ... At the flood of the democratic tide he was the most

popular man in South America. But when the old territorial

families saw the seats in Congress and the posts in the civil

service that had been their prerogative filled by new men, and

fortunes made by upstarts where all chances had been at their

disposal, then a reaction set in, corruption was scented, and

Moderate Liberals, joining hands with the Nationalists and the

reviving Conservative party, formed an opposition of

respectable strength. In the earlier part of his

administration Balmaceda had the co-operation of the

Nationalists, who were represented in the Cabinet. In the last

two years of his term, when the time drew near for selecting

his successor, defection and revolt and the rivalries of

aspirants for the succession threw the party into disorder and

angered its hitherto unquestioned leader. ... In January,

1890, the Opposition were strong enough to place their

candidate in the chair when the House of Representatives

organized. The ministry resigned, and a conflict between the

Executive and legislative branches of the Government was

openly begun when the President appointed a Cabinet of his own

selection. ... This ministry had to face an overwhelming

majority against the President, which treated him as a

dictator and began to pass hostile laws and resolutions that

were vetoed, and refused to consider the measures that he

recommended. The ministers were cited before the Chambers and

questioned about the manner of their appointment. They either

declined to answer, or answered in a way that increased the

animosity of Congress, which finally passed a vote of censure,

in obedience to which, as was usual, the Cabinet resigned.

Then Balmaceda appointed a ministry in open defiance of

Congress, with Sanfuentes at its head, the man who was already

spoken of as his selected candidate for the presidency. He

prepared for the struggle that he invited by removing the

chiefs of the administration of the departments and replacing

them with men devoted to himself and his policy, and making

changes in the police, the militia, and, to some extent, in

the army and navy commands. The press denounced him as a

dictator, and indignation meetings were held in every town.

Balmaceda and his supporters pretended to be not only the

champions of the people against the aristocracy, but of the

principle of Chili for the Chilians."

Appleton's Annual Cyclop., 1891, pages 123-124.

"The conflict between President Balmaceda and Congress ripened

into revolution. On January 1, 1891, the Opposition members of

the Senate and House of Deputies met, and signed an Act

declaring that the President was unworthy of his post, and

that he was no longer head of the State nor President of the

Republic, as he had violated the Constitution. On January 7

the navy declared in favour of the Legislature, and against

Balmaceda. The President denounced the navy as traitors,

abolished all the laws of the country, declared himself

Dictator, and proclaimed martial law. It was a reign of

terror. The Opposition recruited an army in the Island of

Santa Maria under General Urrutia and Commander Canto. On

February 14 a severe fight took place with the Government

troops in Iquique, and the Congressional army took possession

of Pisagua. In April, President Balmaceda ... delivered a long

message, denouncing the navy. ... The contest continued, and

April 7, Arica, in the province of Tarapaca, was taken by the

revolutionists. Some naval fights occurred later, and the

iron-clad Blanco Encalada was blown up by the Dictator's

torpedo cruisers. Finally, on August 21, General Canto landed

at Concon, ten miles north of Valparaiso. Balmaceda's forces

attacked immediately and were routed, losing 3,500 killed and

wounded. The Congress army lost 600. On the 28th a decisive

battle was fought at Placilla, near Valparaiso. The Dictator

had 12,000 troops, and the opposing army 10,000. Balmaceda's

forces were completely routed after five hours' hard fighting,

with a loss of 1,500 men. Santiago formally surrendered, and

the triumph of the Congress party was complete. A Junta,

headed by Señor Jorge Montt, took charge of affairs at

Valparaiso August 30. Balmaceda, who had taken refuge at the

Argentine Legation in Santiago, was not able to make his

escape, and to avoid capture, trial, and punishment, committed

suicide, September 20, by shooting himself. On the 19th

November Admiral Jorge Montt was chosen by the Electoral

College, at Santiago, President of Chili, and on December 26

he was installed with great ceremony and general rejoicings."

Annual Register, 1891, page 420.

CHILIARCHS.

Captains of thousands, in the army of the Vandals.

T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, book 3, chapter 2.

CHILLIANWALLAH, Battle of (1849).

See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849.

CHILPERIC I.,

King of the Franks (Neustria), A. D. 561-584.

Chilperic II., King of the Franks, A. D. 715-720.

CHILTERN HUNDREDS,

Applying for the Stewardship of the.

A seat in the British House of Commons "cannot be resigned,

nor can a man who has once formally taken his seat for one

constituency throw it up and contest another. Either a

disqualification must be incurred, or the House must declare

the seat vacant." The necessary disqualification can be

incurred by accepting an office of profit under the

Crown,--within certain official categories. "Certain old

offices of nominal value in the gift of the Treasury are now

granted, as of course, to members who wish to resign their

seats in order to be quit of Parliamentary duties or to

contest another constituency. These offices are the

Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds [Crown property in

Buckinghamshire], of the manors of East Hendred, Northstead,

or Hempholme, and the escheatorship of Munster. The office is

resigned as soon as it has operated to vacate the seat and

sever the tie between the member and his constituents."

Sir W. R. Anson, Law and Custom of the Const.,

volume 1, page 84.

CHIMAKUAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHIMAKUAN FAMILY.

CHIMARIKAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHIMARIKAN FAMILY.

{416}

CHINA:

The names of the Country.

"That spacious seat of ancient civilization which we call

China has loomed always so large to western eyes, ... that, at

eras far apart, we find it to have been distinguished by

different appellations according as it was regarded as the

terminus of a southern sea-route coasting the great peninsulas

and islands of Asia, or as that of a northern land route

traversing the longitude of that continent. In the former

aspect the name applied has nearly always been some form of

the name Sin, Chin, Sinæ, China. In the latter point of view

the region in question was known to the ancients as the land

of the Seres; the middle ages as the Empire of Cathay. The

name of China has been supposed, like many another word and

name connected with trade and geography of the far east, to

have come to us through the Malays, and to have been applied

by them to the great eastern monarchy from the style of the

dynasty of Thsin, which a little more than two centuries

before our era enjoyed a brief but very vigorous existence.

... There are reasons however for believing that the name of

China must have been bestowed at a much earlier date, for it

occurs in the laws of Manu, which assert the Chinas to have

been degenerate Kshatryas, and in the Mahabharat, compositions

many centuries older than the imperial dynasty of Thsin. ...

This name may have yet possibly been connected with the Thsin,

or some monarchy of like dynastic title; for that dynasty had

reigned locally in Shensi from the 9th century before our era;

and when, at a still earlier date, the empire was partitioned

into many small kingdoms, we find among them the dynasties of

the Tcin and the Ching. ... Some at least of the circumstances

which have been collected ... render it the less improbable that

the Sinim of the prophet Isaiah ... should be truly

interpreted as indicating the Chinese. The name of China in

this form was late in reaching the Greeks and Romans, and to

them it probably came through people of Arabian speech, as the

Arabs, being without the sound of 'ch,' made the China of the

Hindus and Malays into Sin, and perhaps sometimes into Thin.

Hence the Thin of the author of the Periplus of the Erythraean

Sea, who appears to be the first extant author to employ the

name in this form; hence also the Sinæ and Thinæ of Ptolemy.

.. . . If we now turn to the Seres we find this name mentioned

by classic authors much more frequently and at an earlier date

by at least a century. The name is familiar enough to the

Latin poets of the Augustan age, but always in a vague way.

... The name of Seres is probably from its earliest use in the

west identified with the name of the silkworm and its produce,

and this association continued until the name ceased entirely

to be used as a geographical expression. ... It was in the

days of the Mongols ... that China first became really known

to Europe, and that by a name which, though especially applied

to the northern provinces, also came to bear a more general

application, Cathay. This name, Khitai, is that by which China

is styled to this day by all, or nearly all, the nations which

know it from an inland point of view, including the Russians,

the Persians, and the nations of Turkestan; and yet it

originally belonged to a people who were not Chinese at all.

The Khitans were a people of Manchu race, who inhabited for

centuries a country to the north-east of China." During a

period between the 10th and 12th centuries, the Khitans

acquired supremacy over their neighbours and established an

empire which embraced Northern China and the adjoining regions

of Tartary. "It must have been during this period, ending with

the overthrow of the dynasty [called the Leao or Iron Dynasty]

in 1123, and whilst this northern monarchy was the face which

the Celestial Empire turned to Inner Asia, that the name of

Khitan, Khitat, or Khitaï, became indissolubly associated with

China."

H. Yule, Cathay and the Way Thither: Preliminary

Essay.

CHINA:

The Origin of the People and their early History.

"The origin of the Chinese race is shrouded in some obscurity.

The first records we have of them represent them as a band of

immigrants settling in the north-eastern provinces of the

modern empire of China, and fight their way amongst the

aborigines, much as the Jews of old forced their way into

Canaan against the various tribes which they found in

possession of the land. It is probable that though they all

entered China by the same route, they separated into bands

almost on the threshold of the empire, one body, those who

have left us the records of their history in the ancient

Chinese books, apparently followed the course of the Yellow

River, and, turning south-ward with it from its northernmost

bend, settled themselves in the fertile districts of the

modern provinces of Shansi and Honan. But as we find also that

at about the same period a large settlement was made as far

south as Annam, of which there is no mention in the books of

the northern Chinese, we must assume that another body struck

directly southward through the southern provinces of China to

that country. The question then arises, where did these people

come from? and the answer which recent research [see BABYLONIA

PRIMITIVE] gives to this question is, from the south of the

Caspian Sea. ... In all probability, the outbreak in Susiana

of, possibly, some political disturbance, in about the 24th or

23rd century B. C., drove the Chinese from the land of their

adoption, and that they wandered eastward until they finally

settled in China and the countries south of it. ... It would

appear also that the Chinese came into China possessed of the

resources of Western Asian culture. They brought with them a

knowledge of writing and astronomy, as well as of the arts

which primarily minister to the wants and comfort of mankind.

The invention of these civilising influences is traditionally

attributed to the Emperor Hwang-te, who is said to have

reigned from B. C. 2697-2597. But the name of this sovereign

leads us to suppose that he never sat on the throne in China.

One of his names, we are told, was Nai, anciently Nak, and in

the Chinese paleographical collection he is described by a

character composed of a group of phonetics which read

Nak-kon-ti. The resemblance between this name and that of

Nak-hunte, who, according to the Susian texts, was the chief

of the gods, is sufficiently striking, and many of the

attributes belonging to him are such as to place him on an

equality with the Susian deity.

{417}

In exact accordance also with the system of Babylonian

chronology he established a cycle of twelve years, and fixed

the length of the year at 360 days composed of twelve months,

with an intercalary month to balance the surplus time. He

further, we are told, built a Ling tai, or observatory,

reminding us of the Babylonian Zigguratu, or house of

observation, 'from which to watch the movements of the

heavenly bodies.' The primitive Chinese, like the Babylonians,

recognised five planets besides the sun and moon, and, with

one exception, knew them by the same names. ... The various

phases of these planets were carefully watched, and portents

were derived from every real and imaginary change in their

relative positions and colours. A comparison between the

astrological tablets translated by Professor Sayce and the

astrological chapter (27th) in the She ke, the earliest of the

Dynastic Histories, shows a remarkable parallelism, not only

in the general style of the forecasts, but in particular

portents which are so contrary to Chinese prejudices, as a

nation, and the train of thought of the people that they would

be at once put down as of foreign origin, even if they were

not found in the Babylonian records. ... In the reign of Chwan

Hu (2513-2435 B. C.), we find according to the Chinese

records, that the year, as among the Chaldeans, began with the

third month of the solar year, and a comparison between the

ancient names of the months given in the Urh ya, the oldest

Chinese dictionary, with the Accadian equivalents, shows, in

some instances, an exact identity. ... These parallelisms,

together with a host of others which might be produced, all

point to the existence of an early relationship between

Chinese and Mesopotamian culture; and, armed with the

advantages thus possessed, the Chinese entered into the empire

over which they were ultimately to overspread themselves. But

they came among tribes who, though somewhat inferior to them

in general civilisation, were by no means destitute of

culture. ... Among such people, and others of a lower

civilisation, such as the Jungs of the west and the Teks, the

ancestors of the Tekke Turcomans, in the north, the Chinese

succeeded in establishing themselves. The Emperor Yaou

(2356-2255 B. C.) divided his kingdom into twelve portions,

presided over by as many Pastors, in exact imitation of the

duodenary feudal system of Susa with their twelve Pastor

Princes. To Yaou succeeded Shun, who carried on the work of

his predecessor of consolidating the Chinese power with energy

and success. In his reign the first mention is made of

religious worship. ... In Shun's reign occurred the great

flood which inundated most of the provinces of the existing

empire. The waters, we are told, rose to so great a height,

that the people had to betake themselves to the mountains to

escape death. The disaster arose, as many similar disasters,

though of a less magnitude, have since arisen, in consequence

of the Yellow River bursting its bounds, and the 'Great Yu'

was appointed to lead the waters back to their channel. With

unremitting energy he set about his task, and in nine years

succeeded in bringing the river under control. ... As a reward

for the services he had rendered to the empire, he was

invested with the principality of Hea, and after having

occupied the throne conjointly with Shun for some years, he

succeeded that sovereign on his death, in 2208 B. C. With Yu

began the dynasty of Hea, which gave place, in 1766 B. C., to

the Shang Dynasty. The last sovereign of the Hea line, Kieh

kwei, is said to have been a monster of iniquity, and to have

suffered the just punishment for his crimes at the hands of

T'ang, the prince of the State of Shang, who took his throne

from him. In like manner, 640 years later, Woo Wang, the

prince of Chow, overthrew Chow Sin, the last of the Shang

Dynasty, and established himself as the chief of the sovereign

state of the empire. By empire it must not be supposed that

the empire, as it exists at present, is meant. The China of

the Chow Dynasty lay between the 33rd and 38th parallels of

latitude, and the 106th and 119th of longitude only, and

extended over no more than portions of the provinces of Pih

chih-li, Shanse, Shense, Honan, Keang-se, and Shan-tung. This

territory was re-arranged by Woo Wang into the nine

principalities established by Yu. ... Woo is held up in

Chinese history as one of the model monarchs of antiquity. ...

Under the next ruler, K'ang (B. C. 1078-1053), the empire was

consolidated, and the feudal princes one and all acknowledged

their allegiance to the ruling house of Chow. ... From all

accounts there speedily occurred a marked degeneracy in the

characters of the Chow kings. ... Already a spirit of

lawlessness was spreading far and wide among the princes and

nobles, and wars and rumours of wars were creating misery and

unrest throughout the country. ... The hand of every man was

against his neighbour, and a constant state of internecine war

succeeded the peace and prosperity which had existed under the

rule of Woo-wang. ... As time went on and the disorder

increased, supernatural signs added their testimony to the

impending crisis. The brazen vessels upon which Yu had

engraved the nine divisions of the empire were observed to

shake and totter as though foreshadowing the approaching

change in the political position. Meanwhile Ts'in on the

northwest, Ts'oo on the south, and Tsin on the north, having

vanquished all the other states, engaged in the final struggle

for the mastery over the confederate principalities. The

ultimate victory rested with the state of Ts'in, and in 255 B.

C., Chaou-seang Wang became the acknowledged ruler over the

'black-haired' people. Only four years were given him to reign

supreme, and at the end of that time he was succeeded by his

son, Heaou-wan Wang, who died almost immediately on ascending

the throne. To him succeeded Chwang-seang Wang, who was

followed in 246 B. C. by Che Hwang-te, the first Emperor of

China. The abolition of feudalism, which was the first act of

Che Hwang-to raised much discontent among those to whom the

feudal system had brought power and emoluments, and the

countenance which had been given to the system by Confucius

and Mencius made it desirable--so thought the emperor--to

demolish once for all their testimony in favour of that

condition of affairs, which he had decreed should be among the

things of the past. With this object he ordered that the whole

existing literature, with the exception of books on medicine,

agriculture, and divination should be burned. The decree was

obeyed as faithfully as was possible in the case of so

sweeping an ordinance, and for many years a night of ignorance

rested on the country. The construction of one gigantic

work--the Great Wall of China--has made the name of this

monarch as famous as the destruction of the books has made it

infamous.

{418}

Finding the Heung-nu Tartars were making dangerous inroads

into the empire, he determined with characteristic

thoroughness to build a huge barrier which should protect the

northern frontier of the empire through all time. In 214 B. C.

the work was begun under his personal supervision, and though

every endeavor was made to hasten its completion he died (209)

leaving it unfinished. His death was the signal for an

outbreak among the dispossessed feudal princes, who, however,

after some years of disorder, were again reduced to the rank

of citizens by a successful leader, who adopted the title of

Kaou-te, and named his dynasty that of Han (206). From that

day to this, with occasional interregnums, the empire has been

ruled on the lines laid down by Che Hwang-te. Dynasty has

succeeded dynasty, but the political tradition has remained

unchanged, and though Mongols and Manchoos have at different

times wrested the throne from its legitimate heirs, they have

been engulfed in the homogeneous mass inhabiting the empire,

and instead of impressing their seal on the country have

become but the reflection of the vanquished. The dynasties

from the beginning of the earlier Han, founded, as stated

above, by Kaou-te, are as follows:

The earlier Han Dynasty B. C. 206-A. D. 25;

the late Han A. D. 25-220;

the Wei 220-280;

the western Tsin 265-317;

the eastern Tsin 317-420;

the Sung 420-479;

the Ts'e 479-502;

the Leang 502-557;

the Ch'in 557-589.

Simultaneously with these--

the northern Wei A. D. 386-534;

the western Wei 535-557;

the eastern Wei 534-550;

the northern Ts'e 550-577;

the northern Chow 557-589.

The Suy 589-618;

the T'ang 618-907;

the later Leang 907-923;

the later T'ang 923-936;

the later Tsin 936-947;

the later Han 947-951;

the later Chow 951-960,

the Sung 960-1127;

the southern Sung 1127-1280;

the Yuen 1280-1368;

the Ming 1368-1614;

the Ts'ing 1644.

Simultaneously with some of these--

the Leaou 907-1125;

the western Leaou 1125-1168;

the Kin 1115-1280.

R. K. Douglas, China, chapter 1.

ALSO IN

D.C. Boulger, History of China, volume 1-2.

CHINA:

The Religions of the People.

Confucianism.

Taouism.

Buddhism.

"The Chinese describe themselves as possessing three

religions, or more accurately, three sects, namely Joo keaou,

the sect of Scholars; Fuh keaou, the sect of Buddha; and Taou

keaou, the sect of Taou. Both as regards age and origin, the

sect of Scholars, or, as it is generally called, Confucianism,

represents pre-eminently the religion of China. It has its root

in the worship of Shang-te, a deity which is associated with

the earliest traditions of the Chinese race. Hwang-te (2697 B.

C.) erected a temple to his honour, and succeeding emperors

worshipped before his shrine. ... During the troublous times

which followed after the reign of the few first sovereigns of

the Chow Dynasty, the belief in a personal deity grew

indistinct and dim, until, when Confucius [born B. C. 551]

began his career, there appeared nothing strange in his

atheistic doctrines. He never in any way denied the existence

of Shang-te, but he ignored him. His concern was with man as a

member of society, and the object of his teaching was to lead

him into those paths of rectitude which might best contribute

to his own happiness, and to the well-being of that community

of which he formed part. Man, he held, was born good, and was

endowed with qualities which, when cultivated and improved by

watchfulness and self-restraint, might enable him to acquire

godlike wisdom and to become 'the equal of Heaven.' He divided

mankind into four classes, viz., those who are born with the

possession of knowledge; those who learn, and so readily get

possession of knowledge; those who are dull and stupid, and

yet succeed in learning; and, lastly, those who are dull and

stupid, and yet do not learn. To all these, except those of

the last class, the path to the climax reached by the 'Sage'

is open. Man has only to watch, listen to, understand, and

obey the moral sense implanted in him by Heaven, and the

highest perfection is within his reach. ... In this system

there is no place for a personal God. The impersonal Heaven,

according to Confucius, implants a pure nature in every being

at his birth, but, having done this, there is no further

supernatural interference with the thoughts and deeds of men.

It is in the power of each one to perfect his nature, and

there is no divine influence to restrain those who take the

downward course. Man has his destiny in his own hands, to make

or to mar. Neither had Confucius any inducement to offer to

encourage men in the practice of virtue, except virtue's self.

He was a matter-of-fact, unimaginative man, who was quite

content to occupy himself with the study of his fellow-men,

and was disinclined to grope into the future or to peer

upwards. No wonder that his system, as he enunciated it,

proved a failure. Eagerly he sought in the execution of his

official duties to effect the regeneration of the empire, but

beyond the circle of his personal disciples he found few

followers, and as soon as princes and statesmen had satisfied

their curiosity about him they turned their backs on his

precepts and would [have] none of his reproofs. Succeeding

ages, recognising the loftiness of his aims, eliminated all

that was impracticable and unreal in his system, and held fast

to that part of it that was true and good. They were content

to accept the logic of events, and to throw overboard the

ideal 'sage,' and to ignore the supposed potency of his

influence; but they clung to the doctrines of filial piety,

brotherly love, and virtuous living. It was admiration for the

emphasis which he laid on these and other virtues which has

drawn so many millions of men unto him; which has made his

tomb at Keo-foo heen to be the Mecca of Confucianism, and has

adorned every city of the empire with temples built in his

honour. ... Concurrently with the lapse of pure Confucianism,

and the adoption of those principles which find their earliest

expression in the pre-Confucian classics of China, there is

observable a return to the worship of Shang-te. The most

magnificent temple in the empire is the Temple of Heaven at

Peking, where the highest object of Chinese worship is adored

with the purest rites. ... What is popularly known in Europe

as Confucianism is, therefore, Confucianism with the

distinctive opinions of Confucius omitted. ... But this

worship of Shang-te is confined only to the emperor. The

people have no lot or heritage in the sacred acts of worship

at the Altar of Heaven. ... Side by side with the revival of

the Joo keaou, under the influence of Confucius, grew up a

system of a totally different nature, and which, when divested

of its esoteric doctrines, and reduced by the

practically-minded Chinamen to a code of morals, was destined

in future ages to become affiliated with the teachings of the Sage.

{419}

This was Taouism, which was founded by Laou-tsze, who was a

contemporary of Confucius. An air of mystery hangs over the

history of Laou-tsze. Of his parentage we know nothing, and

the historians, in their anxiety to conceal their ignorance of

his earlier years, shelter themselves behind the legend that

he was born an old man. ... The primary meaning of Taou is

'The way,' 'The path,' but in Laou-tsze's philosophy it was

more than the way, it was the way-goer as well. It was an

eternal road; along it all beings and things walked; it was

everything and nothing, and the cause and effect of all. All

things originated from Taou, conformed to Taou, and to Taou at

last returned. ... 'If, then, we had to express the meaning of

Taou, we should describe it as the Absolute; the totality of

Being and Things; the phenomenal world and its order; and the

ethical nature of the good man, 'and the principle of his

action.' It was absorption into this 'Mother of all things'

that Laou-tsze aimed at. And this end was to be attained to by

self-emptiness, and by giving free scope to the uncontaminated

nature which, like Confucius, he taught was given by Heaven to

all men. ... But these subtleties, like the more abstruse

speculations of Confucius, were suited only to the taste of

the schools. To the common people they were foolishness, and,

before long, the philosophical doctrine of Laou-tsze of the

identity of existence and non-existence, assumed in their eyes

a warrant for the old Epicurean motto, 'Let us eat and drink,

for to-morrow we die.' The pleasures of sense were substituted

for the delights of virtue, and the next step was to desire

prolongation of the time when those pleasures could be

enjoyed. Legend said that Laou-tsze had secured to himself

immunity from death by drinking the elixir of immortality, and

to enjoy the same 'privilege became the all-absorbing object

of his followers. The demand for elixirs and charms produced a

supply, and Taouism quickly degenerated into a system of

magic. ... The teachings of Laou-tsze having familiarised the

Chinese mind with philosophical doctrines, which, whatever

were their direct source, bore a marked resemblance to the

musings of Indian sages, served to prepare the way for the

introduction of Buddhism. The exact date at which the Chinese

first became acquainted with the doctrines of Buddha was,

according to an author quoted in K'ang-he's Imperial

Encyclopædia, the thirtieth year of the reign of She Hwang-te,

i. e., B. C. 216. The story this writer tells of the

difficulties which the first missionaries encountered is

curious, and singularly suggestive of the narrative of St.

Peter's imprisonment."

R. K. Douglas, China, chapter 17.

ALSO IN:

R. K. Douglas, Confucianism and Taouism.

"Buddhism ... penetrated to China along the fixed route from

India to that country, round the north-west corner of the

Himalayas and across Eastern Turkestan. Already in the 2nd

year B. C., an embassy, perhaps sent by Huvishka [who reigned

in Kabul and Kashmere] took Buddhist books to the then Emperor

of China, A-ili; and the Emperor Ming-ti, 62 A. D., guided by

a dream, is said to have sent to Tartary and Central India and

brought Buddhist books to China. From this time Buddhism

rapidly spread there. ... In the fourth century Buddhism

became the state religion."

T. W. Rhys Davids, Buddhism, chapter 9.

ALSO IN

J. Legge, The Religions of China.

J. Edkins, Religion in China.

J. Edkins, Chinese Buddhism.

S. Beals, Buddhism in China.

S. Johnson, Oriental Religions: China.

CHINA: A. D. 1205-1234.

Conquest by Jingis Khan and his son.

"The conquest of China was commenced by Chinghiz [or Jingis

Khan], although it was not completed for several generations.

Already in 1205 he had invaded Tangut, a kingdom occupying the

extreme northwest of China, and extending beyond Chinese

limits in the same direction, held by a dynasty of Tibetan

race, which was or had been a vassal to the Kin. This invasion

was repeated in succeeding years; and in 1211 his attacks

extended to the Empire of the Kin itself. In 1214 he ravaged

their provinces to the Yellow River, and in the following year

took Chungtu or Peking. In 1219 he turned his arms against

Western Asia; ... but a lieutenant whom he had left behind him

in the East continued to prosecute the subjection of Northern

China. Chinghiz himself on his return from his western

conquests renewed his attack on Tangut, and died on that

enterprise, 18th August. Okkodai, the son and successor of

Chinghiz, followed up the subjugation of China, extinguished

the Kin finally in 1234 and consolidated with his Empire all

the provinces north of the Great Kiang. The Southern provinces

remained for the present subject to the Chinese dynasty of the

Sung, reigning now at Kingssé or Hangcheu. This kingdom was

known to the Tartars as Nangkiass, and also by the

quasi-Chinese title of Mangi or Manzi, made so famous by Marco

Polo and the travellers of the following age."

H. Yule, Cathay and the Way Thither.

Preliminary Essay, section 91-92.

See, also, MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.

CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.

The Empire of Kublai Khan.

Kublai, or Khubilai Khan, one of the grandsons of Jingis Khan,

who reigned as the Great Khan or Supreme lord of the Mongols

from 1259 until 1294, "was the sovereign of the largest empire

that was ever controlled by one man. China, Corea, Thibet,

Tung-King, Cochin China, a great portion of India beyond the

Ganges, the Turkish and Siberian realms from the Eastern Sea

to the Dnieper, obeyed his commands; and although the chief of

the Hordes of Jagatai and Ogatai refused to acknowledge him,

the Ilkhans of Persia ... were his feudatories. ... The

Supreme Khan had immediate authority only in Mongolia and

China. ... The capital of the Khakan, after the accession of

Khubilai, was a new city he built close to the ancient

metropolis of the Liao and Kin dynasties."

H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols, volume 1,

pages 216-283.

"Khan-Bálig (Mong., 'The Khan's city'), the Cambalu of Marco,

Peking ... was captured by Chinghiz in 1215, and in 1264

Kublai made it his chief residence. In 1267 he built a new

city, three 'li' to the north-east of the old one, to which

was given the name of Ta-tu or 'Great Court,' called by the

Mongols Daïdu, the Taydo of Odoric and Taidu of Polo, who

gives a description of its dimensions, the number of its

gates, etc., similar to that in the text. The Chinese accounts

give only eleven gates. This city was abandoned as a royal

residence on the expulsion of the Mongol dynasty in 1368, but

re-occupied in 1421 by the third Ming Emperor, who built the

walls as they now exist, reducing their extent and the number

of the gates to nine. This is what is commonly called the

'Tartar city' of the present day (called also by the Chinese

Lau-Chhing or 'Old Town'), which therefore represents the

Taydo of Odoric."

H. Yule,

Cathay and the Way Thither, volume 1, page 127, footnote.

ALSO IN

Marco Polo, Travels, with Notes by Sir H. Yule, book 2.

See, also, MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294,

and POLO, MARCO.

{420}

CHINA: A. D. 1294-1882.

Dissolution of the Empire of Kublai Khan.

The Ming dynasty and its fall.

The enthronement of the present Manchu Tartar Dynasty, of the

Tsings or Ch'ings.

The appearance of the Portuguese and the Jesuit Missionaries.

"The immediate successors of Kublai, brought up in the

luxuries of the imperial palace, the most gorgeous at that

time in the world, relied upon the prestige with which the

glory of the late emperor invested them, and never dreamed

that change could touch a dominion so vast and so solid. Some

devoted themselves to elegant literature and the improvement

of the people; later princes to the mysteries of Buddhism,

which became, in some degree, the state religion; and as the

cycle went round, the dregs of the dynasty abandoned

themselves, as usual, to priests, women, and eunuchs. ... The

distant provinces threw off their subjection; robbers ravaged

the land, and pirates the sea; a minority and a famine came at

the same moment; and in less than ninety years after its

commencement, the fall of the dynasty was only illumined by

some few flashes of dying heroism, and every armed Tartar, who

could obtain a horse to aid his flight, spurred back to his

native deserts. Some of them, of the royal race, turning to

the west, took refuge with the Manchows, and in process of

time, marrying with the families of the chiefs, intermingled

the blood of the two great tribes. The proximate cause of this

catastrophe was a Chinese of low birth, who, in the midst of

the troubles of the time, found means to raise himself by his

genius from a servile station to the leadership of a body of

the malcontents, and thence to step into the imperial throne.

The new dynasty [the Ming] began their reign with great

brilliance. The emperor carried the Tartar war into their own

country, and at home made unrelenting war upon the abuses of

his palace. He committed the mistake, however, of granting

separate principalities to the members of his house, which in

the next reign caused a civil war, and the usurpation of the

throne by an uncle of the then emperor. The usurper found it

necessary to transfer the capital to Peking, as a post of

defence against the eastern Tartars, who now made their

appearance again on this eventful stage. He was successful,

however, in his wars in the desert, and he added Tonquin and

Cochin China to the Chinese dominions. After him the fortunes

of the dynasty began to wane. The government became weaker,

the Tartars stronger, some princes attached themselves to

literature, some to Buddhism or Taoism: Cochin China revolted,

and was lost to the empire, Japan ravaged the coasts with her

privateers; famine came to add to the horrors of misrule."

Leitch Ritchie, History of the Oriental Nations,

book 7, chapter 1 (volume 2).

"From without, the Mings were constantly harassed by the

encroachments of the Tartars; from within, the ceaseless

intriguing of the eunuchs (resulting in one case in the

temporary deposition of an Emperor) was a fertile cause of

trouble. Towards the close of the 16th century the Portuguese

appeared upon the scene, and from their 'concession' at Macao,

some time the residence of Camoens, opened commercial

relations between China and the West. They brought the

Chinese, among other things, opium, which had previously been

imported overland from India. They possibly taught them how to

make gunpowder, to the invention of which the Chinese do not

seem, upon striking a balance of evidence, to possess an

independent claim. About the same time [1580] Rome contributed

the first instalment of those wonderful Jesuit fathers, whose

names may truly be said to have filled the empire 'with sounds

that echo still,' the memory of their scientific labours and

the benefits they thus conferred upon China having long

survived the wreck and discredit of the faith to which they

devoted their lives. And at this distance of time it does not

appear to be a wild statement to assert that had the Jesuits,

the Franciscans, and the Dominicans, been able to resist

quarrelling among themselves, and had they rather united to

persuade Papal infallibility to permit the incorporation of

ancestor worship with the rites and ceremonies of the Romish

church--China would at this moment be a Catholic country, and

Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism would long since have

receded into the past. Of all these Jesuit missionaries, the

name of Matteo Ricci [who died in 1610] stands by common

consent first upon the long list. ... The overthrow of the

Mings [A. D. 1644], was brought about by a combination of

events, of the utmost importance to those who would understand

the present position of the Tartars as rulers of China. A

sudden rebellion had resulted in the capture of Peking by the

insurgents, and in the suicide of the Emperor who was fated to

be the last of his line. The Imperial Commander-in-chief, Wu

San-kuei, at that time away on the frontiers of Manchuria,

engaged in resisting the incursions of the Manchu Tartars, now

for a long time in a state of ferment, immediately hurried

back to the capital, but was totally defeated by the insurgent

leader, and once more made his way, this time as a fugitive

and a suppliant, towards the Tartar camp. Here he obtained

promises of assistance, chiefly on condition that he would

shave his head and grow a tail in accordance with Manchu

custom, and again set off with his new auxiliaries towards

Peking, being reinforced on the way by a body of Mongol

volunteers. As things turned out Wu San-kuei arrived at Peking

in advance of these allies, and actually succeeded, with the

remnant of his own scattered forces, in routing the troops of

the rebel leader before the Tartars and the Mongols came up.

He then started in pursuit of the flying foe. Meanwhile the

Tartar contingent arrived; and on entering the capital, the

young Manchu prince in command was invited by the people of

Peking to ascend the vacant throne. So that by the time Wu

San-kuei re-appeared he found a new dynasty [the Ch'ing or

Tsing dynasty of the present day] already established, and his

late Manchu ally at the head of affairs. His first intention

had doubtless been to continue the Ming line of Emperors; but

he seems to have readily fallen in with the arrangement

already made, and to have tendered his formal allegiance on

the four following conditions:

{421}

(1.) That no Chinese woman should be taken into the Imperial

seraglio.

(2.) That the first place at the great triennial examination

for the highest literary degrees should never be given to a

Tartar.

(3.) That the people should adopt the national costume of the

Tartars in their everyday life; but that they should be

allowed to bury their corpses in the dress of the late

dynasty.

(4.) That this condition of costume should not apply to the

women of China, who were not to be compelled either to wear

the hair in a tail before marriage (as the Tartar girls do) or

to abandon the custom of compressing' their feet.

The great Ming dynasty was now at an end, though not destined

wholly to pass away. A large part of it may be said to remain

in the literary monuments which were executed during its three

centuries of existence. The dress of the period survives upon

the modern Chinese stage; and when occasionally the present

alien yoke is found to gall, seditious whispers of

'restoration' are not altogether unheard. ... The age of the

Ch'ings is the age in which we live; but it is not so familiar

to some persons as it ought to be, that a Tartar, and not a

Chinese sovereign, is now seated upon the throne of China. For

some time after the accession of the first Manchu Emperor

there was considerable friction between the two races, due,

among other natural causes, to the enforced adoption of the

peculiar coiffure in vogue among the Manchus--i. e., the tail,

or plaited queue of hair, which now hangs down every

Chinaman's back. This fashion was for a long time vigorously

resisted by the inhabitants of southern China, though now

regarded by all alike as one of the most sacred

characteristics of the 'black-haired people.' ... The

subjugation of the empire by the Manchus was followed by a

military occupation of the country, which has survived the

original necessity, and is part of the system of government at

the present day. Garrisons of Tartar troops were stationed at

various important centres of population. ... Those Tartar

garrisons still occupy the same positions; and the descendants

of the first battalions, with occasional reinforcements from

Peking, live side by side and in perfect harmony with the

strictly Chinese populations. These Bannermen, as they are

called, may be known by their square, heavy faces, which

contrast strongly with the sharper and more astute

physiognomies of the Chinese. They speak the dialect of

Peking, now recognised as the official language par

excellence. They do not use their family or surnames--which

belong rather to the clan than to the individual--but in order

to conform to the requirements of Chinese life, the personal

name is substituted. Their women do not compress their feet,

and the female coiffure and dress are wholly Tartar in

character. Intermarriage between the two races is not

considered desirable, though instances are not unknown. In

other respects, it is the old story of 'vida victrix;' the

conquering Tartars have been themselves conquered by the

people over whom they set themselves to rule. They have

adopted the language, written and colloquial, of China. ...

Manchu, the language of the conquerors, is still kept alive at

the Court of Peking. By a State fiction, it is supposed to be

the language of the sovereign. ... Eight emperors of this line

have already occupied the throne, and 'become guests on high;'

the ninth is yet [in 1882] a boy less than ten years of age.

Of these eight, the second in every way fills the largest

space in Chinese history. K'ang Hsi (or Kang Hi) reigned for

sixty-one years. ... Under the third Manchu Emperor, Yung

Cheng [A. D. 1723-1736], began that violent persecution of the

Catholics which has continued almost to the present day. The

various sects--Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans--had been

unable to agree about the Chinese equivalent for God, and the

matter had been finally referred to the Pope. Another

difficulty had arisen as to the toleration of ancestral

worship by Chinese converts professing the Catholic faith. ...

As the Pope refused to permit the embodiment of this ancient

custom with the ceremonies of the Catholic church, the new

religion ceased to advance, and by-and-by fell into

disrepute."

H. A. Giles, Historic China, chapter 5-6.

ALSO IN

S. W. Williams, The Middle Kingdom,

chapter 17, and 19-20 (volume 2).

C. Gutzlaff, Sketch of Chinese History,

volume 1, chapter 16, volume 2.

J. Ross, The Manchus.

Abbé Hue, Christianity in China, volume 2-3.

CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842.

The Opium War with England.

Treaty of Nanking.

Opening of the Five Ports.

"The first Chinese war [of England] was in one sense directly

attributable to the altered position of the East India Company

after 1833. [See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.] Up to that year

trade between England and China had been conducted in both

countries on principles of strict monopoly. The Chinese trade

was secured to the East India Company, and the English trade

was confined to a company of merchants specially nominated for

the purpose by the Emperor. The change of thought which

produced the destruction of monopolies in England did not

penetrate to the conservative atmosphere of the Celestial

Empire, and, while the trade in one country was thrown open to

everyone, trade in the other was still exclusively confined to

the merchants nominated by the Chinese Government. These

merchants, Hong merchants as they were called, traded

separately, but were mutually liable for the dues to the

Chinese Government and for their debts to the foreigners. Such

conditions neither promoted the growth of trade nor the

solvency of the traders; and, out of the thirteen Hong

merchants in 1837, three or four were avowedly insolvent.

(State Papers, volume 27, page 1310.) Such were the general

conditions on which the trade was conducted. The most

important article of trade was opium. The importation of opium

into China had, indeed, been illegal since 1796. But the

Chinese Government had made no stringent efforts to prohibit

the trade, and a Select Committee of the House of Commons had

declared that it was inadvisable to abandon an important

source of revenue to the East India Company. (State Papers, volume

29, page 1020.) The opium trade consequently throve, and grew

from 4,100 chests in 1796 to 30,000 chests in 1837, and the

Chinese connived at or ignored the growing trade. (Ibid., p.

1019). ... In 1837 the Chinese Government adopted a fresh policy.

{422}

It decided on rigourously stopping the trade at which it had

previously tacitly connived. ... Whether the Chinese

Government was really shocked at the growing use of the drug

and the consequences of its use, or whether it was alarmed at

a drain of silver from China which disturbed what the

political arithmeticians of England a hundred years before

would have called the balance of trade, it undoubtedly

determined to check the traffic by every means at its

disposal. With this object it strengthened its force on the

coast and sent Lin, a man of great energy, to Canton [March,

1839] with supreme authority. (State Papers, volume 29, page

934, and Autobiography of Sir H. Taylor, volume 1, appendix,

page 343.) Before Lin's arrival cargoes of opium had been

seized by the Custom House authorities. On his arrival Lin

required both the Hong merchants and the Chinese merchants to

deliver up all the opium in their possession in order that it

might be destroyed. (State Papers, volume 29, page 936.) The

interests of England in China were at that time entrusted to

Charles Elliot. ... But Elliot occupied a very difficult

position in China. The Chinese placed on their communications

to him the Chinese word 'Yu,' and wished him to place on his

despatches to them the Chinese word 'Pin.' But Yu signifies a

command, and Pin a humble address, and a British

Plenipotentiary could not receive commands from, or humble

himself before, Chinese officials. (State Papers, volume 29,

pages 881, 886, 888.) And hence the communications between him

and the Chinese Government were unable to follow a direct

course, but were frequently or usually sent through the Hong

merchants. Such was the state of things in China when Lin,

arriving in Canton, insisted on the surrender and destruction

of all the opium there. Elliot was at Macao. He at once

decided on returning to the post of difficulty and danger;

and, though Canton was blockaded by Chinese forces and its

river guarded by Chinese batteries, he made his way up in a

boat of H. M. S. 'Larne,' and threw himself among his

imprisoned countrymen. After his arrival he took the

responsibility of demanding the surrender into his own hands,

for the service of his Government, of all the British opium in

China, and he surrendered the opium which he thus obtained,

amounting to 20,283 chests, to the Chinese authorities, by

whom it was destroyed. (Ibid., pages 945, 967.) The imminent

danger to the lives and properties of a large number of

British subjects was undoubtedly removed by Elliot's action.

Though some difficulty arose in connection with the surrender,

Lin undertook gradually to relax the stringency of the

measures which he had adopted (ibid., page 977), and Elliot

hoped that his own zealous efforts to carry out the

arrangement which he had made would lead to the raising of the

blockade. He was, however, soon undeceived. On the 4th of

April Lin required him, in conjunction with the merchants, to

enter into a bond under which all vessels hereafter engaged in

the opium traffic would have been confiscated to the Chinese

Government, and all persons connected with the trade would

'suffer death at the hands of the Celestial Court.' (Ibid.,

page 989.) This bond Elliot steadily refused to sign (ibid.,

page 992); and feeling that 'all sense of security was broken

to pieces' (ibid., page 978), he ordered all British subjects

to leave Canton (ibid., page 1004), he himself withdrew to the

Portuguese settlement at Macao (ibid., page 1007), and he

wrote to Auckland, the Governor-General of India, for armed

assistance. (Ibid., page 1009.) These grave events naturally

created profound anxiety. A Select Committee of the House of

Commons had formally declined to interfere with the trade. The

opium monopoly at that time was worth some £1,000,000 or

£1,500,000 a year to British India (ibid., page 1020); and

India, engaged in war with Afghanistan and already involved in

a serious deficit, could not afford to part with so large an

amount of its revenue (ibid., page 1020). Nine-tenths of the

British merchants in China were engaged in the illegal trade

(ibid., page 1030), while Elliot, in enforcing the surrender

of the opium, had given the merchants bonds on the British

Government for its value, and the 20,000 chests surrendered

were supposed to be worth from 600 to 1,200 dollars a chest

(ibid., page 987), or say from £2,400,000 to £4,800,000. ...

As the summer advanced, moreover, a fresh outrage increased

the intensity of the crisis. On the 7th July some British

seamen landed near Hong Kong, and engaged in a serious riot. A

native was unfortunately killed on the occasion, and though

Elliot, at his own risk, gave the relations of the victim a

large pecuniary compensation, and placed the men engaged in

the riot on their trial, Lin was not satisfied. He moved down

to the coast, cut off the supplies of British subjects, and

threatened to stop the supplies to Macao if the Portuguese

continued to assist the British. (Ibid., pages 1037-1039.) The

British were in consequence forced to leave Macao; and about the

same time a small schooner, the 'Black Joke,' was attacked by

the Chinese, and a British subject on board of her seriously

wounded. Soon afterwards, however, the arrival of a ship of

war, the 'Volage,' in Chinese waters enabled Elliot to assume

a bolder front. He returned to Macao; he even attempted to

procure supplies from the mainland. But, though he succeeded

in purchasing food, 'the Mandarin runners approached and

obliged the natives to take back their provisions,' and

Elliot, exasperated at their conduct, fired on some war junks

of the Chinese, which returned the fire. A week afterwards

Elliot declared the port and river of Canton to be in a state

of blockade. (Ibid., page 1066.) The commencement of the

blockade, however, did not lead to immediate war. On the

contrary, the Chinese showed considerable desire to avert

hostilities. They insisted, indeed, that some British sailor

must be surrendered to them to suffer for the death of the

Chinaman who had fallen in the riot of Hong Kong. But they

showed so much anxiety to conclude an arrangement on this

point that they endeavoured to induce Elliot to declare that a

sailor who was accidentally drowned in Chinese waters, and whose

body they had found, was the actual murderer. (State Papers,

volume 30, page 27.) And in the meanwhile the trade which Lin

had intended to destroy went on at least as actively as ever.

Lin's proceedings had, indeed, the effect of stimulating it to

an unprecedented degree. The destruction of vast stores of

opium led to a rise in the price of opium in China. The rise

in price produced the natural consequence of an increased

speculation; and, though British shipping was excluded from

Chinese waters, and the contents of British vessels had to be

transferred to American bottoms for conveyance into Chinese

ports, British trade had never been so large or so

advantageous as in the period which succeeded Lin's arbitrary

proceedings.

{423}

Elliot was, of course, unable to prevent war either by the

surrender of a British sailor to the Chinese, or by even

assuming that a drowned man was the murderer; and war in

consequence became daily more probable. In January, 1840,

operations actually commenced. Elliot was instructed to make

an armed demonstration on the northern coasts of China, to

take possession of some island on the coast, and to obtain

reparation and indemnity, if possible by a mere display of

force, but otherwise to proceed with the squadron and thence

send an ultimatum to Pekin. In accordance with these orders

the Island of Chusan was occupied in July, and the fleet was

sent to the mouth of the Peiho with orders to transmit a

letter to Pekin. But the sea off the Peiho is shallow, the

ships could not approach the coasts, and the Chinese naturally

refused to yield to an empty demonstration. The expedition was

forced to return to Chusan, where it found that the troops

whom they had left behind were smitten by disease, that one

out of every four men were dead, and that more than one-half

of the survivors were invalided. Thus, throughout 1840, the

Chinese war was only attended with disaster and distress.

Things commenced a little more prosperously in 1841 by the

capture of the Chinese position at the mouth of the Canton

river. Elliot, after this success, was even able to conclude a

preliminary treaty with the Chinese authorities. But this

treaty did not prove satisfactory either to the British

Government or to the Chinese. The British saw with dismay that

the treaty made no mention of the trade in opium which had

been the ostensible cause of the war. The Whig Government

accordingly decided on superseding Elliot. He was recalled and

replaced by Henry Pottinger. Before news of his recall reached

him, however, the treaty which had led to his supersession had

been disavowed by the Chinese authorities, and Elliot had

commenced a fresh attack on the Chinese force which guarded

the road to Canton. British sailors and British troops, under

the command of Bremer and Gough, won a victory which placed

Canton at their mercy. But Elliot, shrinking from exposing a

great town to the horrors of an assault, stopped the advance

of the troops and admitted the city to a ransom of £1,250,000.

(Sir H. Taylor's Autobiography, volume 1, appendix, pages

353-363.) His moderation was naturally unacceptable to the

troops and not entirely approved by the British Government. It

constituted, however, Elliot's last action as agent in China. The

subsequent operations were conducted under Pottinger's

advice."

S. Walpole, History of England from 1815, Note, volume 5,

pages 287-291.

"Sir Henry Pottinger, who arrived as Plenipotentiary on the

10th of August, took the chief direction of the affairs. ...

To the end of 1841 there were various successes achieved by

the land and naval forces, which gave the British possession

of many large fortified towns, amongst which were Amoy,

Ting-hai, Chin-hai, Ning-po, and Shang-hai. The Chinese were

nevertheless persevering in their resistance, and in most

cases evinced a bravery which showed how mistaken were the

views which regarded the subjection of this extraordinary

people as an easy task. ... The British fleet on the 13th of

June [1842] entered the great river Kiang, and on the 6th of

July advanced up the river, and cut off its communication with

the Grand Canal, by which Nanking, the ancient capital of

China, was supplied with grain. The point where the river

intersects the canal is the city of Chin-Kiang-foo. ... On the

morning of the 21st the city was stormed by the British, in

three brigades. The resistance of the Tartar troops was most

desperate. Our troops fought under a burning sun, whose

overpowering heat caused some to fall dead. The obstinate

defence of the place prevented its being taken till six

o'clock in the evening. When the streets were entered, the

houses were found almost deserted. They were filled with

ghastly corpses, many of the Tartar soldiers having destroyed

their families and then committed suicide. The city, from the

number of the dead, had become uninhabitable."

C. Knight, Popular History of England., volume 8, chapter 25.

"The destruction of life was appalling. ... Every Manchu

preferred resistance, death, suicide, or flight, to surrender.

Out of a Manchu population of 4,000, it was estimated that not

more than 500 survived, the greater part having perished by

their own hands. ... Within twenty-four hours after the troops

landed, the city and suburbs of Chinkiang were a mass of ruin

and destruction. ... The total loss of the English was 37

killed and 131 wounded. ... Some of the large ships were towed

up to Nanking, and the whole fleet reached it August 9th, at

which time preparations had been made for the assault. ...

Everything was ready for the assault by daylight of August

15th;" but on the night of the 14th the Chinese made overtures

for the negotiation of peace, and the important Treaty of

Nanking was soon afterwards concluded. Its terms were as

follows: "1. Lasting peace between the two nations. 2. The

ports of Canton, Amoy, Fuhchau, Ningpo, and Shanghai [known

afterwards as the Treaty Ports] to be opened to British trade

and residence, and trade conducted according to a

well-understood tariff. 3. 'It being obviously necessary and

desirable that British subjects should have some port whereat

they may careen and refit their ships when required,' the

island of Hongkong to be ceded to her Majesty. 4. Six millions

of dollars to be paid as the value of the opium which was

delivered up 'as a ransom for the lives of H. B. M.

Superintendent and subjects,' in March, 1839. 5. Three

millions of dollars to be paid for the debts due to British

merchants. 6. Twelve millions to be paid for the expenses

incurred in the expedition sent out 'to obtain redress for the

violent and unjust proceedings of the Chinese high

authorities.' 7. The entire amount of $21,000,000 to be paid

before December 31, 1845. 8. All prisoners of war to be

immediately released by the Chinese. 9. The Emperor to grant

full and entire amnesty to those of his subjects who had aided

the British." Articles 10 to 13 related to the tariff of

export and import dues that should be levied at the open

ports; to future terms of official correspondence, etc. The

Treaty was signed by the Commissioners on the 29th of August,

1842, and the Emperor's ratification was received September

15th.

S. W. Williams, The Middle Kingdom, chapter 22-23.

ALSO IN

D. C. Boulger, History of China, volume 3, chapter 5-7.

E. H. Parker, Chinese Account of the Opium War.

{424}

CHINA: A. D. 1850-1864.

The Taiping Rebellion.

"The phrase 'Taiping Rebellion is wholly of foreign

manufacture; at Peking and everywhere among those loyal to the

government the insurgents were styled 'Chang-mao tseh,' or

'Long-haired rebels,' while on their side, by a whimsical

resemblance to English slang, the imperialists were dubbed

'imps.' When the chiefs assumed to be aiming at independence

in 1850, in order to identify their followers with their cause

they took the term 'Ping Chao,' or 'Peace Dynasty,' as the

style of their sway, to distinguish it from the 'Tsing Chao,'

or 'Pure Dynasty' of the Manchus. Each of them prefixed the

adjective 'Ta' (or 'Tai,' in Cantonese), 'Great,' as is the

Chinese custom with regard to dynasties and nations; thus the

name Tai-ping became known to foreigners."

S. W. Williams, The Middle Kingdom, chapter 24 (volume 2).

"This remarkable movement, which at one time excited much

interest in Western lands, originated with a man named Hung

Sew-tseuen [or Hung Siu-tseuen], son of a humble peasant

residing in a village near Canton. On the occasion of one of

his visits to the provincial city, probably in the year 1833,

he appears to have seen a foreign Protestant missionary

addressing the populace in the streets, assisted by a native

interpreter. Either then or on the following day he received

from some tract-distributor a book entitled 'Good Words for

Exhorting the Age,' which consisted of essays and sermons by

Leang A-fah, a well-known convert and evangelist. Taking the

volume home with him, he looked it over with some interest,

but carelessly laid it aside in his book-case. A few years

afterward he attended for the second time the competitive

literary examination with high hopes of honor and distinction,

having already passed with much credit the lower examination

in the district city. His ambitious venture, however, met with

severe disappointment, and he returned to his friends sick in

mind and body. During this state of mental depression and

physical infirmity, which continued for some forty days, he

had certain strange visions, in which he received commands

from heaven to destroy the idols. These fancied revelations

seem to have produced a deep impression on his mind, and led

to a certain gravity of demeanor after his recovery and return

to his quiet occupation as a student and village schoolmaster.

When the English war broke out, and foreigners swept up Canton

River with their wonderful fire-ships, ... it is not

surprising that Hung should have had his attention again

attracted to the Christian publication which had lain so long

neglected in his library. ... The writings of Leang A-fah

contained chapters from the Old and New Testament Scriptures,

which he found to correspond in a striking manner with the

preternatural sights and voices of that memorable period in

his history [during his sickness, six years before]; and this

strange coincidence convinced him of their truth, and of his

being divinely appointed to restore the world, that is China,

to the worship of the true God. Hung Sew-tseuen accepted his

mission and began the work of propagating the faith he had

espoused. Among his first converts was one Fung Yun-san, who

became a most ardent missionary and disinterested preacher.

These two leaders of the movement traveled far and near

through the country, teaching the people of all classes and

forming a society of God-worshippers. All the converts

renounced idolatry and gave up the worship of Confucius. Hung,

at this time apparently a sincere and earnest seeker after

truth, went to Canton and placed himself under the

instructions of the Reverend Mr. Roberts, an American missionary,

who for some cause fearing that his novitiate might be

inspired by mercenary motives, denied him the rite of baptism.

But, without being offended at this cold and suspicious

treatment, he went home and taught his converts how to baptize

themselves. The God-worshippers rapidly increased in numbers,

and were known and feared as zealous iconoclasts. ... For a

year after Hung Sew-tseuen had rejoined the God-worshippers

that society retained its exclusively religious nature, but in

the autumn of 1850 it was brought into direct collision with

the civil magistrates, when the movement assumed a political

character of the highest aims." It was soon a movement of

declared rebellion, and allied with a rebel army of bandits

and pirates which had taken arms against the government in

south-eastern China.

L. N. Wheeler, The Foreigner in China, chapter 13.

"The Hakka schoolmaster proclaimed his 'mission' in 1850. A

vast horde gathered to him. He nominated five 'Wangs' or

soldier sub-kings from out of his clan, and commenced his

northward movement from Woosewen in January, 1851. Through the

rich prosperous provinces his desultory march, interspersed

with frequent halts, spread destruction and desolation. The

peaceful fled shudderingly before this wave of fierce,

stalwart ruffianhood, with its tatterdemalian tawdriness, its

flaunting banners, its rusty naked weapons. Everywhere it

gathered in the local scoundrelism. The pirates came from the

coast; the robbers from the interior mountains rallied to an

enterprise that promised so well for their trade. In the

perturbed state of the Chinese population the horde grew like

an avalanche as it rolled along. The Heavenly King [as Hung

now styled himself] met with no opposition to speak of, and in

1853 his promenade ended under the shadow of the Porcelain

Tower, in the city of Nanking, the second metropolis of the

Chinese Empire, where, till the rebellion and his life ended

simultaneously, he lived a life of licentiousness, darkened

further by the grossest cruelties. The rebellion had lasted

nearly ten years when the fates brought it into collision with

the armed civilization of the West. The Imperialist forces had

made sluggishly some head against it. Nanking had been

invested after a fashion for years on end. 'The prospects of

the Tai-pings,' says Commander Brine, 'in the early spring of

1860, had become very gloomy.' The Imperialist generals had

hemmed Tai-pingdom within certain limits in the lower valley

of the Yantsze, and the movement languished further 'from its

destructive and exhausting nature, which for continued

vitality constantly required new districts of country to

exhaust and destroy.' But in 1859 China and the West came into

collision. ... The rebellion had opportunity to recover lost

ground. For the sixth time the 'Faithful King' relieved

Nanking. The Imperialist generals fell back, and then the

Tai-pings took the offensive, and as the result of sundry

victories, the rebellion regained an active and flourishing

condition. ... Shanghai, one of the treaty ports, was

threatened."

A. Forbes, Chinese Gordon, chapter 2.

{425}

"Europe ... has known evil days under the hands of fierce

conquerors, plundering and destroying in religion's name; but

its annals may be ransacked in vain, without finding any

parallel to the miseries endured in those provinces of China

over which 'The Heavenly King,' the Tai-ping prophet, extended

his fell sway for ten sad years. Hung Sew-tsuen (better known

in China by his assumed title, Tien Wang) ... had read

Christian tracts, had learnt from a Christian missionary; and

when he announced publicly three years afterwards that part of

his mission was to destroy the temples and images, and showed

in the jargon of his pretended visions some traces of his New

Testament study, the conclusion was instantly seized by the

sanguine minds of a section set upon evangelizing the East,

that their efforts had produced a true prophet, fit for the

work. Wedded to this fancy, they rejected as the inventions of

the enemies of missions the tales of Taiping cruelty which

soon reached Europe: and long after the details of the

impostor's life at Nankin, with its medley of visions,

executions, edicts, and harem indulgence, became notorious to

the world, prayers were offered for his success by devotees in

Great Britain as bigoted to his cause as the bloodiest

commander, or 'Wang,' whom he had raised from the ranks of his

followers to carry out his 'exterminating decrees.' The

Taiping cause was lost in China before it was wholly abandoned

by these fanatics in England, and their belief in its

excellence so powerfully reacted on our policy, that it might

have preserved us from active intervention down to the present

time, had not certain Imperialist successes elsewhere, the

diminishing means of their wasted possessions, and the

rashness of their own chiefs, brought the Taiping arms into

direct collision with us. And with the occasion there was

happily raised up the man whose prowess was to scatter their

blood-cemented empire to pieces far more speedily than it had

been built up."

C. C. Chesney, Essays in Military Biog., chapter 10

"The Taiping rebellion was of so barbarous a nature that its

suppression had become necessary in the interests of

civilization. A force raised at the expense of the Shanghai

merchants, and supported by the Chinese government, had been

for some years struggling against its progress. This force,

known as the 'Ever Victorious Army,' was commanded at first by

Ward, an American, and, on his death, by Burgevine, also an

American, who was summarily dismissed; for a short time the

command was held by Holland, an English marine officer, but he

was defeated at Taitsan 22 February, 1863, Li Hung Chang,

governor-general of the Kiang provinces, then applied to the

British commander-in-chief for the services of an English

officer, and Gordon [Charles George, subsequently known as

'Chinese Gordon'] was authorised to accept the command. He

arrived at Sung-Kiong and entered on his new duties as a

mandarin and lieutenant-colonel in the Chinese service on 24

March 1863. His force was composed of some three to four

thousand Chinese, officered by 150 Europeans of almost every

nationality and often of doubtful character. By the

indomitable will of its commander this heterogeneous body was

moulded into a little army whose high-sounding title of

'ever-victorious' became a reality, and in less than two

years, after 33 engagements, the power of the Taipings was

completely broken and the rebellion stamped out. The theatre

of operations was the district of Kiangsoo, lying between the

Yang-tze-Kiang river in the north and the bay of Hang-chow in

the south." Before the summer of 1863 was over, Gordon had

raised the rebel siege of Chanzu, and taken from the Taipings

the towns of Fushan, Taitsan, Quinsan, Kahpoo, Wokong,

Patachiaow, Leeku, Wanti, and Fusaiqwan. Finally, in December,

the great city of Soo-chow was surrendered to him, Gordon was

always in front of all his storming parties, "carrying no

other weapon than a little cane. His men called it his 'magic

wand,' regarding it as a charm that protected his life and led

them on to victory. When Soo-chow fell Gordon had stipulated

with the Governor-general Li for the lives of the Wangs (rebel

leaders). They were treacherously murdered by Li's orders.

Indignant at this perfidy, Gordon refused to serve any longer

with Governor Li, and when on 1 Jan, 1864 money anti rewards

were heaped upon him by the Emperor, declined them all. ...

After some [two] months of inaction it became evident that if

Gordon did not again take the field the Taipings would regain

the rescued country," and he was prevailed upon to resume his

campaign, which, although badly wounded in one of the battles,

he brought to an end in the following April (1864), by the

capture of Chan-chu-fu, "This victory not only ended the

campaign but completely destroyed the rebellion, and the

Chinese regular forces were enabled to occupy Nankin in the

July following. The large money present offered to Gordon by

the emperor was again declined, although he had spent his pay

in promoting the efficiency of his force, so that he wrote

home: 'I shall leave China as poor as when I entered it.'"

Colonel R. H. Veitch, Charles George Gordon

(Dictionary of Nat. Biog.)

ALSO IN:

A. E. Hake, The Story of Chinese Gordon, chapter 3-8.

W. F. Butler, Charles George Gordon, chapter 2.

S. Mossman, General Gordon in China.

Private Diary of Gen. Gordon in China.

Mm. Callery and Yvan, History of the Insurrection in China.

CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860,

War with England and France.

Bombardment and capture of Canton.

The Allies in Pekin.

Their destruction of the Summer Palace.

Terms of peace.

The speech from the throne at the opening of the English

Parliament, on February 3, 1857, "stated that acts of

violence, insults to the British flag, and infractions of

treaty rights, committed by the local authorities at Canton,

and a pertinacious refusal of redress, had rendered it

necessary for her Majesty's officers in China to have recourse

to measures of force to obtain satisfaction. The alleged

offences of the Chinese authorities at Canton had for their

single victim the lorcha 'Arrow.' The lorcha 'Arrow' was a

small boat built on the European model. The word 'Lorcha' is

taken from the Portuguese settlement at Macao, at the mouth of

the Canton river. It often occurs in treaties with the Chinese

authorities. On October 8, 1856, a party of Chinese in charge

of an officer boarded the 'Arrow,' in the Canton river. They

took off twelve men on a charge of piracy, leaving two men in

charge of the lorcha, The 'Arrow' was declared by its owners

to be a British vessel.

{426}

Our consul at Canton, Mr. Parkes, demanded from Yeh, the

Chinese Governor of Canton, the return of the men, basing his

demand upon the Treaty of 1843, supplemental to the Treaty of

1842. This treaty did not give the Chinese authorities any

right to seize Chinese offenders, or supposed offenders, on

board an English vessel. It merely gave them a right to

require the surrender of the offenders at the hands of the

English. The Chinese Governor, Yeh, contended, however, that

the lorcha was a Chinese pirate vessel, which had no right

whatever to hoist the flag of England. It may be plainly

stated at once that the 'Arrow' was not an English vessel, but

only a Chinese vessel which had obtained by false pretences

the temporary possession of a British flag. Mr. Consul Parkes,

however, was fussy, and he demanded the instant restoration of

the captured men, and he sent off to our Plenipotentiary at

Hong Kong, Sir John Bowring, for authority and assistance in

the business. Sir John Bowring ... ordered the Chinese

authorities to surrender all the men taken from the 'Arrow,'

and he insisted that an apology should be offered for their

arrest, and a formal pledge given that no such act should ever

be committed again. If this were not done within forty-eight

hours, naval operations were to be begun against the Chinese.

The Chinese Governor, Yeh, sent back all the men, and

undertook to promise that for the future great care should be

taken that no British ships should be visited improperly by

Chinese officers. But he could not offer an apology for the

particular case of the 'Arrow,' for he still maintained, as

was indeed the fact, that the 'Arrow' was a Chinese vessel,

and that the English had nothing to do with her. Accordingly

Sir John Bowring carried out his threat, and had Canton

bombarded by the fleet which Admiral Sir Michael Seymour

commanded. From October 23 to November 13 naval and military

operations were kept up continuously. Commissioner Yeh

retaliated by foolishly offering a reward for the head of

every Englishman. This news from China created a considerable

sensation in England. On February 24, 1857, Lord Derby brought

forward in the House of Lords a motion, comprehensively

condemning the whole of the proceedings of the British

authorities in China. The debate would have been memorable if

only for the powerful speech in which the venerable Lord

Lyndhurst supported the motion, and exposed the utter

illegality of the course pursued by Sir John Bowring. The

House of Lords rejected the motion of Lord Derby by a majority

of 146 to 110. On February 26 Mr. Cobden brought forward a

similar motion in the House of Commons. ... Mr. Cobden had

probably never dreamed of the amount or the nature of the

support his motion was destined to receive. The vote of

censure was carried by 263 votes against 247--a majority of

16. Lord Palmerston announced two or three days after that the

Government had resolved on a dissolution and an appeal to the

country. Lord Palmerston understood his countrymen." In the

ensuing elections his victory was complete. "Cobden, Bright,

Milner Gibson, W. J. Fox, Layard, and many other leading

opponents of the Chinese policy, were left without seats. Lord

Palmerston came back to power with renewed and redoubled

strength." He "had the satisfaction before he left office [in

1858] of being able to announce the capture of Canton. The

operations against China had been virtually suspended ... when

the Indian Mutiny broke out. England had now got the

cooperation of France. France had a complaint of long standing

against China on account of the murder of some missionaries,

for which redress had been asked in vain. There was,

therefore, an allied attack made upon Canton [December, 1857],

and of course the city was easily captured. Commissioner Yeh

himself was taken prisoner, not until he had been sought for

and hunted out in most ignominious fashion. He was found at

last hidden away in some obscure part of a house. He was known

by his enormous fatness. ... He was put on board an English

man-of-war, and afterwards sent to Calcutta, where he died

early in the following year. Unless report greatly belied him

he had been exceptionally cruel, even for a Chinese official.

The English and French Envoys, Lord Elgin and Baron Gros,

succeeded in making a treaty with China. By the conditions of

the treaty, England and France were to have ministers at the

Chinese Court, on certain special occasions at least, and

China was to be represented in London and Paris; there was to

be toleration of Christianity in China, and a certain freedom

of access to Chinese rivers for English and French mercantile

vessels, and to the interior of China for English and French

subjects. China was to pay the expenses of the war. It was

further agreed that the term 'barbarian' was no longer to be

applied to Europeans in China. There was great congratulation

in England over this treaty, and the prospect it afforded of a

lasting peace with China. The peace thus procured lasted in

fact exactly a year. ... The treaty of Tien-tsin, which had

been arranged by Lord Elgin and Baron Gros, contained a clause

providing for the exchange of the ratifications at Pekin

within a year from the date of the signature, which took place

in June 1858. Lord Elgin returned to England, and his brother,

Mr. Frederick Bruce, was appointed in March 1859 Envoy

Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to China. Mr. Bruce

was directed to proceed by way of the Peiho to Tien-tsin, and

thence to Pekin to exchange the ratifications of the treaty.

Lord Malmesbury, who was then Foreign Secretary ... impressed

upon Mr. Bruce that he was not to be put off from going to the

capital. Instructions were sent out from England at the same

time to Admiral Hope, the Naval Commander-in-Chief in China,

to provide a sufficient force to accompany Mr. Bruce to the

mouth of the Peiho. The Peiho river flows from the highlands

on the west into the Gulf of Pecheli, at the north-cast corner

of the Chinese dominions. The capital of the Empire is about

100 miles inland from the mouth of the Peiho. It does not

stand on that river, which flows past it at some distance

westward, but it is connected with the river by means of a

canal. The town of Tien-tsin stands on the Peiho near its

junction with one of the many rivers that flow into it, and

about forty miles from the mouth. The entrance to the Peiho

was defended by the Taku forts. On June 20, 1859, Mr. Bruce

and the French Envoy reached the mouth of the Peiho with

Admiral Hope's fleet, some nineteen vessels in all, to escort

them. They found the forts defended; some negotiations and

inter-communications took place, and a Chinese official from

Tien-tsin came to Mr. Bruce and endeavoured to obtain some

delay or compromise.

{427}

Mr. Bruce became convinced that the condition of things

predicted by Lord Malmesbury was coming about, and that the

Chinese authorities were only trying to defeat his purpose. He

called on Admiral Hope to clear a passage for the vessels.

When the Admiral brought up his gunboats the forts opened

fire. The Chinese artillerymen showed unexpected skill and

precision. Four of the gunboats were almost immediately

disabled. All the attacking vessels got aground. Admiral Hope

attempted to storm the forts. The attempt was a complete

failure. Admiral Hope himself was wounded; so was the

commander of the French vessel which had contributed a

contingent to the storming party. The attempt to force a

passage of the river was given up and the mission to Pekin was

over for the present. It seems only fair to say that the

Chinese at the mouth of the Peiho cannot be accused of

perfidy. They had mounted the forts and barricaded the river

openly and even ostentatiously. ... It will be easily imagined

that the news created a deep sensation in England. People in

general made up their minds at once that the matter could not

be allowed to rest there, and that the mission to Pekin must

be enforced. ... Before the whole question came to be

discussed in Parliament the Conservatives had gone out and the

Liberals had come in. The English and French Governments

determined that the men who had made the treaty of

Tien-tsin--Lord Elgin and Baron Gros--should be sent back to

insist on its reinforcement. Sir Hope Grant was appointed to

the military command of our land forces, and General Cousin de

Montauban, afterwards Count Palikao, commanded the soldiers of

France. The Chinese, to do them justice, fought very bravely,

but of course they had no chance whatever against such forces

as those commanded by the English and French generals. The

allies captured the Taku forts [August, 1860], occupied

Tien-tsin, and marched on Pekin. The Chinese Government

endeavoured to negotiate for peace, and to interpose any

manner of delay, diplomatic or otherwise, between the allies

and their progress to the capital. Lord Elgin consented at

last to enter into negotiations at Tungchow, a walled town ten

or twelve miles nearer than Pekin. Before the negotiations

took place, Lord Elgin's secretaries, Mr. Parkes and Mr. Loch,

some English officers, Mr. Bowlby, the correspondent of the

'Times,' and some members of the staff of Baron Gros, were

treacherously seized by the Chinese while under a flag of

truce and dragged off to various prisons. Mr. Parkes and Mr.

Loch, with eleven of their companions, were afterwards

released, after having been treated with much cruelty and

indignity, but thirteen of the prisoners died of the horrible

ill-treatment they received. Lord Elgin refused to negotiate

until the prisoners had been returned, and the allied armies

were actually at one of the great gates of Pekin, and had

their guns in position to blow the gate in, when the Chinese

acceded to their terms. The gate was surrendered, the allies

entered the city, and the English and French flags were

hoisted side by side on the walls of Pekin. It was only after

entering the city that Lord Elgin learned of the murder of the

captives. He then determined that the Summer Palace should be

burnt down as a means of impressing the mind of the Chinese

authorities generally with some sense of the danger of

treachery and foul play. Two days were occupied in the

destruction of the palace. It covered an area of many miles.

Gardens, temples, small lodges, and pagodas, groves, grottoes,

lakes, bridges, terraces, artificial hills, diversified the

vast space. All the artistic treasures, all the curiosities,

archaeological and other, that Chinese wealth and Chinese

taste, such as it was, could bring together, had been

accumulated in this magnificent pleasaunce. The surrounding

scenery was beautiful. The high mountains of Tartary ramparted

one side of the enclosure. The buildings were set on fire; the

whole place was given over to destruction. A monument was

raised with an inscription in Chinese, setting forth that such

was the reward of perfidy and cruelty. Very different opinions

were held in England as to the destruction of the Imperial

palace. To many it seemed an act of unintelligible and

unpardonable vandalism. Lord Elgin explained, that if he did

not demand the surrender of the actual perpetrators, it was

because he knew full well that no difficulty would have been

made about giving him a seeming satisfaction. The Chinese

Government would have selected for vicarious punishment, in

all probability, a crowd of mean and unfortunate wretches who

had nothing to do with the murders. ... It is somewhat

singular that so many persons should have been roused to

indignation by the destruction of a building who took with

perfect composure the unjust invasion of a country. The allied

powers now of course had it all their own way. England

established her right to have an envoy in Pekin, whether the

Chinese liked it or not. China had to pay a war indemnity, and

a large sum of money as compensation to the families of the

murdered prisoners and to those who had suffered injuries, and

to make an apology for the attack by the garrison of the Taku

forts. Perhaps the most important gain to Europe from the war

was the knowledge that Pekin was not by any means so large a

city as we had all imagined it to be, and that it was on the

whole rather a crumbling and tumble-down sort of place."

J. McCarthy, Short History of our own Time, chapter 12, 15,

17 (chapters 30 and 42, volume 3, of larger work).

ALSO IN:

L. Oliphant, Narrative of the Earl of Elgin's Mission,

volume 1.

H. B. Loch, Personal Narrative.

S. W. Williams, The Middle Kingdom, chapter 25 (volume 2).

Colonel Sir W. F. Butler, Charles George Gordon, chapter 3.

CHINA: A. D. 1857-1868.

Treaty with the United States.

The Burlingame Embassy and the Burlingame Treaties.

"The government of the United States viewed with anxiety the

new breaking out of hostilities between Great Britain,

supported by France as an ally, and China, in the year 1856.

President Buchanan sent thither the Honorable William B. Reed to

watch the course of events, and to act the part of a mediator

and peacemaker when opportunity should offer. In this he was

sustained by the influence of Russia. Mr. Reed arrived in Hong

Kong, on the fine war steamer Minnesota, November 7, 1857. He

at once set himself to remove the difficulties between the

English and Chinese, and save if possible the future effusion

of blood. He endeavored in vain to persuade the proud and

obstinate governor Yeh to yield, and save Canton from

bombardment.

{428}

He proceeded to the north, and made on behalf of his

government a treaty of peace with China which was signed June

18. The first article of the treaty contains a significant

reference to the posture of the United States in relation to

the war then in progress, as well as to any which might

thereafter arise. The article says: 'There shall be, as there

have always been, peace and friendship between the United

States of America and the Ta-Tsing Empire, and between their

people respectively. They shall not insult or oppress each

other for any trifling cause, so as to produce an estrangement

between them; and if any other nation should act unjustly or

oppressively, the United States will exert their good offices,

on being informed of the case, to bring about an amicable

arrangement of the question, thus showing their friendly

feelings.' A subsequent article of this treaty is to be

interpreted by keeping in view the bitter root of the

difficulties between Great Britain and China which led to the

previous war of 1839 to '42, and to this war. After stating

the ports where Americans shall be permitted to reside and

their vessels to trade, it continues in the following

language: 'But said vessels shall not carry on a clandestine

and fraudulent trade at other ports of China not declared to

be legal, or along the coasts thereof; and any vessel under

the American flag violating this provision shall, with her

cargo, be subject to confiscation to the Chinese government;

and any citizen of the United States who shall trade in any

contraband article of merchandise shall be subject to be dealt

with by the Chinese government, without being entitled to any

countenance or protection from that of the United States; and

the United States will take measures to prevent their flag

from being abused by the subjects of other nations as a cover

for the violation of the laws of the empire.'... The

development of the foreign trade with China during the brief

time which has passed [1870] since the last war has been very

great. ... The American government has been represented most

of the time by the Honorable Anson Burlingame, who has taken the

lead, with remarkable ability and success, in establishing the

policy of peaceful co-operation between the chief

treaty-powers, in encouraging the Chinese to adopt a more wise

and progressive policy in their entercourse with foreign

nations and in the introduction of the improvements of the

age. ... Mr. Burlingame, who had been in China six years,

determined [in 1867] to resign his post and return to America.

The news of it excited much regret among both Chinese and

foreign diplomatists. The former endeavored in vain to

dissuade him from his purpose. Failing to accomplish this, he

was invited by Prince Kung to a farewell entertainment, at

which were present many of the leading officers of the

government. During it they expressed to him their gratitude

for his offices to them as an intelligent and disinterested

counselor and friend. And they seem to have conceived at this

time the thought of putting the relations of the empire with

foreign countries upon a more just and equal basis, by sending

to them an imperial embassy of which he should be the head.

They promptly consulted some of their more reliable friends

among the foreign gentlemen at the capital, and in two days

after they tendered to Mr. Burlingame, much to his surprise,

the appointment of minister plenipotentiary of China to the

Western powers. ... Mr. Burlingame left the Chinese capital on

the 25th of November, 1867. The embassy consisted, besides the

principal, of Chih-kang and Sun Chia-ku, a Manchu and a

Chinese officer, each wearing the red ball on his cap which

indicates an official of a rank next to the highest in the

empire; J. McLeary Brown, formerly of the British legation,

and M. Deschamps, as secretaries; Teh Ming and Fung I as

Chinese attachés, and several other persons in subordinate

positions. ... It went to Shanghai, thence to San Francisco,

where it was most cordially welcomed by both the American and

Chinese mercantile communities. It reached Washington in May,

1868. The embassy was treated with much distinction at the

American capital. No American statesman was so capable and

disposed to enter cordially into its objects as the Secretary

of State at that time, the Honorable William H. Seward, whose mind

had long apprehended the great features of the policy which

American and foreign nations should pursue in relation to the

Chinese empire. On the 16th of July the Senate of the United

States ratified a treaty which he had made in behalf of this

country with the representative of the Chinese government. The

treaty defines and fixes the principles of the intercourse of

Western nations with China, of the importance of which I have

already spoken. It secures the territorial integrity of the

empire, and concedes to China the rights which the civilized

nations of the world, accord to each other as to eminent

domain over land and waters, and jurisdiction over persons and

property therein. It takes the first step toward the

appointment of Chinese consuls in our seaports--a measure

promotive of both Chinese and American interests. It secures

exemption from all disability or persecution on account of

religious faith in either country. It recognizes the right of

voluntary emigration and makes penal the wrongs of the coolie

traffic. It pledges privileges as to travel or residence in

either country such as are enjoyed by the most favored nation.

It grants to the Chinese permission to attend our schools and

colleges, and allows us to freely establish and maintain

schools in China. And while it acknowledges the right of the

Chinese government to control its own whole interior

arrangements, as to railroads, telegraphs and other internal

improvements, it suggests the willingness of our government to

afford aid toward their construction by designating and

authorizing suitable engineers to perform the work, at the

expense of the Chinese government. The treaty expressly leaves

the question of naturalization in either country an open one.

... It is not necessary to follow in detail the progress of

this first imperial Chinese embassy. In England it was

received at first very coldly, and it was some months before

proper attention could be secured from the government to its

objects. At length, however, on November 20, it was presented

to the queen at Windsor Castle. ... What heart is there that

will not join in the cordial wish that the treaties made by

the embassy with Great Britain, France, Prussia and other

European powers may be the commencement of a new era in the

diplomatic and national intercourse of China with those and

all other lands of the West!"

W. Speer, The Oldest and the Newest Empire, ch, 14.

ALSO IN:

Treaties and Conventions between the

U. S. and other Powers (1889), page 159 and 179.

{429}

CHINA: A. D. 1884-1885.

War with France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

CHINA: A. D. 1892.

Exclusion of Chinese from the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.

CHINA: A. D. 1893.

The future of the Chinese.

A speculation.

"China is generally regarded as a stationary power which can

fairly hold its own, though it has lost Annam to France, and

the suzerainty of Upper Burmah to England, and the Amoor

Valley to Russia, but which is not a serious competitor in the

race for empire. There is a certain plausibility in this view.

On the other hand, China has recovered Eastern Turkestan from

Mahommedan rule and from a Russian protectorate, is dominating

the Corea, and has stamped out a dangerous rebellion in

Yunnan. No one can doubt that if China were to get for

sovereign a man with the organising and aggressive genius of

Peter the Great or Frederick the Second, it would be a very

formidable neighbour to either British India or Russia.

Neither is it easy to suppose that the improvements, now

tentatively introduced into China, will not soon be taken up

and pushed on a large scale, so that railways will be carried

into the heart of Asia, and large armies drilled and furnished

with arms of precision on the European model. In any such case

the rights which China has reluctantly conceded or still

claims over Annam and Tonquin, over Siam, over Upper Burmah,

and over Nepaul, may become matters of very serious

discussion. At present the French settlements arrest the

expansion of China in the direction most dangerous to the

world. Unfortunately, the climate of Saigon is such as no

European cares to settle in, and the war to secure Tonquin was

so unpopular that it cost a French premier his tenure of

office. ... 'Whatever, however, be the fortune of China in

this direction, it is scarcely doubtful that she will not only

people up to the furthest boundary of her recognised

territory, but gradually acquire new dominions. The history of

our Straits Settlements will afford a familiar instance how

the Chinese are spreading. They already form half the

population predominating in Singapore and Perak, and the best

observers are agreed that the Malay cannot hold his own

against them. They are beginning to settle in Borneo and

Sumatra, and they are supplanting the natives in some of the

small islands of the Pacific, such as Hawaii. The climate of

all these countries suits them, and they commend themselves to

governments and employers by their power of steady industry;

and they intermarry freely up to a safe point with the women

of the country, getting all the advantages of alliance, yet

not sacrificing their nationality. Several causes have

retarded their spread hitherto: the regions enumerated have

mostly been too insecure for an industrial people to flourish

in, until the British or the Dutch established order; the

government of China has hitherto discouraged emigration;

English administrations have been obliged to be rather wary in

their dealings with a people who showed at Sarawak and Penang

that they were capable of combining for purposes of massacre;

and the Chinese superstition about burial in the sacred soil

of the Celestial Empire made the great majority of the

emigrants birds of passage. All these causes are disappearing.

... Europeans cannot flourish under the tropics, and will not

work with the hand where an inferior race works. What we have

to consider, therefore, is the probability that the natives

who are giving way to the Chinese in the Malay Peninsula will

be able to make head against them in Borneo or Sumatra. Borneo

is nearly six times as big as Java, and if it were peopled

like Java would support a population of nearly 100,000,000.

... In the long run the Chinese, who out-number the Malays as

sixteen to one, who are more decidedly industrial, and who

organise where they can in a way that precludes competition,

are tolerably certain to gain the upper hand. They may not

destroy the early settlers, but they will reduce them to the

position of the Hill tribes in India, or of the Ainos in

Japan. Assume fifty years hence that China has taken its

inevitable position as one of the great powers of the world,

and that Borneo has a population of 10,000,000, predominantly

Chinese, is it easy to suppose in such a case that the larger

part of Borneo would still be a dependency of the Netherlands?

or that the whole island would not have passed, by arms or

diplomacy, into the possession of China? ... There are those

who believe that the Chinaman is likely to supersede the

Spaniard and Indian alike in parts of South America. Without

assuming that all of these possibilities are likely to be

realised, there is surely a strong presumption that so great a

people as the Chinese, and possessed of such enormous natural

resources, will sooner or later overflow their borders and

spread over new territory, and submerge weaker races."

C. H. Pearson, National Life and Character,

pages 45-51.

----------CHINA: End----------

CHINANTECS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

CH'ING OR TSING DYNASTY, The.

See CHINA: A. D. 1294-1882.

CHINGIS KHAN, Conquests of.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227;

and INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

CHINOOK, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHINOOKAN FAMILY.

CHIOGGIA, The War of.

See VENICE: A. D. 1379-1381.

CHIOS.

The rocky island known anciently as Chios, called Scio in

modern times, was one of the places which claimed Homer's

birth. It is situated in the Ægean Sea, separated by a strait

only five miles wide from the Asiatic coast. The wines of

Chios were famous in antiquity and have a good reputation at

the present day. The island was an important member of the

Ionian confederation, and afterwards subject to Athens, from

which it revolted twice, suffering terrible barbarities in

consequence.

See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

CHIOS: B. C. 413.

Revolt from Athens.

See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

CHIOS: A. D. 1346.

Taken by the Genoese.

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.

CHIOS: A. D. 1681.

Blockade and attack by the French.

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1664-1684.

CHIOS: A. D. 1770.

Temporary possession by the Russians.

See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

CHIOS: A. D. 1822.

Turkish massacre of Christians.

See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

----------CHIOS: End----------

CHIPPEWA, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

{430}

CHIPPEWAS, OR OJIBWAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,

AND OJIBWAS.

CHIPPEWYANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

CHITON, The.

"The chiton [of the ancient Greeks] was an oblong piece of

cloth arranged round the body so that the arm was put through

a hole in the closed side, the two ends of the open side being

fastened over the opposite shoulder by means of a button or

clasp. On this latter side, therefore, the chiton was

completely open, at least as far as the thigh, underneath of

which the two ends might be either pinned or stitched

together. Round the hips the chiton was fastened with a ribbon

or girdle, and the lower part could be shortened as much as

required by pulling it through this girdle. ... Frequently

sleeves, either shorter and covering only the upper arm, or

continued to the wrist were added to the chiton. ... The

short-sleeved chiton is frequently worn by women and children

on monuments. Of the sleeveless chiton, worn by men over both

shoulders, it is stated that it was the sign of a free

citizen. Slaves and artisans are said to have worn a chiton

with one hole for the left arm, the right arm and half the

chest remaining quite uncovered. ... It appears clearly that

the whole chiton consists of one piece. Together with the open

and half-open kinds of the chiton we also find the closed

double chiton flowing down to the feet. It was a piece of

cloth considerably longer than the human body, and closed on

both sides, inside of which the person putting it on stood as

in a cylinder."

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

part 1, section 41.

"The principal, or rather, the sole garment, of the Dorian

maidens was the chiton, or himation made of woolen stuff, and

without sleeves, but fastened on either shoulder by a large

clasp, and gathered on the breast by a kind of brooch. This

sleeveless robe, which seldom reached more than half way to

the knee, was moreover left open up to a certain point on both

sides, so that the skirts or wings, flying open as they

walked, entirely exposed their limbs. ... The married women,

however, did not make their appearance in public 'en chemise,'

but when going abroad donned a second garment which seems to

have resembled pretty closely their husbands' himatia."

J. A. St. John, The Hellenes, book 3, chapter 6.

CHITTIM.

See KITTIM.

CHIVALRY.

"The primitive sense of this well-known word, derived from the

French Chevalier, signifies merely cavalry, or a body of

soldiers serving on horseback; and has been used in that

general acceptation by the best of our poets, ancient and

modern, from Milton to Thomas Campbell. But the present

article respects the peculiar meaning given to the word in

modern Europe, as applied to the order of knighthood,

established in almost all her kingdoms during the middle ages,

and the laws, rules, and customs, by which it was governed.

Those laws and customs have long been antiquated, but their

effects may still be traced in European manners; and,

excepting only the change which flowed from the introduction

of the Christian religion, we know no cause which has produced

such general and permanent difference betwixt the ancients and

moderns, as that which has arisen out of the institution of

chivalry. ... From the time that cavalry becomes used in war,

the horseman who furnishes and supports a charger arises, in

all countries, into a person of superior importance to the

mere foot-soldier. ... In various military nations, therefore,

we find that horsemen are distinguished as an order in the

state. ... But, in the middle ages, the distinction ascribed

to soldiers serving on horseback assumed a very peculiar and

imposing character. They were not merely respected on account

of their wealth or military skill, but were bound together by

a union of a very peculiar character, which monarchs were

ambitious to share with the poorest of their subjects, and

governed by laws directed to enhance, into enthusiasm, the

military spirit and the sense of personal honour associated

with it. The aspirants to this dignity were not permitted to

assume the sacred character of knighthood until after a long

and severe probation, during which they practised, as

acolytes, the virtues necessary to the order of Chivalry.

Knighthood was the goal to which the ambition of every noble

youth turned; and to support its honours, which (in theory at

least) could only be conferred on the gallant, the modest, and

the virtuous, it was necessary he should spend a certain time

in a subordinate situation, attendant upon some knight of

eminence, observing the conduct of his master, as what must in

future be the model of his own, and practising the virtues of

humility, modesty, and temperance, until called upon to

display those of a higher order. ... In the general and

abstract definition of Chivalry, whether as comprising a body

of men whose military service was on horseback, and who were

invested with peculiar honours and privileges, or with

reference to the mode and period in which these distinctions

and privileges were conferred, there is nothing either

original or exclusively proper to our Gothic ancestors. It was

in the singular tenets of Chivalry,--in the exalted,

enthusiastic, and almost sanctimonious, ideas connected with

its duties,--in the singular balance which its institutions

offered against the evils of the rude ages in which it arose,

that we are to seek those peculiarities which render it so

worthy of our attention. ... The education of the future

knight began at an early period. The care of the mother, after

the first years of early youth were passed, was deemed too

tender, and the indulgences of the paternal roof too

effeminate, for the future aspirant to the honours of

chivalry. ... To counteract these habits of indulgence, the

first step to the order of knighthood was the degree of Page.

The young and noble stripling, generally about his twelfth

year, was transferred from his father's house to that of some

baron or gallant knight, sedulously chosen by the anxious

parent as that which had the best reputation for good order

and discipline. ... When advancing age and experience in the

use of arms had qualified the page for the hardships and

dangers of actual war, he was removed, from the lowest to the

second gradation of chivalry, and became an Eseuyer, Esquire,

or Squire. The derivation of this phrase has been much

contested. It has been generally supposed to be derived from

its becoming the official duty of the esquire to carry the

shield (Escu) of the knight his master, until he was about to

engage the enemy. Others have fetched the epithet (more

remotely certainly) from Scuria, a stable, the charger of the

knight being under the especial care of the squire.

{431}

Others, again, ascribe the derivation of the word to

the right which the squire himself had to carry a shield, and

to blazon it with armorial bearings. This, in later times,

became almost the exclusive meaning attached to the

appellative esquire; and, accordingly, if the phrase now means

anything, it means a gentleman having a right to carry arms.

There is reason, however, to think this is a secondary meaning

of the word, for we do not find the word Escuyer, applied as a

title of rank, until so late as the Ordonnance of Blois, in

1579. ... In actual war the page was not expected to render

much service, but that of the squire was important and

indispensable. Upon a march he bore the helmet and shield of

the knight and led his horse of battle, a tall heavy animal

fit to bear the weight of a man in armour, but which was led

in hand in marching, while the knight rode an ambling hackney.

The squire was also qualified to perform the part of an

armourer, not only lacing his master's helmet and buckling his

cuirass, but also closing with a hammer the rivets by which

the various pieces were united to each other. ... In the

actual shock of battle, the esquire attended closely on the

banner of his master, or on his person if he were only a

knight bachelor, kept pace with him during the melee, and was

at hand to remount him when his steed was slain, or relieve

him when oppressed by numbers. If the knight made prisoners

they were the charge of the esquire; if the esquire himself

fortuned to make one, the ransom belonged to his master. ... A

youth usually ceased to be a page at 14, or a little earlier,

and could not regularly receive the honour of knighthood until

he was one-and-twenty. ... Knighthood was, in its origin, an

order of a republican, or at least an oligarchic nature;

arising ... from the customs of the free tribes of Germany

[see COMITATUS], and, in its essence, not requiring the

sanction of a monarch. On the contrary, each knight could

confer the order of knighthood upon whomsoever preparatory

noviciate and probation had fitted to receive it. The highest

potentates sought the accolade, or stroke which conferred the

honour, at the hands of the worthiest knight whose

achievements had dignified the period. ... Though no positive

regulation took place on the subject, ambition on the part of

the aspirant, and pride and policy on that of the sovereign

princes and nobles of high rank, gradually limited to the

latter the power of conferring knighthood. ... Knights were

usually made either on the eve of battle, or when the victory

had been obtained; or they were created during the pomp of

some solemn warning or grand festival. ... The spirit of

chivalry sunk gradually under a combination of physical and

moral causes; the first arising from the change gradually

introduced into the art of war, and the last from the equally

great alteration produced by time in the habits and modes of

thinking in modern Europe. Chivalry began to dawn in the end

of the 10th, and beginning of the 11th century. It blazed

forth with high vigour during the crusades, which indeed may

be considered as exploits of national knight-errantry, or

general wars, undertaken on the very same principles which

actuated the conduct of individual knights adventurers. But

its most brilliant period was during the wars between France

and England, and it was unquestionably in those kingdoms that

the habit of constant and honourable opposition, unembittered

by rancour or personal hatred, gave the fairest opportunity

for the exercise of the virtues required from him whom Chaucer

terms 'a very perfect gentle knight.' Froissart frequently

makes allusions to the generosity exercised by the French and

English to their prisoners, and contrasts it with the dungeons

to which captives taken in war were consigned both in Spain

and Germany. Yet both these countries, and indeed every

kingdom in Europe, partook of the spirit of chivalry in a

greater or less degree; and even the Moors of Spain caught the

emulation, and had their orders of Knighthood as well as the

Christians. But even during this splendid period, various

causes were silently operating the future extinction of the

flame, which blazed thus wide and brightly. An important

discovery, the invention of gunpowder, had taken place, and

was beginning to be used in war, even when chivalry was in its

highest glory. ... Another change, of vital importance, arose

from the institution of the bands of gens-d'armes, or men at

arms in France, constituted ... expressly as a sort of

standing army. ... A more fatal cause had, however, been for

some time operating in England, as well as France, for the

destruction of the system we are treating of. The wars of York

and Lancaster in England, and those of the Huguenots and of

the League, were of a nature so bitter and rancorous, as was

utterly inconsistent with the courtesy, fair play, and

gentleness, proper to chivalry. ... The civil wars not only

operated in debasing the spirit of chivalry, but in exhausting

and destroying the particular class of society from which its

votaries were drawn."

Sir W. Scott, Essay on Chivalry.

ALSO IN: G

P. R. James, History of Chivalry.

H. Hallam, State of Europe during the Middle

Ages, chapter 9, part 2 (volume 3).

F. P. Guizot, History of Civilization in France, 6th lecture,

2d course (volume 4).

C. Mills, History of Chivalry.

H. Stebbing, History of Chivalry and the Crusades.

L. Gautier, Chivalry.

K. H. Digby, The Broadstone of Honour.

Dr. Doran, Knights and their Days.

See, also, KNIGHTHOOD, ORDERS OF.

CHLAMYS, The.

"The chlamys [worn by the ancient Greeks] ... was an oblong

piece of cloth thrown over the left shoulder, the open ends

being fastened across the right shoulder by means of a clasp;

the corners hanging down were, as in the himation, kept

straight by means of weights sewed into them. The chlamys was

principally used by travellers and soldiers."

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

part 1, section 42.

CHOCIM.

See CHOCZIM.

CHOCTAWS, OR CHA'HTAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

CHOCZIM (KHOTZIM, CHOTYN, KHOTIN, CHOCIM, KOTZIM): A. D. 1622.

Defeat of the Turks by the Poles.

See POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648.

CHOCZIM: A. D. 1672.

Taken by Sobieska and the Poles.

Great defeat of the Turks.

See POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696.

CHOCZIM: A. D. 1739.

Captured by the Russians and restored to the Turks.

See Russia: A. D.1725-1739.

CHOCZIM: A. D. 1769.

Taken by the Russians.

Defeat of the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

{432}

CHOCZIM: A. D. 1790.

Defeat of the Turks by the Russians.

See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

----------CHOCZIM: End----------

CHOLET, Battles of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).

CHOLULA: Pyramids at.

See MEXICO, ANCIENT: THE TOLTEC EMPIRE.

CHOLULA: A. D. 1519.

The Massacre at.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (OCTOBER).

----------CHOLULA: End----------

CHONTALS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHONTALS.

CHONTAQUIROS, OR PIRU, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

CHORASMIA.

See KHUAREZM.

CHOREGIA.

See LITURGIES.

CHOTUSITZ, OR CZASLAU, Battle of.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JANUARY-MAY).

CHOTYN.

See CHOCZIM.

CHOUANS.--CHOUANNERIE.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1796.

CHOUT.

The blackmail levied by the Mahrattas.

See INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

CHOWANS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

CHREMONIDEAN WAR, The.

See ATHENS: B. C. 288-263.

CHRIST, Knights of the Order of.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460.

CHRISTIAN I.,

King of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, A. D. 1448-1481.

Christian II., A. D. 1513-1523.

Christian III., King of Denmark and Norway, A. D. 1534-1558.

Christian IV., A.. D. 1588-1648.

Christian V., A. D. 1670-1699.

Christian VI., A. D. 1730-1746.

Christian VII., A. D. 1766-1808.

Christian VIII., King of Denmark, A. D. 1839-1848.

Christian IX., A. D. 1863-.

CHRISTIAN COMMISSION, The United States.

See SANITARY COMMISSION.

CHRISTIAN ERA.

See ERA, CHRISTIAN.

CHRISTIANITY:

"Historical geography has of late years become an integral

part of the historical science. Recent investigations have

opened up the subject and a solid beginning has been made--but

it is only a beginning. It is clearly recognized that the land

itself as it appears at different periods is one of those

invaluable original documents upon which history is built, and

no stone is being left unturned to clear away mysteries and to

bring to our aid a realism hitherto unknown to the science.

... But the special branch of this vast and complicated theme

of historical geography which interests us most and which I

desire briefly to bring to your attention is that which deals

with the Christian Church. ... Our eyes first rest upon that

little group at Jerusalem that made up the Pentecostal Church.

Its spread was conditioned by the extent and character of the

Roman Empire, by the municipal genius of that empire, its

great highways by land and sea; conditioned by the commercial

routes and the track of armies outside the bounds of

civilization; conditioned by the spread of languages--

Aramaic, Greek, and Latin,--and, most important of all,

conditioned by the whereabouts of the seven million Jews

massed in Syria, Babylonia, and Egypt, and scattered

everywhere throughout the Empire and far beyond its

boundaries."

H. W. Hulbert, The Historical Geography of the Christian

Church (American Society of Church History, volume 3).

"When we turn from the Jewish 'dispersion' in the East to that

in the West, we seem in quite a different atmosphere. Despite

their intense nationalism, all unconsciously to themselves,

their mental characteristics and tendencies were in the

opposite direction from those of their brethren. With those of

the East rested the future of Judaism; with them of the West,

in a sense, that of the world. The one represented old Israel

groping back into the darkness of the past; the other young

Israel, stretching forth its hands to where the dawn of a new

day was about to break. These Jews of the West are known by

the term Hellenists. ... The translation of the Old Testament

into Greek may be regarded as the starting point of Hellenism.

It rendered possible the hope that what in its original form

had been confined to the few, might become accessible to the

world at large. ... In the account of the truly representative

gathering in Jerusalem on that ever-memorable Feast of Weeks,

the division of the 'dispersion' into two grand sections--the

Eastern or Trans-Euphratic, and the Western or

Hellenist--seems clearly marked. In this arrangement the

former would include 'the Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and

dwellers in Mesopotamia,' Judæa standing, so to speak, in the

middle, while 'the Cretes and Arabians' would typically

represent the farthest outrunners respectively of the Western

and Eastern Diaspora. The former, as we know from the New

Testament, commonly bore in Palestine the name of the

'dispersion of the Greeks', and of 'Hellenists' or 'Grecians.'

On the other hand, the Trans-Euphratic Jews, who 'inhabited

Babylon and many of the other satrapies,' were included with

the Palestinians and the Syrians under the term 'Hebrews,'

from the common language which they spoke. But the difference

between the 'Grecians' and the 'Hebrews' was far deeper than

merely of language, and extended to the whole direction of

thought."

A. Edersheim. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah,

volume 1, book 1, chapter 2-3, and 1.

"Before Pentecost an assembly of the believers took place, at

which the post vacated in the number of the apostles by the

suicide of the traitor Judas of Kerioth, was filled up by the

election of Matthias by lot. On this occasion the number of

the assembled brethren amounted to about 120 men. ... At the

feast of Pentecost ... a very considerable accession was made

to the formerly moderate band of believers in Jerusalem; ...

about 3,000 souls received the word and were joined to the

Church by baptism (Acts ii. 41). We must not, however, at once

credit the Church in Jerusalem with this increase. For among

the listeners to the apostolic discourse there were

Israelitish guests and proselytes from near and distant

countries (ii. 5, 9-11, 14), whence we may infer that of those

newly converted many were not living in Jerusalem itself, but

partly in Judæa and Galilee, partly in countries beyond

Palestine, who therefore returned home after the feast days

were ended.

{433}

Some of these might, under certain circumstances, form

the centre of a small Church in the dispersion, so that

gradually Churches may have arisen to which also James may

possibly have addressed his Epistle. ... So abundantly did God

bless with success the activity of the early apostles though

limited to the nation of Israel and the land of Canaan, and

their fidelity within a circumscribed sphere. Hence there

existed at the end of the period of which we treat numerous

Christian Churches in Jerusalem and the whole country of Judæa

(comp. Galatians i. 22, etc.: Acts xi. 1), also on the coast (Acts

ix. 32-35, etc.) in Samaria and Galilee, and finally in Syria,

Phenicia, and Cyprus, (Acts ix. 2, 10, 25, xi. 19), some of

which were directly, some indirectly, founded by the Twelve,

and were, in any case, governed and guided by them.' In the

above named districts outside Palestine, it might not, indeed,

have been easy to find a Christian Church consisting

exclusively of believing Jews, for as a rule they consisted of

believing Jews and individual Gentiles. On the other hand, we

shall scarcely be wrong in regarding the Christian Churches

within Palestine itself as composed entirely of believing

Israelites. But even among these there were many distinctions,

e. g., between Palestinians and Hellenists."

G. V. Lechler, The Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times,

volume 1, pages 30-35.

"We find the early [Jewish] Christians observing the national

feasts and holidays (Acts ii. 1: xviii. 21: xx. 6, 16: Romans

xiv. 5). They take part in the worship of the temple and the

synagogue; they pray at the customary hours (chapters ii. 46;

iii. 1; volume 42; x. 9). They observe the fasts, and undergo

voluntary abstinence, binding themselves by special vows like

all pious Jews (xiii. 2: xvii. 18; xxi. 23). They scrupulously

avoid unlawful food, and all legal defilement (x. 14). They

have their children circumcised (xv. 5; xvi. 3; 65493 volume 2).

... This scrupulous piety won for them the esteem and

admiration of the people (chap. volume 13)." At first their creed

was "comprised in a single dogma: 'Jesus is the Messiah.' ...

Their preaching of the Gospel strictly followed the lines of

Messianic tradition (i. 7; ii. 36; iii. 20). ... But in

reality all this formed only the outside of their life and

creed. ... Herein lies the profound significance of the

miracle of Pentecost. That day was the birthday of the Church,

not because of the marvelous success of Peter's preaching, but

because the Christian principle, hitherto existing only

objectively and externally in the person of Jesus, passed from

that moment into the souls of His disciples. ... And thus in

the very midst of Judaism we see created and unfolded a form

of religious life essentially different from it--the Christian

life."

A. Sabatier, The Apostle Paul, pages 35-36.

"By the two parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven,

Christ marked out the two sides or aspects of His truth--its

external growth from the least to the greatest, and its

internal action on society at large--as setting up a ferment,

and making a new lump out of the unkneaded mass of the old

humanity. With these two symbols in view we may gauge what the

gospel was designed to be and to do. It was to grow into a

great outward society--the tree of the Church; but it was also

to do a work on secular society as such, corresponding to the

action of leaven on flour. The history of Christianity has

been the carrying out of these two distinct and contrasted

conceptions; but how imperfectly, and under what drawbacks."

Reverend J. B. Heard, Alexandrian and Carthaginian Theology

Contrasted, page 186.

"The organic connection of Jewish Christians with the

synagogue, which must, in accordance with the facts before us,

be regarded as a rule, is certainly not to be taken as a mere

incidental phenomenon, a customary habit or arbitrary

accommodation, but as a moral fact resting upon an internal

necessity, having its foundation in the love of Jewish

Christians to their nation, and in the adhesion of their

religious consciousness to the old covenant. To mistake this

would be to underrate the wide bearing of the fact. But lest

we should over-estimate its importance, we must at once

proceed to another consideration. Within Judaism we must

distinguish not only the Rabbinical or Pharisaic tradition of

the original canonical revelation, but also within the canon

itself we have to distinguish the Levitical element from the

prophetic, ... taking the latter not in a close but a wide

sense as the living spiritual development of the theocracy."

G. V. Lechler, The Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times,

volume 1, page 54.

"Moreover the law had claims on a Hebrew of Palestine wholly

independent of his religious obligations. To him it was a

national institution, as well as a divine covenant. Under the

Gospel he might consider his relations to it in this latter

character altered, but as embodying the decrees and usages of

his country it still demanded his allegiance. To be a good

Christian he was not required to be a bad citizen. On these

grounds the more enlightened members of the mother-church

would justify their continued adhesion to the law. Nor is

there any reason to suppose that St. Paul himself took a

different view of their obligations."

J. B. Lightfoot, Dissertations on the Apostolic Age,

page 67.

"The term 'Jewish-Christianity' is applicable exclusively to

those Christians who really retained, entirely or in the

smallest part, the national and political forms of Judaism and

insisted upon the observance of the Mosaic Law without

modification as essential to Christianity, at least to the

Christianity of the Jewish-born converts, or who indeed

rejected these forms, but acknowledged the prerogative of the

Jewish people also in Christianity."

A. Harnack, Outlines of the History of Dogma, page 75.

CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100.

The Rise of the Churches.

Jerusalem.

"After the miraculous healing of the cripple and the discourse

of the Apostle Peter on that occasion, the historian goes on

to say, Many of them which heard the word believed, and the

number of the men was about 5,000' (iv. 4). It seems as if in

consequence of this event, which made no little stir, a larger

number joined themselves to the Church. Nor is it probable

that this healing took place until a long time after the

beginning of the Church. The miracle, with the effect which it

had, serves as a resting place at which the result of the

previous growth of the Church may be ascertained. And here the

number again incidentally mentioned refers without doubt to

the Church at Jerusalem."

G. V. Lechler, The Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times,

volume 1, page 32.

{434}

The early history of the Churches "falls into three periods

which mark three distinct stages in its progress:

(1) The Extension of the Church to the Gentiles;

(2) The Recognition of Gentile Liberty;

(3) The Emancipation of the Jewish Churches.

... And soon enough the pressure of events began to be felt.

The dispersion was the link which connected the Hebrews of

Palestine with the outer world. Led captive by the power of

Greek philosophy at Athens and Tarsus and Alexandria,

attracted by the fascinations of Oriental mysticism in Asia,

swept along with the busy whirl of social life in the city and

court of the Cæsars, these outlying members of the chosen race

had inhaled a freer spirit and contracted wider interests than

their fellow-countrymen at home. By a series of insensible

gradations--proselytes of the covenant--proselytes of the

gate--superstitious devotees who observed the rites without

accepting the faith of the Mosaic dispensation--curious

lookers-on who interested themselves in the Jewish ritual as

they would in the worship of Isis or of Astarte--the most

stubborn zealot of the law was linked to the idolatrous

heathen whom he abhorred and who despised him in turn. Thus

the train was unconsciously laid, when the spark fell from

heaven and fired it. ... Meanwhile at Jerusalem some years

passed away before the barrier of Judaism was assailed. The

Apostles still observed the Mosaic ritual; they still confined

their preaching to Jews by birth, or Jews by adoption, the

proselytes of the covenant. At length a breach was made, and

the assailants as might be expected were Hellenists. The first

step towards the creation of an organized ministry was also

the first step towards the emancipation of the Church. The

Jews of Judæa, 'Hebrews of the Hebrews' had ever regarded

their Hellenist brethren with suspicion and distrust; and this

estrangement reproduced itself in the Christian Church. The

interests of the Hellenist widows had been neglected in the

daily distribution of alms. Hence 'arose a murmuring of the

Hellenists against the Hebrews' (Acts vi. 1), which was met by

the appointment of seven persons specially charged with

providing for the wants of these neglected poor. If the

selection was made, as St. Luke's language seems to imply, not

by the Hellenists themselves but by the Church at large (vi.

2), the concession when granted was carried out in a liberal

spirit. All the names of the seven are Greek, pointing to a

Hellenist rather than a Hebrew extraction, and one is

especially described as a proselyte, being doubtless chosen to

represent a hitherto small but growing section of the

community. By this appointment the Hellenist members obtained

a status in the Church; and the effects of this measure soon

became visible. Two out of the seven stand prominently forward

as the champions of emancipation, Stephen the preacher and

martyr of liberty, and Philip the practical worker."

J. B. Lightfoot, Dissertations on the Apostolic Age,

pages 50-52.

"The Hellenist Stephen roused deep-stirring movements chiefly

in Hellenist circles. ... The persecution of the Jerusalem

community--perhaps specially of its Hellenist part--which

followed the stoning of Stephen, became a means of promoting

the spread of the Christian faith to ... Cyprus, at last to so

important a centre as Antioch, the imperial capital of the

East. To the winning of the Jews to faith in Jesus there is

already added the reception into the Christian community of

the pious Gentile Cornelius, a proselyte of the gate. ...

Though this appears in tradition as an individual case

sanctioned by special Divine guidance, in the meantime

Hellenist Christians had already begun to preach the Gospel to

born Greeks, also at Antioch in Syria, and successfully (Acts

xi. 19-26), Barnabas is sent thither from Jerusalem."

W. Moeller, History of the Christian Church,

page 53-54.

"Philip, driven from Jerusalem by the persecution, preached

Christ to the Samaritans. ... The Apostles who had remained at

Jerusalem, hearing of the success of Philip's preaching, sent

two of their number into this new and fruitful field of labor.

... Peter and John return to Jerusalem while the Deacon Philip

is called, by a new manifestation of the will of God, yet

further to extend the field of Christian missions. It is not a

Samaritan but a pagan, whom he next instructs in the truth.

... He was an Ethiopian eunuch, a great dignitary of the court

of Meroë, treasurer of the Queen. ... This man, a pagan by

birth, had taken a long journey to worship the true God in the

temple of Jerusalem."

E. De Pressensé, The Early Years of Christianity,

pages 71-74.

"For the sake of the popular feeling Herod Agrippa laid hands

on members of the community, and caused James the brother of

John (the sons of Zebedee) to be put to death by the sword, in

the year 44, for soon thereafter Herod Agrippa died. Peter

also was taken prisoner, but miraculously escaped and

provisionally left Jerusalem. From this time on James the

brother of the Lord appears ever more and more as really

bearing rank as head of the Jerusalem community, while Peter

more and more devotes himself to the apostolic mission abroad,

and indeed, more accurately, to the mission in Israel."

W. Moeller, History of the Christian Church, page 55.

"The accounts which we have regarding the apostle Peter,

represent him as preaching the gospel from the far east to

distant parts of the west. ... According to his own words, he

founded churches in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and

Bithynia, and according to the testimony of ancient historians

of the Church in the east also; in Syria, Babylon,

Mesopotamia, Chaldaea, Arabia, Phoenicia and Egypt, and in the

west, at Rome, in Britain, Ireland, Helvetia and Spain."

J. E. T. Wiltsch, Hand Book of the Geography and

Statistics of The Church, volume 1, pages 19-20.

"Three and three only of the personal disciples and immediate

followers of our Lord hold any prominent place in the

Apostolic records--James, Peter, and John; the first the

Lord's brother, the two latter the foremost members of the

Twelve. Apart from an incidental reference to the death of

James the son of Zebedee, which is dismissed in a single

sentence, the rest of the Twelve are mentioned by name for the

last time on the day of the Lord's Ascension. Thenceforward

they disappear wholly from the canonical writings. And this

silence also extends to the traditions of succeeding ages. We

read indeed of St. Thomas in India, of St. Andrew in Scythia;

but such scanty notices, even if we accept them as

trustworthy, show only the more plainly how little the Church

could tell of her earliest teachers. Doubtless they laboured

zealously and effectively in the spread of the Gospel; but, so

far as we know, they have left no impress of their individual

mind and character on the Church at large. Occupying the

foreground, and indeed covering the whole canvas of early

ecclesiastical history, appear four figures alone, St. Paul,

and the three Apostles of the Circumcision."

J. B. Lightfoot, Dissertations on the Apostolic Age,

page 46.

{435}

"While Peter (as it appears) is occupied with the work of

preaching to the Jews outside of Palestine, the community at

Jerusalem, and indeed the Palestinian communities in general,

stand under the leadership of the brother of the Lord, James,

as their recognised head. They remain strictly in the life of

the law, and still hold securely to the hope of the conversion

of the whole of God's people (which Paul had for the present

given up). The mission to the Gentiles is indeed recognised,

but the manner of its conduct by Paul and the powerful

increase of Pauline communities excite misgivings and

dissensions. For in these mixed communities, in the presence

of what is often a preponderating Gentile element, it becomes

ever clearer in what direction the development is pressing;

that, in fact, for the sake of the higher Christian communion

the legal customs even of the Jewish Christians in these

communities must inevitably be broken down, and general

Christian freedom, on principle, from the commands of the law,

gain recognition."

Dr. Wilhelm Moeller, History of the Christian Church,

page 73.

"The fall of Jerusalem occurred in the Autumn of the year 70

[see JEWS: A. D. 66-70]. And soon the catastrophe came which

solved the difficult problem. ... Jerusalem was razed to the

ground, and the Temple-worship ceased, never again to be

revived. The Christians foreseeing the calamity had fled

before the tempest. ... Before the crisis came, they had been

deprived of the counsel and guidance of the leading apostles.

Peter had fallen a martyr at Rome; John had retired to Asia

Minor; James, the Lord's brother, was slain not long before

the great catastrophe. ... He was succeeded by his cousin

Symeon, the son of Clopas and nephew of Joseph. Under these

circumstances the Church was reformed at Pella. Its history in

the ages following is a hopeless blank."

J. B. Lightfoot, Dissertations on the Apostolic Age,

page 68.

"While Cæsarea succeeded Jerusalem as the political capital of

Palestine, Antioch succeeded it as the centre of Christendom."

A. Plummer, Church of the Early Fathers, chapter 3.

CHRISTIANITY: Antioch.

"Under Macedonian rule the Greek intellect had become the

leading intellectual power of the world. The great

Greek-speaking towns of the East were alike the strongholds of

intellectual power, the battlefields of opinion and systems,

and the laboratories of scientific research, where discoveries

were made and literary undertakings requiring the combination

of forces were carried out. Such was Antioch on the Orontes,

the meeting point of Syrian and Greek intellect; such, above

all, was Alexandria."

J. J. von Döllinger, Studies in European History,

page 165.

"The chief line along which the new religion developed was

that which led from Syrian Antioch through the Cilician Gates,

across Lycaonia to Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome. One subsidiary

line followed the land route by Philadelphia, Troas, Philippi,

and the Egnatian Way to Brindisi and Rome; and another went

north from the Gates by Tyana and Cæsareia of Cappadocia to

Amisos in Pontus, the great harbour of the Black Sea, by which

the trade of Central Asia was carried to Rome. The maintenance

of close and constant communication between the scattered

congregations must be presupposed, as necessary to explain the

growth of the Church and the attitude which the State assumed

towards it. Such communication was, on the view advocated in

the present work, maintained along the same lines on which the

general development of the Empire took place; and politics,

education and religion grew side by side."

W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, page 10.

"The incitement to the wider preaching of the Gospel in the

Greek world starts from the Christian community at Antioch.

For this purpose Barnabas receives Paul as a companion (Acts

xiii., and xiv.) Saul, by birth a Jew of the tribe of

Benjamin, born at Tarsus in Cilicia, educated as a Pharisee;

and although indeed as a Hellenist, he had command of Greek

and had come into contact with Greek culture and Greek life,

yet had not actually passed through the discipline of Greek

culture, was introduced by Gamaliel to the learned study of

the law, and his whole soul was seized with fiery zeal for the

Statutes of the fathers. ... After [his conversion and] his

stay in Damascus and in Arabia and the visit to Peter (and

James) at Jerusalem, having gone to Syria and Cilicia, he was

taken to Antioch by Barnabas."

W. Moeller, History of the Christian Church, page 57.

"The strength and zeal of the Antioch Christian society are

shown in the sending forth of Paul and Barnabas, with Mark, a

cousin of Barnabas, for their companion for a part of the way,

on a preaching tour in the eastern districts of Asia Minor.

First they visited Cyprus, where Sergius Paulus, the

proconsul, was converted. Thence they sailed to Attalia, on

the southern coast of Pamphylia, and near Perga; from Perga

they proceeded to Antioch in Pisidia, and from there eastward

to Iconium, and as far as Lystra and Derbe in Lycaonia.

Retracing their steps, they came back to Attalia, and sailed

directly to Antioch. ... This was the first incursion of Paul

into the domain of heathenism."

G. P. Fisher, History of the Christian Church, page 22.

"How then should Paul and Barnabas proceed? To leave Syria

they must go first to Seleuceia, the harbour of Antioch, where

they would find ships going south to the Syrian coast and

Egypt, and west either by way of Cyprus or along the coast of

Asia Minor. The western route led toward the Roman world, to

which all Paul's subsequent history proves that he considered

himself called by the Spirit. The Apostles embarked in a ship

for Cyprus, which was very closely connected by commerce and

general intercourse with the Syrian coast. After traversing

the island from east to west, they must go onward. Ships going

westward naturally went across the coast of Pamphylia, and the

Apostles, after reaching Paphos, near the west end of Cyprus,

sailed in one of these ships, and landed at Attalia in

Pamphylia."

W. M. Ramsay. The Church in the Roman Empire, page 60.

"The work starting from Antioch, by which access to the faith

is opened to the Gentiles, the formation of (preponderatingly)

Gentile Christian communities, now introduces into the

original Christian development an important problem, which

(about the year 52, probably not later), (Galatians ii.; Acts xv.)

leads to discussions and explanations at the so-called

Apostolic Council [at Jerusalem]. ... For Paul, who has risen

to perfect independence by the energy of his own peculiar

stamp of gospel, there now begin the years of his powerful

activity, in which he not only again visits and extends his

former missionary field in Asia Minor, but gains a firm

footing in Macedonia (Philippi), Athens, and Achaia (Corinth);

then on the so-called third missionary journey he exercises a

comprehensive influence during a stay of nearly three years at

Ephesus, and finally looks from Achaia towards the metropolis

of the world."

W. Moeller, History of the Christian Church, pages 57-59.

{436}

"If the heathen whom he (Paul) had won to the faith and

received into the Church were to be persuaded to adopt

circumcision and the law before they could attain to full

participation in the Christian salvation, his preaching had

fallen short of his aim, it had been in vain, since it was

very doubtful whether the Gentiles gained over to believe in

the Messiah would submit to the condition. Paul could only

look on those who made such a demand as false brethren, who

having no claim to Christian brotherhood had forced themselves

into the Church at Antioch in an unauthorized way (Galatians ii.

4), and was persuaded that neither the primitive Church as

such, nor its rulers, shared this view. In order therefore to

prevent the Gentile Christians from being disturbed on this

point, he determined to go to Jerusalem and there to challenge

a decision in the matter that should put an end to the strife

(ii. 2). The Church at Antioch also recognized this necessity;

hence followed the proceedings in Jerusalem [about A. D. 52],

whither Paul and Barnabas repaired with other associates (Galatians

ii. 1, Acts xv. 2 ff). ... It is certain that when Paul laid

his (free) gospel before the authorities in Jerusalem, they

added nothing to it (Galatians ii. 2-6). i. e., they did not

require that the gospel he preached to the Gentiles should,

besides the sole condition of faith which he laid down, impose

Judaism upon them as a condition of participation in

salvation. ... Paul's stipulations with the authorities in

Jerusalem respecting their future work were just as important

for him as the recognition of his free gospel (Galatians ii. 7-10).

They had for their basis a recognition on the part of the

primitive apostles that he was entrusted with the gospel of

the uncircumcision, to which they could add nothing (ii. 6),

just as Peter (as admittedly the most prominent among the

primitive apostles) was entrusted with that of the

circumcision."

Bernhard Weiss, A Manual of Introduction to the New

Testament, volume 1, pages 172-175, 178.

"It seems clear that the first meetings of the Christians as a

community apart--meetings that is of a private rather than a

proselytising character--took place, as we see from Acts i.

13-15, in private apartments, the upper rooms or large

guest-chambers in the houses of individual members. Such a

room was doubtless provided by the liberality of Titus Justus

(Acts xviii. 7), such a room again was the upper chamber in

which St. Paul preached at Troas (Acts xx. 7, 8); in such

assembled the converts saluted by the Apostle as the church

which is in the house of Aquila and Prisca, of Nymphas and of

Philemon. ... The primitive Roman house had only one story,

but as the cities grew to be more densely populated upper

stories came into use, and it was the custom to place in these

dining apartments, which were called cenacula. Such apartments

would answer to the 'upper rooms' ... associated with the

early days of Christianity. ... The Christian communities

contained from an early period members of wealth and social

position, who could accommodate in their houses large

gatherings of the faithful; and it is interesting to reflect

that while some of the mansions of an ancient city might be

witnessing in suppers of a Trimalchio or a Virro, scenes more

revolting to modern taste than almost anything presented by

the pagan world, others, perhaps in the same street, might be

the seat of Christian worship or of the simple Christian

meal."

G. B. Brown, From Schola to Cathedral, pages 38-43.

CHRISTIANITY: Asia Minor and Greece.

"Our knowledge of the Apostle Paul's life is far from being

complete. We have only a brief sketch of journeys and toils

that extended over a period of thirty years. Large spaces are

passed over in silence. For example, in the catalogue of his

sufferings, incidentally given, he refers to the fact that he

had been shipwrecked three times, and these disasters were all

prior to the shipwreck on the Island of Malta described by

Luke. Shortly after the conference at Jerusalem he started on

his second missionary tour. He was accompanied by Silas, and

was joined by Timothy at Lystra. He revisited his converts in

Eastern Asia Minor, founded churches in Galatia and Phrygia,

and from Troas, obedient to a heavenly summons, crossed over

to Europe. Having planted at Philippi a church that remained

remarkably devoted and loyal to him, he followed the great

Roman road to Thessalonica, the most important city in

Macedonia. Driven from there and from Berea, he proceeded to

Athens [see ATHENS: A. D. 54 (?)]. In that renowned and

cultivated city he discoursed on Mars Hill to auditors eager

for new ideas in philosophy and religion, and in private

debated with Stoics and Epicureans. At Corinth, which had

risen from its ruins and was once more rich and prosperous, he

remained for a year and a half. It was there, probably, that

he wrote his two Epistles to the Thessalonian Christians.

After a short stay at Ephesus he returned to Antioch by way of

Cesarea and Jerusalem. It was not long before Paul--a second

Alexander, but on a peaceful expedition--began his third great

missionary journey. Taking the land route from Antioch, he

traversed Asia Minor to Ephesus, a flourishing commercial

mart, the capital of the Roman province of Asia. There, with

occasional absences, he made his abode for upwards of two

years. From Ephesus, probably, he wrote the Epistle to the

Galatians. ... From Ephesus Paul also wrote the First Epistle

to the Corinthians. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians he

probably wrote from Philippi. ... Coming down through Greece,

he remained there three months. There he composed his Epistle

to the Romans. ... The untiring Apostle now turned his face

towards Jerusalem. He desired to be present at the festival of

the Pentecost. In order to save time, he sailed past Ephesus,

and at Miletus bade a tender farewell to the Ephesian elders.

He had fulfilled his pledge given at the conference, and he

now carried contributions from the Christians of Macedonia and

Achaia for the poor at Jerusalem."

G. P. Fisher, History of the Christian Church,

pages 27-28.

"We may safely say that if Saul had been less of a Jew, Paul

the Apostle would have been less bold and independent. His

work would have been more superficial, and his mind less

unfettered. God did not choose a heathen to be the apostle for

the heathen; for he might have been ensnared by the traditions

of Judaism, by its priestly hierarchy and the splendours of

its worship, as indeed it happened with the church of the

second century. On the contrary God chose a Pharisee. But this

Pharisee had the most complete experience of the emptiness of

external ceremonies and the crushing yoke of the law. There

was no fear that he would ever look back, that he would be

tempted to set up again what the grace of God had justly

overthrown (Galatians ii. 18). Judaism was wholly vanquished

in his soul, for it was wholly displaced."

A. Sabatier, The Apostle Paul, page 69.

{437}

"Notwithstanding the opposition he met from his countrymen, in

spite of all the liberal and the awakened sympathies which he

derived from his work, despite the necessity of contending

daily and hourly for the freedom of the Gospel among the

Gentiles, he never ceased to be a Jew. ... The most ardent

patriot could not enlarge with greater pride on the glories of

the chosen race than he does in the Epistle to the Romans. His

care for the poor in Judæa is a touching proof of the strength

of this national feeling. His attendance at the great annual

festivals in Jerusalem is still more significant. 'I must

spend the coming feast at Jerusalem.' This language becomes

the more striking when we remember that he was then intending

to open out a new field of missionary labour in the far West,

and was bidding perhaps his last farewell to the Holy City,

the joy of the whole earth."

J. B. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pages 209-210.

"The Macedonian Churches are honorably distinguished above all

others by their fidelity to the Gospel and their affectionate

regard for St. Paul himself. While the Church of Corinth

disgraced herself by gross moral delinquencies, while the

Galatians bartered the liberty of the Gospel for a narrow

formalism, while the believers of Ephesus drifted into the

wildest speculative errors, no such stain attaches to the

brethren of Philippi and Thessalonica. It is to the Macedonian

congregations that the Apostle ever turns for solace in the

midst of his severest trials and sufferings. Time seems not to

have chilled these feelings of mutual affection. The Epistle

to the Philippians was written about ten years after the

Thessalonian letters. It is the more surprising therefore that

they should resemble each other so strongly in tone. In both

alike St. Paul drops his official title at the outset, ... and

in both he adopts throughout the same tone of confidence and

affection. In this interval of ten years we meet with one

notice of the Macedonian Churches. It is conceived in terms of

unmeasured praise. The Macedonians had been called upon to

contribute to the wants of their poorer brethren in Judæa, who

were suffering from famine. They had responded nobly to the

call. Deep-sunk in poverty and sorely tried by persecution,

they came forward with eager joy and poured out the riches of

their liberality, straining their means to the utmost in order

to relieve the sufferers. ... We may imagine that the people

still retained something of those simpler habits and that

sturdier character, which triumphed over Greeks and Orientals

in the days of Philip and Alexander, and thus in the early

warfare of the Christian Church the Macedonian phalanx offered

a successful resistance to the assaults of an enemy, before

which the lax and enervated ranks of Asia and Achaia had

yielded ignominiously."

J. B. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pages 249-250.

At Jerusalem, "the Apostle was rescued by a detachment of the

Roman garrison from a mob of Jewish malignants, was held in

custody for two years at Cesarea, and was finally enabled to

accomplish a long-cherished intention to go to Rome, by being

conveyed there as a prisoner, he having made an appeal to

Cæsar. After being wrecked on the Mediterranean and cast

ashore on the Island of Malta, under the circumstances related

in Luke's graphic and accurate description of the voyage, he

went on his way in safety to the capital."

G. P. Fisher, History of the Christian Church, page 29.

"Paul's apostolic career, as known to us, lasted ...

twenty-nine or thirty years; and it falls into three distinct

periods which are summarized in the following chronological

table:

First Period

Essentially Missionary:

35 A. D.,

Conversion of Paul, Journey to Arabia;

38,

First visit to Jerusalem;

38-49,

Mission in Syria and Cilicia-Tarsus and Antioch;

50-51,

First missionary journey Cyprus, Pamphylia and Galatia

(Acts xiii., xiv.);

52,

Conference at Jerusalem (Acts xv.; Galatians ii.);

52-55,

Second missionary journey

Epistles to the Thessalonians (from Corinth).

Second Period

The Great Conflicts, and the Great Epistles:

54,

Return to Antioch

Controversy with Peter (Gal. ii. 12-22);

55-57,

Mission to Ephesus and Asia;

56,

Epistle to the Galatians;

57 or 58 (Passover),

First Epistle to the Corinthians

(Ephesus);

57 or 58 (Autumn),

Second Epistle to the Corinthians.

(Macedonia);

58 (Winter),

Epistle to the Romans.

Third Period

The Captivity:

58 or 59 (Pentecost),

Paul is arrested at Jerusalem;

58-60, or 59-61,

Captivity at Cæsarea

Epistles to Philemon, Colossians and Ephesians;

60 or 61 (Autumn),

Departure for Rome;

61 or 62 (Spring),

Arrival of Paul in Rome;

62-63,

Epistle to the Philippians;

63 or 64,

End of the narrative of the Acts of the Apostles."

A. Sabatier, The Apostle Paul, pages 21-22.

"The impression that we get from Acts is, that the

evangelisation of Asia Minor originated from St. Paul; and

that from his initiative the new religion gradually spread

over the country through the action of many other missionaries

(Acts xix. 10). Moreover, missionaries not trained by him,

were at work in South Galatia and in Ephesus as early as 54-56

A. D. (Gal. volume 7-10; Acts xviii. 25). ... The Christian Church

in Asia Minor was always opposed to the primitive native

character. It was Christianity, and not the Imperial

government, which finally destroyed the native languages, and

made Greek the universal language of Asia Minor. The new

religion was strong in the towns before it had any hold of the

country parts. The ruder and the less civilised any district

was, the slower was Christianity in permeating it.

Christianity in the early centuries was the religion of the

more advanced, not of the 'barbarian' peoples; and in fact it

seems to be nearly confined within the limits of the Roman

world, and practically to take little thought of any people

beyond, though in theory, 'Barbarian and Scythian' are

included in it. ... The First Epistle of John was in all

probability 'addressed primarily to the circle of Asiatic

Churches, of which Ephesus was the centre.'"

W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire,

pages 284, 44, 303.

{438}

"Unless we are prepared to reject without a hearing all the

traditions of Christianity, we cannot refuse to believe that

the latest years of the Apostle St. John were spent in the

Roman province of Asia and chiefly in Ephesus its capital.

This tradition is singularly full, consistent and

well-authenticated. Here he gathered disciples about him,

organized churches, appointed bishops and presbyters. A whole

chorus of voices unite in bearing testimony to its truth. One

who passed his earlier life in these parts and had heard his

aged master, a disciple of St. John himself, recount his

personal reminiscences of the great Apostle; another, who held

this very see of Ephesus, and writing less than a century

after the Apostle's death was linked with the past by a chain

of relatives all bishops in the Christian Church; a third who

also flourished about the close of the century and numbered

among his teachers an old man from this very district--are the

principal, because the most distinct; witnesses to a fact

which is implied in several other notices of earlier or

contemporary writers. As to the time at which St. John left

his original home and settled in this new abode no direct

account is preserved; but a very probable conjecture may be

hazarded. The impending fall of the Holy City was the signal

for the dispersion of the followers of Christ. About this same

time the three other great Apostles, St. Peter, St. Paul and

St. James, died a martyr's death; and on St. John, the lust

surviving of the four great pillars of the Church, devolved

the work of developing the theology of the Gospel and

completing the organization of the Church. It was not

unnatural that at such a crisis he should fix his residence in

the centre of a large and growing Christian community, which

had been planted by the Apostle of the Gentiles, and watered

by the Apostle of the Circumcision. The missionary labours of

St. Paul and St. Peter in Asia Minor were confirmed and

extended by the prolonged residence of their younger

contemporary. At all events such evidence as we possess is

favourable to this view of the date of St. John's settlement

at Ephesus. Assuming that the Apocalypse is the work of the

beloved Apostle, and accepting the view which assigns it to

the close of Nero's reign or thereabouts, we find him now for

the first time in the immediate neighbourhood of Asia Minor

and in direct communication with Ephesus and the neighbouring

Churches. St. John however was not alone. Whether drawn

thither by the attraction of his presence or acting in

pursuance of some common agreement, the few surviving personal

disciples of the Lord would seem to have chosen Asia Minor as

their permanent abode, or at all events as their recognised

headquarters. Here at least we meet with the friend of St.

John's youth and perhaps his fellow-townsman, Andrew of

Bethsaida, who with him had first listened to John the

Baptist, and with him also had been the earliest to recognise

Jesus as the Christ. Here too we encounter Philip the

Evangelist with his daughters, and perhaps also Philip of

Bethsaida, the Apostle. Here also was settled the Apostle's

namesake, John the Presbyter, also a personal disciple of

Jesus, and one Aristion, not otherwise known to us, who

likewise had heard the Lord. And possibly also other Apostles

whose traditions Papias recorded [see J. B. Lightfoot,

Apostolic Fathers, page 527], Matthew and Thomas and James,

may have had some connexion, temporary or permanent, with this

district. Thus surrounded by the surviving disciples of the

Lord, by bishops and presbyters of his own appointment, and by

the pupils who gathered about him and looked to him for

instruction, St. John was the focus of a large and active

society of believers. In this respect he holds a unique

position among the great teachers of the new faith. St. Peter

and St. Paul converted disciples and organized congregations;

St. John alone was the centre of a school. His life prolonged

till the close of the century, when the Church was firmly

rooted and widely extended, combined with his fixed abode in

the centre of an established community to give a certain

definiteness to his personal influence which would be wanting

to the wider labours of these strictly missionary preachers.

Hence the notices of St. John have a more solid basis and

claim greater attention than stories relating to the other

Apostles."

J. B. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, pages 51-53.

"In the parable of Jesus, of which we are speaking, it is said

that 'the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself;'--that is,

to transfer the Greek term into English, 'automatically.' That

epithet is chosen which denotes most precisely a self-acting,

spontaneous energy, inherent in the seed which Jesus, through

his discourses, his acts of mercy and power, and his patience

unto death, was sowing in the world. This grand prophetic

declaration, uttered in a figure so simple and beautiful, in

the ears of a little company of Galileans, was to be

wonderfully verified in the coming ages of Christian history."

G. P. Fisher, The Nature and Method of Revelation, page 47.

CHRISTIANITY: Alexandria.

"Plutarch looked upon it as the great mission of Alexander to

transplant Grecian culture into distant countries, and to

conciliate Greeks and barbarians, and to fuse them into one.

He says of him, not without reason, that he was sent of God

for this purpose; though the historian did not divine that

this end itself was only subsidiary to, and the means of, one

still higher--the making, viz., the united peoples of the East

and West more accessible to the new creation which was to

proceed from Christianity, and by the combination of the

elements of Oriental and Hellenic culture the preparing for

Christianity a material in which it might develop itself. If

we overlook this ulterior end, and do not fix our regards on

the higher quickening spirit destined to reanimate, for some

new end, that combination which already bore within itself a

germ of corruption, we might well doubt whether that union was

really a gain to either party; whether, at least, it was not

everywhere attended with a correspondent loss. For the fresh

vigour which it infused into the old national spirit must have

been constantly repressed by the violence which the foreign

element did to it. To introduce into that combination a new

living principle of development, and, without prejudice to

their original essence, to unite peculiarities the most

diverse into a whole in which each part should be a complement

to the other, required something higher than any element of

human culture. The true living communion between the East and

the West, which should combine together the two peculiar

principles that were equally necessary for a complete

exhibition of the type of humanity, could first come only from

Christianity. But still, as preparatory thereto, the influence

which, for three centuries, went forth from Alexandria, that

centre of the intercourse of the world, was of great

importance."

A. Neander, General History of the

Christian Religion and Church, volume 1, introduction.

{439}

"The Greek version [of the Old Testament, the Septuagint],

like the Targum of the Palestinians, originated, no doubt, in

the first place, in a felt national want on the part of the

Hellenists, who as a body were ignorant of Hebrew. Hence we

find notices of very early Greek versions of at least parts of

the Pentateuch. But this, of course, could not suffice. On the

other hand, there existed, as we may suppose, a natural

curiosity on the part of the students, specially in

Alexandria, which had so large a Jewish population, to know

the sacred books on which the religion and history of Israel

were founded. Even more than this, we must take into account

the literary tastes of the first three Ptolemies (successors

in Egypt of Alexander the Great), and the exceptional favour

which the Jews for a time enjoyed."

A. Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah,

volume 1, page 24.

CHRISTIANITY: Rome.

"Alongside of the province of Asia Minor, Rome very early

attains to an outstanding importance for young Christianity.

If, as we have supposed, the community here which emancipated

itself from the synagogue was mainly recruited from among the

proselyte circles which had formed themselves around the

Jewish synagogue, if Paul during the years of his captivity,

and Peter also, influenced this preponderatingly

Gentile-Christian community, we must, however, by no means

undervalue for the Christian community the continuous

influence of Judaism on the Roman world, an influence which

was not lessened but rather increased by the destruction of

Jerusalem. Many thousands of Jewish captives had arrived here

and been sold as slaves--Rome was the greatest Jewish city in

the Empire, ... and in part it was an enlightened and liberal

Judaism. Jewish Hellenism had already long availed itself of

the weapons of Hellenic philosophy and science ... in order to

exalt the Jewish faith. ... Under this stimulus there was ...

developed a proselytism which was indeed attracted by that

monotheism and the belief in providence and prophecy and the

moral ideas allied therewith, and which also had a strong

tendency to Jewish customs and festivals--especially the

keeping of the Sabbath--but which remained far from binding

itself to a strictly legal way of life in circumcision, etc.

We may suppose that Roman Christianity not only appeared in

the character of such a proselytism, but also retained from it

a certain Jewish colouring."

W. Moeller, History of the Christian Church:

A. D. 1-600, pages 83-84.

"The last notice of the Roman Church in the Apostolic writings

seems to point to two separate communities, a Judaizing Church

and a Pauline Church. The arrival of the Gentile Apostle in

the metropolis, it would appear, was the signal for the

separation of the Judaizers, who had hitherto associated with

their Gentile brethren coldly and distrustfully. The presence

of St. Paul must have vastly strengthened the numbers and

influence of the more liberal and Catholic party; while the

Judaizers provoked by rivalry redoubled their efforts, that in

making converts to the Gospel they might also gain proselytes

to the law."

J. B. Lightfoot, Dissertations on the Apostolic Age,

page 94.

"Historical information of any certainty on the latter period

of Paul's life is entirely wanting. While the epistles require

this unknown period, and a second captivity, as a basis for

their apostolic origin, on the other hand, the hypothesis of a

second captivity scarcely finds any real foundations except in

the three Pastoral letters."

A. Sabatier, The Apostle Paul, page 269.

It only remains for us, returning to the close of the

apostle's life, to put together the slender indications that

we have of its date. He embarked for Rome in the autumn of 60

(or 61) A. D.; but was compelled by shipwreck to winter in the

island of Malta, and only reached the Eternal City in the

spring of 61 (62). Luke adds that he remained there as a

prisoner for two years, living in a private house under the

guard of a soldier; then his narrative breaks off abruptly,

and we are confronted with the unknown (Acts, xxviii. 30).

Paul is supposed to have perished in the frightful persecution

caused by the fire of Rome in July 64 A. D. All that is

certain is that he died a martyr at Rome under Nero

(Sabatier).

[The purpose of what follows in this article is to give a

brief history of Christianity in some of its relations to

general history by the method of this work, and in the light

of some of the best thought of our time. The article as a

combination of quotations from many authors attempts a

presentation of historic facts, and also a positive and

representative view, so far as this may be obtained under the

guidance of ideas common to many of the books used. Some of

these books have had more influence on the development of the

article than others: entire harmony and a full presentation of

any author's view would manifestly be impossible.

Nevertheless, the reader may discover in the article

principles and elements of unity derived from the literature

and representing it. Unfortunately, one of the essential parts

of such a history must be omitted--biography.]

CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 100-312.

The Period of Growth and Struggle.

"Christian belief, Christian morality, the Christian view of

the world, of which the church as a religious society and

institution is the focus, as fluid spiritual elements permeate

humanity as it becomes Christian, far beyond the sphere of the

church proper; while conversely the church is not assured

against the possibility that spiritual elements originally

alien to her may dominate and influence her in their turn. ...

In this living interaction the peculiar life of the church is

unfolded, in accordance with its internal principles of

formation, into an extraordinarily manifold and complicated

object of historical examination. ... For this purpose it is

necessary to elucidate the general historical movement of the

church by the relative separation of certain of its aspects,

without loosening the bond of unity."

W. Moeller, History of the Christian Church:

A. D. 1-600, pages 1-3.

"Such, in fact, has been the history of the Faith: a sad and

yet a glorious succession of battles, often hardly fought, and

sometimes indecisive, between the new life and the old life.

... The Christian victory of common life was wrought out in

silence and patience and nameless agonies. It was the victory

of the soldiers and not of the captains of Christ's army. But

in due time another conflict had to be sustained, not by the

masses, but by great men, the consequence and the completion

of that which had gone before. ... The discipline of action

precedes the effort of reason. ... So it came to pass that the

period during which this second conflict of the Faith was

waged was, roughly speaking, from the middle of the second

to the middle of the third century."

B. F. Westcott, Essays in the History of Religious

Thought in the West, pages 194-197.

{440}

"Philosophy went on its way among the higher classes, but laid

absolutely no hold on men at large. The reformation which it

wrought in a few elect spirits failed utterly to spread

downward to the mass of mankind. The poor were not touched by

it; society was not helped by it; its noblest men, and they

grew fewer and fewer, generation by generation, bewailed

bitterly the universal indifference. The schools dwindled into

a mere university system of culture; Christianity developed

into a religion for the civilised world. ... New ideas it had

in abundance, but new ideas were not the secret of its power.

The essential matter in the Gospel was that it was the history

of a Life. It was a tale of fact that all could understand,

that all could believe, that all could love. It differed

fundamentally from Philosophy, because it appealed not to

culture, but to life. ... It was the spell of substantial

facts, living facts, ... the spell of a loyalty to a personal

Lord; and those who have not mastered the difference between a

philosopher's speculations about life, and the actual record

of a life which, in all that makes life holy and beautiful,

transcended the philosopher's most pure and lofty dreams, have

not understood yet the rudiments of the reason why the Stoic

could not, while Christianity could and did, regenerate

society."

J. B. Brown, Stoics and Saints, pages 85-86.

The "period, from the accession of Marcus Aurelius (A. D. 161)

to the accession of Valerian (A. D. 253) was for the Gentile

world a period of unrest and exhaustion, of ferment and of

indecision. The time of great hopes and creative minds was

gone. The most conspicuous men were, with few exceptions,

busied with the past. ... Local beliefs had lost their power.

Even old Rome ceased to exercise an unquestioned moral

supremacy. Men strove to be cosmopolitan. They strove vaguely

after a unity in which the scattered elements of ancient

experience should be harmonized. The effect can be seen both

in the policy of statesmen and in the speculations of

philosophers, in Marcus Aurelius, or Alexander Severus, or

Decius, no less than in Plotinus or Porphyry. As a necessary

consequence, the teaching of the Bible accessible in Greek

began to attract serious attention among the heathen. The

assailants of Christianity, even if they affected contempt,

shewed that they were deeply moved by its doctrines. The

memorable  saying of Numenius, 'What is Plato but Moses

speaking in the language of Athens?' shews at once the feeling

after spiritual sympathy which began to be entertained, and

the want of spiritual insight in the representatives of

Gentile thought."

B. F. Westcott, Essays in the History of Religious

Thought in the West, pages 196-197.

"To our minds it appears that the preparation of philosophy

for Christianity was complete. ... The time was ripe for that

movement of which Justin is the earliest [complete]

representative."

G. T. Purves, The Testimony of Justin Martyr,

page 135.

"The writing in defense of Christianity is called the apology,

and the writer an apologist. ... There were two classes of

apologists, the Greek and the Latin, according to the

territory which they occupied, and the language in which they

wrote. But there were further differences. The Greeks belonged

mostly to the second century, and their writings exhibited a

profound intimacy with the Greek philosophy. Some of them had

studied in the Greek schools, and entered the church only in

mature life. They endeavored to prove that Christianity was

the blossom of all that was valuable in every system. They

stood largely on the defensive. The Latins, on the other hand,

were aggressive. They lived mostly in the third century. ...

The principal Greek apologists [were] Aristo, Quadratus,

Aristides [A. D. 131], Justin [A. D. 160], Melito [A. D. 170],

Miltiades, Irenaeus, Athenagoras [A. D. 178], Tatian, Clement

of Alexandria [A. D. 200], Hippolytus, and Origen [A. D. 225]."

J. F. Hurst, Short History of the Christian Church,

page 33.

Lightfoot assigns to about A. D. 150 (?) the author of the

Epistle to Diognetus. "Times without number the defenders of

Christianity appeal to the great and advantageous change

wrought by the Gospel in all who embraced it. ... 'We who

hated and destroyed one another, and on account of their

different manners would not receive into our houses men of a

different tribe, now, since the coming of Christ, live

familiarly with them. We pray for our enemies, we endeavor to

persuade those who hate us unjustly to live conformably to the

beautiful precepts of Christ, to the end that they may become

partakers with us of the same joyful hope of a reward from

God, the Ruler of all.' This distinction between Christians

and heathen, this consciousness of a complete change in

character and life, is nowhere more beautifully described than

in the noble epistle ... to Diognetus."

Gerhard Uhlhorn, The Conflict of Christianity with

Heathenism, page 166.

"For Christians are not distinguished from the rest of mankind

either in locality or in speech or in customs. For they dwell

not somewhere in cities of their own, neither do they use some

different language, nor practise an extraordinary kind of

life. ... But while they dwell in cities of Greeks and

barbarians as the lot of each is cast, and follow the native

customs in dress and food and the other arrangements of life,

yet the constitution of their own citizenship, which they set

forth, is marvellous, and confessedly contradicts expectation.

They dwell in their own countries, but only as sojourners;

they bear their share in all things as citizens, and they

endure all hardships as strangers. Every foreign country is a

fatherland to them, and every fatherland is foreign. ... Their

existence is on earth, but their citizenship is in heaven.

They obey the established laws, and they surpass the laws in

their own lives. They love all men and they are persecuted by

all. ... War is urged against them as aliens by the Jews, and

persecution is carried on against them by the Greeks, and yet

those that hate them cannot tell the reason of their

hostility."

J. B. Lightfoot, Translation of the Epistle to Diognetus

(The Apostolic Fathers, pages 505-506).

"These apologists rise against philosophy also, out of which

they themselves had arisen, in the full consciousness of their

faith open to all and not only to the cultured few, the

certainty of which, based upon revelation, cannot be replaced

by uncertain human wisdom, which, moreover, is

self-contradictory in its most important representatives. On

the other hand, they willingly recognise in the philosophy by

means of which they had themselves been educated, certain

elements of truth, which they partly derive from the

seed-corns of truth, which the divine Logos had scattered

among the heathen also, partly externally from a dependence of

Greek wisdom on the much older wisdom of the East, and

therefore from the use of the Scriptures of the Old Testament.

To the reproach that they had deserted the religion which had

been handed down from their ancestors and thereby made sacred,

they oppose the right of recognised truth, the right of

freedom of conscience; religion becomes the peculiar affair of

personal conviction, against which methods of force do not

suffice: God is to be obeyed rather than man."

W. Moeller, History of the Christian Church:

A. D. 1-600, page 179.

{441}

"Such a morality, as Roman greatness was passing away, took

possession of the ground. Its beginnings were scarcely felt,

scarcely known of, in the vast movement of affairs in the

greatest of empires. By and by its presence, strangely

austere, strangely gentle, strangely tender, strangely

inflexible, began to be noticed. But its work was long only a

work of indirect preparation. Those whom it charmed, those

whom it opposed, those whom it tamed, knew not what was being

done for the generations which were to follow."

R. W. Church, The Gifts of Civilization, page 159.

"The more spiritual and profound historians of the Church

recognize it as a manifestation of this divine life flowing

into human history. But this is true of the organized church

only with important qualifications. The life must manifest

itself in an organization; but the organization is neither the

only nor the complete exposition of the life. ... The life

which creates the organization penetrates and purifies also

the family and the state, renovates individuals, and blooms

and fructifies in Christian civilizations; and these are also

historical manifestations."

S. Harris, The Kingdom of Christ on Earth, page 87.

It was the great formative period of the world's new life, and

all streams tended to flow together. The influence of Greek

thought on Roman law had led, under the circumstances of Roman

commercial life, to the development of an ideal "jus gentium,"

a kind of natural law discovered by the reason. This

conception transformed the Roman law and brought it into touch

with the new sense of human relations. "It was by means of

this higher conception of equity which resulted from the

identification of the jus gentium with the jus naturale--that

the alliance between law and philosophy was really made

efficient."

W. C. Morey, Outlines from Roman Law, page 114.

"There were three agencies whose influence in working

simultaneously and successively at this identical task, the

developing and importing of the jus gentium, was decisive of

the ultimate result. These were the praetorian edict [which

reached its climax under the Republic and was completed under

Hadrian], Roman scientific jurisprudence [which developed its

greatest ability about A. D. 200] and imperial legislation."

R. Sohm, Institutes of Roman Law, page 46.

"The liberal policy of Rome gradually extended the privileges

of her citizenship till it included all her subjects; and

along with the 'Jus suffragii,' went of course the 'Jus

honorum.' Even under Augustus we find a Spaniard consul at

Rome; and under Galba an Egyptian is governor of Egypt. It is

not long before even the emperor himself is supplied by the

provinces. It is easy to comprehend therefore how the

provincials forgot the fatherland of their birth for the

fatherland of their citizenship. Once win the franchise, and

to great capacity was opened a great: career. The Roman Empire

came to be a homogeneous mass of privileged persons, largely

using the same language, aiming at the same type of

civilisation, equal among themselves, but all alike conscious

of their superiority to the surrounding barbarians."

W. T. Arnold, The Roman System of Provincial

Administration, page 37.

"As far as she could, Rome destroyed the individual genius of

nations; she seems to have rendered them unqualified for a

national existence. When the public life of the Empire ceased,

Italy, Gaul, and Spain were thus unable to become nations.

Their great historical existence did not commence until after

the arrival of the barbarians, and after several centuries of

experiments amid violence and calamity, But how does it happen

that the countries which Rome did not conquer, or did not long

have under her sway, now hold such a prominent place in the

world--that they exhibit so much originality and such complete

confidence in their future? Is it only because, having existed

a shorter time, they are entitled to a longer future? Or,

perchance, did Rome leave behind her certain habits of mind,

intellectual and moral qualities, which impede and limit

activity?"

E. Lavisse, Political History of Europe, page 6.

Patriotism was a considerable part of both the ancient

religion and the old morality. The empire weakened the former

and deeply injured the latter by conquest of the individual

states. It had little to offer in place of these except that

anomaly, the worship of the emperor; and a law and justice

administered by rulers who, to say the least, grew very rich.

"The feeling of pride in Roman citizenship ... became much

weaker as the citizenship was widened. ... Roman citizenship

included an ever growing proportion of the population in every

land round the Mediterranean, till at last it embraced the

whole Roman world. ... Christianity also created a religion

for the Empire, transcending all distinctions of nationality.

... The path of development for the Empire lay in accepting

the religion offered it to complete its organisation. Down to

the time of Hadrian there was a certain progress on the part

of the Empire towards a recognition of this necessity."

W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire,

pages 373, 191-192.

The relations of the laws of the Empire to Christianity may be

briefly stated, but there are differences of opinion which

cannot be noted here: "A. D. 30 to 100, Christians treated as

a sect of the Jews and sharing in the general toleration

accorded to them. A. D. 100 to 250, Christians recognized, ...

and rendered liable to persecution: (1st) For treason and

impiety. (2nd) As belonging to illegal associations, but at

the same time protected in their capacity of members of

Friendly or Burial Societies of a kind allowed by the law. A.

D. 250 to 260, Christianity recognized as a formidable power

by the State. Commencement of an open struggle between

Christianity and the secular authority. ... The cemeteries of

the Christians now for the first time interfered with and

become places of hiding and secret assembly. A. D. 260 to 300,

Persecutions cease for a time, 40 years Peace for the Church.

Time of much prosperity when, as Eusebius writes, 'great

multitudes flocked to the religion of Christ.' A. D. 300 to

313, Last decisive struggle under Diocletian."

G. B. Brown, From Schola to Cathedral.

{442}

"The judges decided simply in accordance with the laws, and,

in the great majority of cases, did so coolly, calmly, without

passion, as men who were simply discharging their duty. ...

Not the priests, but the Emperors led the attack. ... It is

true the Christians never rebelled against the State. They

cannot be reproached with even the appearance of a

revolutionary spirit. Despised, persecuted, abused, they still

never revolted, but showed themselves everywhere obedient to

the laws, and ready to pay to the Emperors the honor which was

their due. Yet in one particular they could not obey, the

worship of idols, the strewing of incense to the Cæsar-god.

And in this one thing it was made evident that in Christianity

lay the germ of a wholly new political and social order. This

is the character of the conflict which we are now to review.

It is a contest of the spirit of Antiquity against that of

Christianity, of the ancient heathen order of the world

against the new Christian order. Ten persecutions are commonly

enumerated, viz., under Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Hadrian,

Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus, Maximinus the Thracian,

Decius, Valerian, and Diocletian. This traditional enumeration

is, however, very superficial, and leaves entirely

unrecognized the real course of the struggles. ... Though

times of relative tranquillity occurred, Christianity

remained, notwithstanding, a prohibited religion. This being

the case, the simple arrangement of the persecutions in a

series makes the impression that they were all of the same

character, while in fact the persecution under Nero was wholly

different from that under Trajan and his successors, and this

again varied essentially from those under Decius and

Diocletian. The first persecution which was really general and

systematically aimed at the suppression of the Church, was the

Decian [see ROME: A. D. 192-284]. That under Trajan and his

successors [see ROME: A. D. 96-138, 138-180, and 303-305]

consisted merely of more or less frequent processes against

individual Christians, in which the established methods of

trial were employed, and the existing laws were more or less

sharply used against them. Finally, the persecutions under

Nero and Domitian [see ROME: A. D. 64-68, and 70-96] were mere

outbreaks of personal cruelty and tyrannical caprice. ...

Christianity is the growing might; with the energy of youth it

looks the future in the face, and there sees victory beckoning

onward. And how changed are now its ideas of that triumph! The

earlier period had no thought of any victory but that which

Christ was to bring at his coming. ... But in the time of

Cyprian the hopes of the Christians are directed towards

another victory: they begin to grasp the idea that

Christianity will vanquish heathenism from within, and become

the dominant religion in the Roman Empire. ... It is true that

the Christians were still greatly in the minority. It is

generally assumed that they formed about one-twelfth of the

whole population in the East, and in the West about

one-fifteenth. Even this is perhaps too high an estimate. But

there were two things which gave a great importance to this

minority. First, that no single religion of the much divided

Heathenism had so many adherents as the Christian. Over

against the scattered forces of Heathenism, the Christians

formed a close phalanx; the Church was a compact and strongly

framed organization. Second, the Christians were massed in the

towns, while the rural population was almost exclusively

devoted to Heathenism. There existed in Antioch, for instance,

a Christian church of fifty thousand souls."

G. Uhlhorn, The Conflict of Christianity with

Heathenism, book 2.

"The Encyclopedia of Missions" on the authority of the late

Professor R. D. Hitchcock states that there are on record "the

names of churches existing at this period [at the close of the

persecutions] in 525 cities: cities of Europe 188, of Asia

214, of Africa 123." (See Appendix D.) There were tendencies

at work in many of these against that toward general catholic

(universal) organization, but in suffering and sympathy the

Christian Churches formed a vast body of believers. "Such a

vast organisation of a perfectly new kind, with no analogy in

previously existing institutions, was naturally slow in

development. ... The critical stage was passed when the

destruction of Jerusalem annihilated all possibility of a

localised centre for Christianity, and made it clear that the

centralisation of the Church could reside only in an

idea--viz., a process of intercommunication, union and

brotherhood. It would be hardly possible to exaggerate the

share which frequent intercourse from a very early stage

between the separate congregations had in moulding the

development of the Church. Most of the documents in the New

Testament are products and monuments of this intercourse; all

attest in numberless details the vivid interest which the

scattered communities took in one another. From the first the

Christian idea was to annihilate the separation due to space,

and hold the most distant brother as near as the nearest. A

clear consciousness of the importance of this idea first

appears in the Pastoral Epistles, and is still stronger in

writings of A. D. 80-100. ... The close relations between

different congregations is brought into strong relief by the

circumstances disclosed in the letters of Ignatius: the

welcome extended everywhere to him; the loving messages sent

when he was writing to other churches; the deputations sent

from churches off his road to meet him and convoy him; the

rapidity with which news of his progress was sent round, so

that deputations from Ephesus, Magnesia, and Tralles were

ready to visit him in Smyrna; the news from Antioch which

reached him in Troas, but which was unknown to him in Smyrna;

the directions which he gave to call a council of the church

in Smyrna, and send a messenger to congratulate the church in

Antioch; the knowledge that his fate is known to and is

engaging the efforts of the church in Rome."

W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire,

pages 364-366.

"The fellowship ... thus strongly impressed by apostolic hands

on the infant Church, is never wholly lost sight of throughout

all the ages, and its permanent expression is found in the

synod, whether œcumenic, provincial, or diocesan. This becomes

fainter as we reach the age in which a presbyter, told off

from the body to a distinct parish, attains gradual isolation

from his brethren. But this comes some centuries later. ...

Everywhere, till that decline, the idea is that of a

brotherhood or corporate office, a unity of function pervaded

by an energy of brotherly love. ... It is no mere confluence

of units before distinct."

H. Hayman, Diocesan Synods

(Contemporary Review, October, 1882).

{443}

"It is the age when the New Testament writings begin to come

together to form a generally recognized canon. The opposition

too to the sovereign spirit of Montanist prophecy undoubtedly

increased the need for it. ... After the example of the

Gnostics, a beginning is also made with exegetical explanation

of New Testament writings; Melito with one on the Revelation

of John, a certain Heraclitus with one on the Apostles. ...

Finally, in this same opposition to the heretics, it is sought

to secure the agreement of the different churches with one

another, and in this relation importance is gained by the idea

of a universal (Catholic) Church. So-called catholic Epistles

of men of repute in the church to different communities are

highly regarded. As illustrations take those of Bishop

Dionysius of Corinth to Lacedæmon, Athens, Crete, Paphlagonia,

Pontus, Rome (Euseb. 4, 23)."

W. Moeller, History of the Christian Church,

pages 183-184.

"This period [100-312] may be divided into the Post-Apostolic

Age which reaches down to the middle of the second century,

and the Age of the Old Catholic Church which ends with the

establishment of the Church under Constantine. ... The point

of transition from one Age to the other may be unhesitatingly

set down at A. D. 170. The following are the most important

data in regard thereto. The death about A. D. 165 of Justin

Martyr, who marks the highest point reached in the

Post-Apostolic Age and forms also the transition to the Old

Catholic Age; and Irenaeus, flourishing somewhere about A. D.

170, who was the real inaugurator of this latter age. Besides

these we come upon the beginnings of the Trinitarian

controversies about the year 170. Finally, the rejection of

Montanism from the universal Catholic Church was effected

about the year 170 by means of the synodal institution called

into existence for that purpose."

J. H. Kurtz, Church History, volume 1, page 70.

"If every church must so live in the world as to be a part of

its collective being, then it must always be construed in and

through the place and time in which it lives."

A. M. Fairbairn, The Place of Christ in Modern

Theology.

"The Church of the first three centuries was never, except

perhaps on the day of Pentecost, in an absolutely ideal

condition. But yet during the ages of persecution, the Church

as a whole was visibly an unworldly institution. It was a

spiritual empire in recognized antagonism with the

world-empire."

F. W. Puller, The Primitive Saints and The See of Rome,

page 153.

All the greater forces of the age, political and legal, and

commercial, aided those working within the church to create an

organic unity. "Speaking with some qualifications, the

patristic church was Greek, as the primitive church had been

Jewish, and the mediæval church was to be Latin. Its unity,

like that of the Greek nation, was federative; each church,

like each of the Grecian states, was a little commonwealth. As

the Greece which resisted the Persians was one, not by any

imperial organization, but by common ideas and a common love

of liberty, so the church of the fathers was one, not by any

organic connection, but by common thoughts and sympathies,

above all by a common loyalty to Christ. Naturally the

questions which agitated such a church were those which

concern the individual soul rather than society. Its members

made much of personal beliefs and speculative opinions; and so

long as the old free spirit lasted they allowed one another

large freedom of thought, only requiring that common instinct

of loyalty to Christ. Happily for the world, that free spirit

did not die out from the East for at least two centuries after

Paul had proclaimed the individual relationship of the soul to

God. ... The genius of the Greek expressing itself in thought,

of the Latin in ruling power, the Christianity which was to

the former a body of truth, became to the latter a system of

government."

G. A. Jackson, The Fathers of the Third Century,

pages 154-156.

The Apostolic ideal was set forth, and within a few

generations forgotten. The vision was only for a time and then

vanished. "The kingdom of Christ, not being a kingdom of this

world, is not limited by the restrictions which fetter other

societies, political or religious. It is in the fullest sense

free, comprehensive, universal. ... It is most important that

we should keep this ideal definitely in view, and I have

therefore stated it as broadly as possible. Yet the broad

statement, if allowed to stand alone, would suggest a false

impression, or at least would convey only a half truth. It

must be evident that no society of men could hold together

without officers, without rules, without institutions of any

kind; and the Church of Christ is not exempt from this

universal law. The conception in short is strictly an ideal,

which we must ever hold before our eyes. ... Every member of

the human family was potentially a member of the Church, and,

as such, a priest of God. ... It will hardly be denied, I

think, by those who have studied the history of modern

civilization with attention, that this conception of the

Christian Church has been mainly instrumental in the

emancipation of the degraded and oppressed, in the removal of

artificial barriers between class and class, and in the

diffusion of a general philanthropy untrammelled by the

fetters of party or race; in short, that to it mainly must be

attributed the most important advantages which constitute the

superiority of modern societies over ancient. Consciously or

unconsciously, the idea of an universal priesthood, of the

religious equality of all men, which, though not untaught

before, was first embodied in the Church of Christ, has worked

and is working untold blessings in political institutions and

in social life. But the careful student will also observe that

this idea has hitherto been very imperfectly apprehended; that

throughout the history of the Church it has been struggling

for recognition, at most times discerned in some of its

aspects but at all times wholly ignored in others; and that

therefore the actual results are a very inadequate measure of

its efficacy, if only it could assume due prominence and were

allowed free scope in action. ... It may be a general rule, it

may be under ordinary circumstances a practically universal

law, that the highest acts of congregational worship shall be

performed through the principal officers of the congregation.

But an emergency may arise when the spirit and not the letter

must decide, The Christian ideal will then ... interpret our

duty. The higher ordinance of the universal priesthood will

overrule all special limitations. The layman will assume

functions which are otherwise restricted to the ordained

minister."

J. B. Lightfoot, Dissertations on the Apostolic Age,

pages 137-140, 237.

"No Church now existing is an exact counterpart of the

Apostolic Church. ... Allusions bear out the idea that the

Church at Corinth was as yet almost struetureless--little more

than an aggregate of individuals--with no bishop, presbyter or

deacon."

J. W. Cunningham, The Growth of the Church in its

Organization and Institutions, pages 73, 18.

{444}

"Some time before the middle of the second century heresy

began sadly to distract the Christian community; and to avoid

imminent danger of schism, it was deemed expedient in a few

great towns to arm the chairman of the eldership with

additional power. A modified form of prelacy was thus

introduced."

W. D. Killen, The Old Catholic Church, page 51.

Respecting the rise of the Episcopate as a distinct office

there is a difference of opinion among scholars,--some

holding that it was expressly ordained by the Apostles, others

that it arose quite independently of them; a third class think

that it was developed gradually out of the eldership, but not

without the sanction of one or more of the Apostles. "For the

Church is a catholic society, that is, a society belonging to

all nations and ages. As a catholic society it lacks the bonds

of the life of a city or a nation--local contiguity, common

language, common customs. We cannot then very well conceive

how its corporate continuity could have been maintained

otherwise than through some succession of persons such as,

bearing the apostolic commission for ministry, should be in

each generation the necessary centres of the Church's life."

C. Gore, The Mission of the Church, pages 10,11.

"Jewish presbyteries existed already in all the principal

cities of the dispersion, and Christian presbyteries would

early occupy a not less wide area. ... The name of the

presbyter then presents no difficulty. But what must be said

of the term bishop? ... But these notices, besides

establishing the general prevalence of episcopacy, also throw

considerable light on its origin. They indicate that the

relation suggested by the history of the word 'bishop' and its

transference from the lower to the higher office is the true

solution, and that the episcopate was created out of the

presbytery. ... They seem to hint also that, so far as this

development was affected at all by national temper and

characteristics, it was slower where the prevailing influences

were more purely Greek, as at Corinth and Philippi and Rome,

and more rapid where an Oriental spirit predominated, as at

Jerusalem and Antioch and Ephesus. Above all, they establish

this result clearly, that its maturer forms are seen first in

those regions where the latest surviving Apostles (more

especially St. John) fixed their abode, and at a time when its

prevalence cannot be dissociated from their influence or their

sanction."

J. B. Lightfoot, Dissertations on the Apostolic

Age, pages 151, 190, 191.

"Since then in the constitution of the church two elements met

together--the aristocratic and the monarchical--it could not

fail to be the case that a conflict would ensue between them.

... These struggles between the presbyterial and episcopal

systems belong among the most important phenomena connected

with the process of the development of church life in the

third century. Many presbyters made a capricious use of their

power, hurtful to good discipline and order in the

communities."

A. Neander, General History of the Christian Religion

and Church, volume 1, section 2.

"As a rule Christianity would get a footing first in the

metropolis of its region. The lesser cities would be

evangelized by missions sent from thence; and so the suffragan

sees would look on themselves as daughters of the metropolitan

see. The metropolitan bishop is the natural center of unity

for the bishops of the province. ... The bishops of the

metropolitan sees acquired certain rights which were delegated

to them by their brother bishops. Moreover, among the most

important churches a certain order of precedence grew up which

corresponded with the civil dignity of the cities in which

those churches existed; and finally the churches which were

founded by the apostles were treated with peculiar reverence."

F. W. Puller, The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome,

pages 11 and 18.

"The triumph of the episcopal system undoubtedly promoted

unity, order, and tranquillity. But, on the other hand, it was

unfavourable to the free development of the life of the

church; and while the latter promoted the formation of a

priesthood foreign to the essence of that development of the

kingdom of God which the New Testament sets forth, on the

other hand a revolution of sentiment which had already been

prepared--an altered view of the idea of the priesthood--had

no small influence on the development of the episcopal system.

Thus does this change of the original constitution of the

Christian communities stand intimately connected with another

and still more radical change,--the formation of a sacerdotal

caste in the Christian church. ... Out of the husk of Judaism

Christianity had evolved itself to freedom and

independence,--had stripped off the forms in which it first

sprang up, and within which the new spirit lay at first

concealed, until by its own inherent power it broke through

them. This development belonged more particularly to the

Pauline position, from which proceeded the form of the church

in the Gentile world. In the struggle with the Jewish elements

which opposed the free development of Christianity, this

principle had triumphantly made its way. In the churches of

pagan Christians the new creation stood forth completely

unfolded; but the Jewish principle, which had been vanquished,

pressed in once more from another quarter. Humanity was as yet

incapable of maintaining itself at the lofty position of pure

spiritual religion. The Jewish position was better adapted to

the mass, which needed first to be trained before it could

apprehend Christianity in its purity,--needed to be disabused

from paganism. Out of Christianity, now become independent, a

principle once more sprang forth akin to the principles of the

Old Testament,--a new outward shaping of the kingdom of God, a

new discipline of the law which one day was to serve for the

training of rude nations, a new tutorship for the spirit of

humanity, until it should arrive at the maturity of the

perfect manhood in Christ. This investiture of the Christian

spirit in a form nearly akin to the position arrived at in the

Old Testament, could not fail, after the fruitful principle

had once made its appearance, to unfold itself more and more,

and to bring to light one after another all the consequences

which it involved; but there also began with it a reaction of

the Christian consciousness as it yearned after freedom, which

was continually bursting forth anew in an endless variety of

appearances, until it attained its triumph at the

Reformation."

A. Neander, General History of the Christian Religion

and Church, volume 1, section 2, B.

{445}

"Though the forms of [pagan] religion had broken away, the

spirit of religion was still quick; it had even developed: the

sense of sin, an almost new phenomenon, began to invade

Society and Philosophy; and along with this, an almost

importunate craving after a revelation. The changed tone of

philosophy, the spread of mysticism, the rapid growth of

mystery-worship, the revived Platonism, are all articulate

expressions of this need. The old Philosophy begins not only

to preach but to pray: the new strives to catch the revealed

voice of God in the oracles of less unfaithful days. ... In

the teeth of an organised and concentrated despotism a new

society had grown up, self-supporting, self-regulated, a State

within the State. Calm and assured amid a world that hid its

fears only in blind excitement, free amid the servile,

sanguine amid the despairing, Christians lived with an object.

United in loyal fellowship by sacred pledges more binding than

the sacramentum of the soldier, welded together by a stringent

discipline, led by trained and tried commanders, the Church

had succeeded in attaining unity. It had proved itself able to

command self-devotion even to the death. It had not feared to

assimilate the choicest fruits of the choicest intellects of

East and West. ... Yet the centripetal forces were stronger;

Tertullian had died an heresiarch, and Origen but narrowly and

somewhat of grace escaped a like fate. If rent with schisms

and threatened with disintegration, the Church was still an

undivided whole."

G. H. Rendall, The Emperor Julian, Paganism and

Christianity, pages 21-22.

"The designation of the Universal Christian Church as Catholic

dates from the time of Irenaeus. ... At the beginning of this

age, the heretical as well as the non-heretical Ebionism may

be regarded as virtually suppressed, although some scanty

remnants of it might yet be found. The most brilliant period

of Gnosticism, too, ... was already passed. But in Manichæism

there appeared, during the second half of the third century, a

new peril of a no less threatening kind inspired by Parseeism

and Buddhism. ... With Marcus Aurelius, Paganism outside of

Christianity as embodied in the Roman State, begins the war of

extermination against the Church that was ever more and more

extending her boundaries. Such manifestation of hostility,

however, was not able to subdue the Church. ... During the

same time the episcopal and synodal-hierarchical organization

of the church was more fully developed by the introduction of

an order of Metropolitans, and then in the following period it

reached its climax in the oligarchical Pentarchy of

Patriarchs, and in the institution of œcumenical Synods."

J. H. Kurtz, Church History, volume l, pages 72-73, to which

the reader is also referred for all periods of church

history.

See, also,

P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church;

For biography,

W. Smith and H. Wace, A Dictionary of Christian

Biography.

"Missionary effort in this period was mainly directed to the

conversion of the heathen. On the ruins of Jerusalem,

Hadrian's colony of Ælia Capitolina was planted; so that even

there the Church, in its character and modes of worship, was a

Gentile community. Christianity was early carried to Edessa,

the capital of the small state of Osrhene, in Mesopotamia.

After the middle of the second century, the Church at Edessa

was sufficiently flourishing to count among its members the

king, Abgar Bar Manu. At about this time the gospel was

preached in Persia, Media, Parthia, and Bactria. We have

notices of churches in Arabia in the early part of the third

century. They were visited several times by Origen, the

celebrated Alexandrian Church teacher (185-254). In the middle

of the fourth century a missionary, Theophilus, of Diu, found

churches in India. In Egypt, Christianity made great progress,

especially at Alexandria, whence it spread to Cyrene and other

neighboring places. In upper Egypt, where the Coptic language

and the superstition of the people were obstacles in its path,

Christianity had, nevertheless, gained a foothold as early as

towards the close of the second century. At this time the

gospel had been planted in proconsular Africa, being conveyed

thither from Rome, and there was a flourishing church at

Carthage. In Gaul, where the Druidical system, with its

priesthood and sacrificial worship, was the religion of the

Celtic population, several churches were founded from Asia

Minor. At Lyons and Vienne there were strong churches in the

last quarter of the second century. At this time Irenæus,

Bishop of Lyons, speaks of the establishment of Christianity

in Germany, west of the Rhine, and Tertullian, the North

African presbyter, speaks of Christianity in Britain. The

fathers in the second century describe in glowing terms, and

not without rhetorical exaggeration, the rapid conquests of

the Gospel. The number of converts in the reign of Hadrian

must have been very large. Otherwise we cannot account for the

enthusiastic language of Justin Martyr respecting the

multitude of professing Christians. Tertullian writes in a

similar strain. Irenæus refers to Barbarians who have believed

without having a knowledge of letters, through oral teaching

merely."

G. P. Fisher, History of the Christian Church,

pages 45-46.

CHRISTIANITY: Alexandria.

"Christianity first began its activity in the country among

the Jewish and Greek population of the Delta, but gradually

also among the Egyptians proper (the Copts) as may be inferred

from the Coptic (Memphytic) translation of the New Testament

(third century). In the second century, Gnosticism [see

GNOSTICS], which had its chief seat here as well as in Syria,

and, secondly, towards the close of the century, the

Alexandrian Catechetical School, show the importance of this

centre of religious movement and Christian education."

W. Moeller, History of the Christian Church, page 105.

"Never perhaps has the free statement of the Christian idea

had less prejudice to encounter than at Alexandria at the

close of the second century. Never has it more successfully

vindicated by argument its right to be the great interpreter

of the human spirit. The institutions of the great metropolis

were highly favourable to this result. The Museum, built by

the Ptolemies, was intended to be, and speedily became, the

centre of an intense intellectual life. The Serapeum, at the

other end of the town, rivalled it in beauty of architecture

and wealth of rare MSS. The Sebastion, reared in honour of

Augustus, was no unworthy companion to these two noble

establishments. In all three, splendid endowments and a rich

professoriate attracted the talent of the world. If the

ambition of a secured reputation drew many eminent men away to

Rome, the means of securing such eminence were mainly procured

at Alexandria. ... The Christian Church in this city rose to

the height of its grand opportunity. It entered the lists

without fear and without favour, and boldly proclaimed its

competence to satisfy the intellectual cravings of man.

Numbers of restless and inquiring spirits came from all parts

of the world, hoping to find a solution of the doubts that

perplexed them. And the Church, which had already brought

peace to the souls of the woman and the slave, now girded

herself to the harder task of convincing the trained

intelligence of the man of letters and the philosopher."

C. T. Cruttwell, A Literary History of Early

Christianity, book 4, chapter 1 (volume 2).

{446}

"The question ... came up for decision towards the close of

the sub-apostolic age, as to what shape the Church was finally

to take. Two types were set before her to choose from--one the

Hebrew-Latin type, as we may call it, into which ... she

finally settled down; the other the Hellenist type of a Demos,

or commonwealth of free citizens, all equal, all alike kings

and priests unto God, and whose moral and spiritual growth was

left very much to the initiative of each member of the

community. In Alexandria, as the meeting-point of all

nationalities, and where Judaism itself had tried to set up a

new type of thought, eclectic between Hebraism and Hellenism,

and comprehending what was best in both, naturally enough

there grew up a Christian type of eclecticism corresponding to

that of Philo. ... Into this seething of rival sects and races

the Alexandrian school of catechists threw themselves, and

made a noble attempt to rescue the Church, the synagogue, and

the Stoics alike from the one bane common to all--the

dangerous delusion that the truth was for them, not they for

the truth. Setting out on the assumption that God's purpose

was the education of the whole human family, they saw in the

Logos doctrine of St. John the key to harmonise all truth,

whether of Christian sect, Hebrew synagogue, or Stoic

philosophy. ... To educate all men up to this standard seemed

to them the true ideal of the Church. True Gnosis was their

keynote; and the Gnostic, as Clemens loves to describe

himself, was to them the pattern philosopher and Christian in

one. They regarded, moreover, a discipline of at least three

years as imperative; it was the preliminary condition of

entrance into the Christian Church."

J. B. Heard, Alexandrian and Carthaginian Theology

Contrasted, pages 37-38.

The two great Christian writers of Alexandria were Clement and

Origen. "The universal influence of Origen made itself felt in

the third century over the whole field of Greek theology. In

him, as it were, everything which had hitherto been striven

after in the Greek field of theology, had been gathered

together, so as, being collected here in a centre, to give an

impulse in the most various directions; hence also the further

development of theology in subsequent times is always

accustomed to link itself on to one side or the other of his

rich spiritual heritage. ... And while this involves that

Christianity is placed on friendly relations with the previous

philosophical development of the highest conceptions of God

and the world, yet on the other hand Christian truth also

appears conversely as the universal truth which gathers

together in itself all the hitherto isolated rays of divine

truth. ... In the great religious ferment of the time there

was further contained the tendency to seek similar religious

ideas amid the different mythological religious forms and to

mingle them syncretistically. This religious ferment was still

further increased by the original content of Christianity,

that mighty leaven, which announced a religion destined to the

redemption and perfecting of the world, and by this means a like

direction and tendency was imparted to various other religious

views likewise. The exciting and moving effect of Gnosticism

on the Church depended at the same time on the fact, that its

representatives practically apprehended Christianity in the

manner of the antique religious mysteries, and in so doing

sought to lean upon the Christian communities and make

themselves at home in them, according as their religious life

and usages seemed to invite them, and to establish in them a

community of the initiated and perfect; an endeavour which the

powerful ascetic tendency in the church exploited and

augmented in its own sense, and for which the institution of

prophecy, which was so highly respected and powerful in the

communities, afforded a handle. In this way the initiated were

able to make for themselves a basis in the community on which

they could depend, while the religio-philosophical

speculations, which are always intelligible only to a few, at

the same time propagated themselves and branched out

scholastically."

W. Moeller, History of the Christian Church,

pages 215, 213, 130-131.

"At Alexandria, Basilides (A. D. 125) and Valentine exerted in

turn an extraordinary influence; the latter endeavored to

establish his school at Rome about the year 140. The Gnostics

of Syria professed a more open dualism than those of Egypt.

The Church of Antioch had to resist Saturnin, that of Edessa

to oppose Bordesanes and Tatian."

E. De Pressensé, The Early Years of Christianity;

The Martyrs and Apologists, page 135.

"There was something very imposing in those mighty systems,

which embraced heaven and earth. How plain and meagre in

comparison seemed simple Christianity! There was something

remarkably attractive in the breadth and liberality of

Gnosticism. It seemed completely to have reconciled

Christianity with culture. How narrow the Christian Church

appeared! Even noble souls might be captivated by the hope of

winning the world over to Christianity in this way. ... Over

against the mighty systems of the Gnostics, the Church stood,

in sober earnestness and childlike faith, on the simple

Christian doctrine of the Apostles. This was to be sought in

the churches founded by the apostles themselves, where they

had defined the faith in their preaching."

G. Uhlhorn, The Conflict of Christianity with

Heathenism, book 2, chapter 3.

"Greek philosophy had joined hands with Jewish theosophy, and

the Church knew not where to look for help. So serious did the

danger seem, when it was assailed at once and from opposite

sides by Jewish and Greek types of Gnosticism, the one from

the monotheistic point of view impugning the Godhead, the

other for the Docetic side explaining away [us a spiritual

illusion] the manhood of Christ, that the Church, in despair

of beating error by mere apology, fell back on the method of

authority. The Church was the only safe keeper of the deposit

of sacred tradition; whoever impugned that tradition, let him

be put out of the communion of saints."

Reverend J. B. Heard, Alexandrian and Carthaginian Theology

Contrasted, page 41.

{447}

"The interest, the meaning, of Gnosticism rest entirely upon

its ethical motive. It was an attempt, a serious attempt, to

fathom the dread mystery of sorrow and pain, to answer that

spectral doubt, which is mostly crushed down by force--Can the

world as we know it have been made by God? 'Cease,' says

Basilides, 'from idle and curious variety, and let us rather

discuss the opinions, which even barbarians have held, on the

subject of good and evil.' 'I will say anything rather than

admit that Providence is wicked.' Valentinus describes in the

strain of an ancient prophet the woes that afflict mankind. 'I

durst not affirm,' he concludes, 'that God is the author of

all this.' So Tertullian says of Marcion, 'like many men of

our time, and especially the heretics, he is bewildered by the

question of evil.' They approach the problem from a

non-Christian point of view, and arrive therefore at a

non-Christian solution. ... Many of them, especially the later

sectaries, accepted the whole Christian Creed, but always with

reserve. The teaching of the Church thus became in their eyes

a popular exoteric confession, beneath their own Gnosis, or

Knowledge, which was a Mystery, jealously guarded from all but

the chosen few."

C. Bigg; The Christian Platonists of Alexandria,

pages 28-29.

CHRISTIANITY: Cæsarea.

"The chief points of interest in the history of the Church of

Cæsarea during this period are the residence of Origen there

(first between A. D. 215 and 219 and again after his final

departure from Alexandria in 231), the education of Eusebius,

the foundation of the great library by Pamphilus, and the

martyrdoms during the Diocletian persecution. Most of these

will come before us again in other connexions, but they

require mention here. It would be difficult to over-estimate

the effect of what they imply on the Church at large. Had the

work of Origen, Pamphilus, and Eusebius at Cæsarea remained

unrecorded, there would be a huge blank in ecclesiastical

history, rendering much that is otherwise known scarcely

intelligible. Had that work never been done, the course of

ecclesiastical history would have been very different. In the

whole of the second and third centuries it would be difficult

to name two more influential Christians than Origen and

Eusebius; and Pamphilus laboured earnestly to preserve and

circulate the writings of the one and to facilitate those of

the other. It was from the libraries of Pamphilus at Cæsarea

and of Alexander at Jerusalem that Eusebius obtained most of

his material" for his "Ecclesiastical History," which has

preserved titles and quotations from many lost books of

exceeding value.

A. Plummer, The Church of the Early Fathers, chapter 3.

CHRISTIANITY: Edessa.

"Edessa (the modern Urfa) was from the beginning of the third

century one of the chief centres of Syrian Christian life and

theological study. For many years, amid the vicissitudes of

theological persecution, a series of flourishing theological

schools were maintained there, one of which (the 'Persian

school') is of great importance as the nursery of Nestorianism

in the extreme East. It was as bishop of Edessa, also, that

Jacob Baradæus organized the monophysite churches into that

Jacobite church of which he is the hero. From the scholars of

Edessa came many of the translations which carried Greek

thought to the East, and in the periods of exciting

controversy Edessa was within the range of the theological

movements that stirred Alexandria and Constantinople. The

'Chronicle of Edessa,' as it is called because the greater

number of its notices relate to Edessene affairs, is a brief

document in Syriac contained in a manuscript of six leaves in

the Vatican library. It is one of the most important

fundamental sources for the history of Edessa, contains a long

official narrative of the flood of A. D. 201, which is perhaps

the only existing monument of heathen Syriac literature, and

includes an excellent and very carefully dated list of the

bishops of Edessa from A. D. 313 to 543."

Andover Review, volume 19, page 374.

The Syriac Versions (of the Gospel) form a group of which

mention should undoubtedly be made. The Syriac versions of the

Bible (Old Testament) are among the most ancient remains of

the language, the Syriac and the Chaldee being the two

dialects of the Aramaean spoken in the North. Of versions of

the New Testament, "the 'Peshito' or the 'Simple,' though not

the oldest text, has been the longest known. ... The

'Curetonian' ... was discovered after its existence had been

for a long time suspected by sagacious scholars [but is not

much more than a series of fragments]. ... Cureton, Tregelles,

Alford, Ewald, Bleek, and others, believe this text to be

older than the Peshito [which speaks for the Greek text of the

second century, though its own date is doubtful]. ... Other

valuable Syriac versions are 'Philoxenian' ... and the

'Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary' ... a service-book with lessons

from the Gospels for Sundays and feast days throughout the

year ... written at Antioch in 1030 in a dialect similar to

that in use in Jerusalem and from a Greek text of great

antiquity." A recent discovery renders these facts and

statements of peculiar interests.

G. E. Merrill, The Story of the Manuscripts, chapter 10.

CHRISTIANITY: Rural Palestine.

"If Ebionism [see EBIONISM] was not primitive Christianity,

neither was it a creation of the second century. As an

organization, a distinct sect, it first made itself known, we

may suppose, in the reign of Trajan: but as a sentiment, it

had been harboured within the Church from the very earliest

days. Moderated by the personal influence of the Apostles,

soothed by the general practice of their church, not yet

forced into declaring themselves by the turn of events, though

scarcely tolerant of others, these Judaizers were tolerated

for a time themselves. The beginning of the second century was

a winnowing season in the Church of the Circumcision. ... It

is a probable conjecture, that after the destruction of

Jerusalem the fugitive Christians, living in their retirement

in the neighbourhood of the Essene settlements, received large

accessions to their numbers from this sect, which thus

inoculated the Church with its peculiar views. It is at least

worthy of notice, that in a religious work emanating from this

school of Ebionites the 'true Gospel' is reported to have been

first propagated 'after the destruction of the holy place.'"

J. B. Lightfoot, Dissertation on the Apostolic Age,

pages 78-80.

{448}

CHRISTIANITY: Carthage.

"If the world is indebted to Rome for the organisation of the

Church, Rome is indebted to Carthage for the theory on which

that organisation is built. The career of Carthage as a

Christian centre exemplifies the strange vicissitudes of

history. The city which Rome in her jealousy had crushed,

which, not content with crushing, she had obliterated from the

face of the earth, had at the bidding of Rome's greatest son

risen from her ashes, and by her career almost verified the

poet's taunt that the greatness of Carthage was reared on the

ruin of Italy. For in truth the African capital was in all but

political power no unworthy rival of Rome. It had steadily

grown in commercial prosperity. Its site was so advantageous

as to invite, almost to compel, the influx of trade, which

ever spontaneously moves along the line of least resistance.

And the people were well able to turn this natural advantage

to account. A mixed nationality, in which the original Italian

immigration lent a steadying force to the native Punic and

kindred African elements that formed its basis, with its

intelligence enriched by large accessions of Greek settlers

from Cyrene and Alexandria--Carthage had developed in the

second century of our era into a community at once wealthy,

enterprising and ambitious. ... It was no longer in the sphere

of profane literature, but in her contributions to the cause

of Christianity and the spiritual armoury of the Church, that

the proud Queen of Africa was to win her second crown of fame.

... The names of Tertullian, Cyprian and Augustine, at once

suggest the source from which Papal Rome drew the principles

of Church controversy, Church organisation, and Church

doctrine, which have consolidated her authority, and to some

extent justified her pretensions to rule the conscience of

Christendom."

C. T. Cruttwell, A Literary History of Early

Christianity, book 5, ell. 2 (volume 2).

"At the end of the second century the African Tertullian first

began to wrestle with the difficulties of the Latin language

in the endeavour to make it a vehicle for the expression of

Christian ideas. In reading his dogmatic writings the struggle

is so apparent that it seems as though we beheld a rider

endeavouring to discipline an unbroken steed. Tertullian's

doctrine is, however, still wholly Greek in substance, and

this continued to be the case in the church of the Latin

tongue until the end of the fourth century. Hilary, Ambrose,

even Jerome, are essentially interpreters of Greek philosophy

and theology to the Latin West. With Augustine learning begins

to assume a Latin form, partly original and

independent--partly, I say, for even later compositions are

abundantly interwoven with Greek elements and materials. Very

gradually from the writings of the African fathers of the

church does the specific Latin element come to occupy that

dominant position in Western Christendom, which soon, partly

from self-sufficient indifference, partly from ignorance, so

completely severed itself from Greek influences that the old

unity and harmony could never be restored. Still the Biblical

study of the Latins is, as a whole, a mere echo and copy of

Greek predecessors."

J. I. von Döllinger, Studies in European History,

pages 170-171.

From Carthage which was afterward the residence of "the

primate of all Africa ... the Christian faith soon

disseminated throughout Numidia, Mauritania and Getulia, which

is proved by the great number of bishops at two councils held

at Carthage in 256 and 308. At the latter there were 270

bishops, whose names are not given, but at the former were

bishops from (87) ... cities."

J. E. T. Wiltsch, Handbook of the Geography and

Statistics of the Church.

CHRISTIANITY: Rome.

"In the West, Rome remains and indeed becomes ever more and

more the 'sedes Apostolica,' by far the most important centre

where, alongside of the Roman element, there are to be found

elements streaming together from all points of the Empire.

Greek names, and the long lasting (still dominant in the

second century) maintenance of Greek as the written language

of Roman Christianity are here noteworthy. ... Rome was the

point of departure not only for Italy and the Western

Provinces, but without doubt also for Proconsular Africa,

where in turn Carthage becomes the centre of diffusion. ...

The diffusion in the Græco-Roman world as a whole goes first

to the more important towns and from these gradually over the

country. ... The instruments however of this mission are by no

means exclusively apostolic men, who pursue missions as their

calling; ... every Christian becomes a witness in his own

circle, and intercourse and trade bring Christians hither and

thither, and along with them their Christian faith."

W. Moeller, History of the Christian Church, pages 105-107.

"It has been contended, and many still believe, that in

ancient Rome the doctrines of Christ found no proselytes,

except among the lower and poorer classes of citizens. ... The

gospel found its way also to the mansions of the masters, nay,

even to the palace of the Cæsars. The discoveries lately made

on this subject are startling, and constitute a new chapter in

the history of imperial Rome. ... A difficulty may arise in

the mind of the reader: how was it possible for these

magistrates, generals, consuls, officers, senators, and

governors of provinces, to attend to their duties without

performing acts of idolatry? ... The Roman emperors gave

plenty of liberty to the new religion from time to time; and

some of them, moved by a sort of religious syncretism, even

tried to ally it with the official worship of the empire, and

to place Christ and Jupiter on the steps of the same

'lararium.' ... We must not believe that the transformation of

Rome from a pagan into a Christian city was a sudden and

unexpected event, which took the world by surprise. It was the

natural result of the work of three centuries, brought to

maturity under Constantine by an inevitable reaction against

the violence of Diocletian's rule. It was not a revolution or

a conversion in the true sense of these words; it was the

official recognition of a state of things which had long

ceased to be a secret. The moral superiority of the new

doctrines over the old religions was so evident, so

overpowering, that the result of the struggle had been a

foregone conclusion since the age of the first apologists. The

revolution was an exceedingly mild one, the transformation

almost imperceptible. ... The transformation may be followed

stage by stage in both its moral and material aspect. There is

not a ruin of ancient Rome that does not bear evidence of the

great change. ... Rome possesses authentic remains of the

'houses of prayer' in which the gospel was first announced in

apostolic times. ... A very old tradition, confirmed by the

'Liber Pontificalis,' describes the modern church of S.

Pudentiana as having been once the private house of the same

Pudens who was baptized by the apostles, and who is mentioned

in the epistles of S. Paul. ... The connection of the house

with the apostolate of SS. Peter and Paul made it very popular

from the beginning. ... Remains of the house of Pudens were

found in 1870. They occupy a considerable area under the

neighboring houses. ...

{449}

Among the Roman churches whose origin can be traced to the

hall of meeting, besides those of Pudens and Prisca already

mentioned, the best preserved seems to be that built by

Demetrias at the third mile-stone of the Via Latina, near the

'painted tombs.'... The Christians took advantage of the

freedom accorded to funeral colleges, and associated

themselves for the same purpose, following as closely as

possible their rules concerning contributions, the erection of

lodges, the meetings, and the ... love feasts; and it was

largely through the adoption of these well-understood and

respected customs that they were enabled to hold their

meetings and keep together as a corporate body through the

stormy times of the second and third centuries. Two excellent

specimens of scholæ connected with Christian cemeteries and

with meetings of the faithful have come down to us, one above

the Catacombs of Callixtus, the other above those of Soter."

This formation of Christian communities into colleges is an

important fact, and connects these Christian societies with

one of the social institutions of the Empire which may have

influenced the church as an organization. "The experience

gained in twenty-five years of active exploration in ancient

Rome, both above and below ground, enables me to state that

every pagan building which was capable of giving shelter to a

congregation was transformed, at one time or another, into a

church or a chapel. ... From apostolic times to the

persecution of Domitian, the faithful were buried, separately

or collectively, in private tombs which did not have the

character of a Church institution. These early tombs, whether

above or below ground, display a sense of perfect security,

and an absence of all fear or solicitude. This feeling arose

from two facts: the small extent of the cemeteries, which

secured to them the rights of private property, and the

protection and freedom which the Jewish colony in Rome enjoyed

from time immemorial. ... From the time of the apostles to the

first persecution of Domitian, Christian tombs, whether above

or below ground, were built with perfect impunity and in

defiance of public opinion. We have been accustomed to

consider the catacombs of Rome as crypts plunged in total

darkness, and penetrating the bowels of the earth at

unfathomable depths. This is, in a certain measure, the case

with those catacombs, or sections of catacombs, which were

excavated in times of persecution; but not with those

belonging to the first century. The cemetery of these members

of Domitian's family who had embraced the gospel--such as

Flavius Clemens, Flavia Domitilla, Plautilla, Petronilla, and

others-reveals a bold example of publicity. ... How is it

possible to imagine that the primitive Church did not know the

place of the death of its two leading apostles? In default of

written testimony let us consult monumental evidence. There is

no event of the imperial age and of imperial Rome which is

attested by so many noble structures, all of which point to

the same conclusion,--the presence and execution of the

apostles in the capital of the empire."

R. Lanciani, Pagan and Christian Rome,

chapter 1, 3 and 7.

The Church at Rome "gave no illustrious teachers to ancient

Christianity. ... All the greatest questions were debated

elsewhere. ... By a sort of instinct of race, [it] occupied

itself far more with points of government and organization

than of speculation. Its central position, in the capital of

the empire, and its glorious memories, guaranteed to it a

growing authority."

E. De Pressensé, The Early Years of Christianity: The

Martyrs and Apologists, page 41.

CHRISTIANITY: Gaul.

"Of the history of the Gallican Churches before the middle of

the second century we have no certain information. It seems

fairly probable indeed that, when we read in the Apostolic age

of a mission of Crescens to 'Galatia' or 'Gaul,' the western

country is meant rather than the Asiatic settlement which bore

the same name; and, if so, this points to some relations with

St. Paul himself. But, even though this explanation should be

accepted, the notice stands quite alone. Later tradition

indeed supplements it with legendary matter, but it is

impossible to say what substratum of fact, if any, underlies

these comparatively recent stories. The connection between the

southern parts of Gaul and the western districts of Asia Minor

had been intimate from very remote times. Gaul was indebted

for her earliest civilization to her Greek settlements like

Marseilles, which had been colonized from Asia Minor some six

centuries before the Christian era; and close relations appear

to have been maintained even to the latest times. During the

Roman period the people of Marseilles still spoke the Greek

language familiarly along with the vernacular Celtic of the

native population and the official Latin of the dominant

power. When therefore Christianity had established her

headquarters in Asia Minor, it was not unnatural that the

Gospel should flow in the same channels which already

conducted the civilization and the commerce of the Asiatic

Greeks westward. At all events, whatever we may think of the

antecedent probabilities, the fact itself can hardly be

disputed. In the year A. D. 177, under Marcus Aurelius, a

severe persecution broke out on the banks of the Rhone in the

cities of Vienne and Lyons--a persecution which by its extent

and character bears a noble testimony to the vitality of the

Churches in these places. To this incident we owe the earliest

extant historical notice of Christianity in Gaul."

J. B. Lightfoot, Essays on the work entitled Supernatural

Religion, pages 251-252.

"The Churches of proconsular Africa, of Spain, of Italy, and

of Southern Gaul constitute, at this period, the Western

Church, so different in its general type from the Eastern.

With the exception of Irenaeus [bishop of Lyons] and

Hippolytus [the first celebrated preacher of the West, of

Italy and, for a period, Lyons] who represent the oriental

element in Gaul and at Rome, the Western Fathers are broadly

distinguished from those of the East. ... They affirm rather

than demonstrate; ... they prefer practical to speculative

questions. The system of episcopal authority is gradually

developed with a larger amount of passion at Carthage, with

greater prudence and patience in Italy."

E. De Pressensé, The Early Years of Christianity: the

Martyrs and Apologists.

CHRISTIANITY: Spain.

"Christians are generally mentioned as having existed in all

parts of Spain at the close of the second century; before the

middle of the third century there is a letter of the Roman

bishop Anterus (in 237) to the bishops of the provinces of

Bœtica and Toletana; ... and after the middle of the same

century a letter of Cyprian's was addressed to ... people ...

in the north ... as well as ... in the south of that country."

J. E. T. Wiltsch, Handbook of the Geography and

Statistics of the Church, pages 40-41.

{450}

CHRISTIANITY: Britain.

"All that we can safely assert is that there is some reason

for believing that there were Christians in Britain before A.

D. 200. Certainly there was a British Church with bishops of

its own soon after A. D. 300, and possibly some time before

that. Very little can be known about this Celtic Church; but

the scanty evidence tends to establish three points, (1) It

had its origin from, and remained largely dependent upon, the

Gallic Church. (2) It was confined almost exclusively to Roman

settlements. (3) Its numbers were small and its members were

poor. ... That Britain may have derived its Christianity from

Asia Minor cannot be denied; but the peculiar British custom

respecting Easter must not be quoted in evidence of it. It

seems to have been a mere blunder, and not a continuation of

the old Quarta-deciman practice. Gaul is the more probable

parent of the British Church. ... At the Council of Rimini in

359 Constantius offered to pay out of the treasury the

travelling expenses of all the bishops who attended. Out of

more than four hundred bishops, three from Britain were the

only clergy who availed themselves of this offer. Neither at

Rimini, any more than at Arles, do the British representatives

make any show: they appear to be quite without influence."

A. Plummer, The Church of the Early Fathers, chapter 8.

CHRISTIANITY: Goths.

"It has been observed that the first indisputable appearance

of the Goths in European history must be dated in A. D. 238,

when they laid waste the South-Danubian province of Moesia as

far as the Black Sea. In the thirty years (238-269) that

followed, there took place no fewer than ten such inroads. ...

From these expeditions they returned with immense booty,--corn

and cattle, silks and fine linen, silver and gold, and

captives of all ranks and ages. It is to these captives, many

of whom were Christians, and not a few clergy, that the

introduction of Christianity among the Goths is primarily due.

... The period of the inroads, which so strangely formed a

sowing-time for Christianity, was followed by a long period of

tranquillity, during which the new faith took root and spread.

... It is to the faithful work and pure lives of [Christian]

men ... who had fled from Roman civilisation for conscience

sake, to the example of patience in misfortune and high

Christian character displayed by the captives, and to the

instruction of the presbyters sprinkled among them, that we

must look, as the source of Christianity among the Goths. ...

The fact (to which we shall have to refer later), that, of all

the sea raids undertaken by the Goths between the years 238

and 269, the Visigoths took part in only two, while the

Ostrogoths, who were settled in Southern Russia along the

coast of the Euxine from the Crimea to the Dneister, were

engaged probably in all of them, makes it very unlikely that

the captives mentioned by Philostorgius were carried anywhere

else than the eastern settlements. To the influence of these

Asian Christians, exerted mainly, if not entirely upon the

Ostrogoths, must be added the ever-increasing intercourse

carried on by sea between the Crimea and both the southern

shore of the Euxine and Constantinople. To these probabilities

has now to be added the fact that the only traces of an

organised Gothic Church existing before the year 341 are

clearly to be referred to a community in this neighbourhood.

Among the bishops who were present at the Council of Nicaea

(A. D. 325), and who signed the symbol which was then

approved, we find a certain Theophilus, before whose name

stand the words, 'de Gothis,' and after it the word

'Bosphoritanus.' There can be little doubt that this was a

bishop representing a Gothic Church on the Cimmerian

Bosphorus; and if, following the Paris MSS., we read further

down the list the name Domnus Bosphorensis or Bosphoranus, we

may find here another bishop from this diocese, and regard

Theophilus as chief or arch-bishop of the Crimean churches.

The undoubted presence at this council of at least one bishop

of the Goths, and the conclusion drawn therefrom in favour of

the orthodoxy of the Gothic Church in general, led afterwards

to the greatest confusion. Failing to distinguish between the

Crimean and Danubian communities, the historians often found

their information contradictory, and altered it in the

readiest way to suit the condition of the Church which they

had specially in view. ... The conversion of that section of

the nation, which became the Gothic Church, was due to the

apostolic labours of one of their own race,--the great

missionary bishop Ulfilas [see GOTHS: A. D. 341-381]. But to

him too was to be traced the heresy in which they stopped

short on the way from heathenism to a complete Christian

faith."

C. A. A. Scott, Ulfilas, Apostle of the Goths, pages 19-30.

"The superstitions of the barbarians, who had found homes in

the empire, had been exchanged for a more wholesome belief.

But Christianity had done more than this. It had extended its

influence to the distant East and South, to Abyssinia, and the

tribes of the Syrian and Lybian deserts, to Armenia, Persia,

and India."

G. P. Fisher, History of the Christian Church,

page 98.

"We have before us many significant examples of the facility

with which the most intelligent of the Pagans accepted the

outward rite of Christian baptism, and made a nominal

profession of the Faith, while they retained and openly

practiced, without rebuke, without remark, with the indulgence

even of genuine believers, the rites and usages of the

Paganism they pretended to have abjured. We find abundant

records of the fact that personages high in office, such as

consuls and other magistrates, while administering the laws by

which the old idolatries were proscribed, actually performed

Pagan rites and even erected public statues to Pagan

divinities. Still more did men, high in the respect of their

fellow-Christians, allow themselves to cherish sentiments

utterly at variance with the definitions of the Church."

C. Merivale, Four lectures on some Epochs of Early

Church History, page 150.

"We look back to the early acts and policy of the Church

towards the new nations, their kings and their people; the

ways and works of her missionaries and lawgivers, Ulfilas

among the Goths, Augustine in Kent, Remigius in France,

Boniface in Germany, Anschar in the North, the Irish Columban

in Burgundy and Switzerland, Benedict at Monte Cassino; or the

reforming kings, the Arian Theodoric, the great German

Charles, the great English Alfred. Measured by the light and

the standards they have helped us to attain to, their methods

no doubt surprise, disappoint--it may be, revolt us; and all

that we dwell upon is the childishness, or the imperfect

morality, of their attempts.

{451}

But if there is anything certain in history, it is

that in these rough communications of the deepest truths, in

these [for us] often questionable modes of ruling minds and

souls, the seeds were sown of all that was to make the hope

and the glory of the foremost nations. ... I have spoken of

three other groups of virtues which are held in special regard

and respect among us--those connected with manliness and hard

work, with reverence for law and liberty, and with pure family

life. The rudiments and tendencies out of which these have

grown appear to have been early marked in the German races;

but they were only rudiments, existing in company with much

wilder and stronger elements, and liable, amid the changes and

chances of barbarian existence, to be paralysed or trampled

out. No mere barbarian virtues could by themselves have stood

the trial of having won by conquest the wealth, the lands, the

power of Rome. But their guardian was there. What Christianity

did for these natural tendencies to good was to adopt them, to

watch over them, to discipline, to consolidate them. The

energy which warriors were accustomed to put forth in their

efforts to conquer, the missionaries and ministers of

Christianity exhibited in their enterprises of conversion and

teaching. The crowd of unknown saints whose names fill the

calendars, and live, some of them, only in the titles of our

churches, mainly represent the age of heroic spiritual

ventures, of which we see glimpses in the story of St.

Boniface, the apostle of Germany; of St. Columban and St.

Gall, wandering from Ireland to reclaim the barbarians of the

Burgundian deserts and of the shores of the Swiss lakes. It

was among men like these--men who were then termed

emphatically 'men of religion'--that the new races saw the

example of life ruled by a great and serious purpose, which

yet was not one of ambition or the excitement of war; a life

of deliberate and steady industry, of hard and uncomplaining

labour; a life as full of activity in peace, of stout and

brave work, as a warrior's was wont to be in the camp, on the

march, in the battle. It was in these men and in the

Christianity which they taught, and which inspired and

governed them, that the fathers of our modern nations first

saw exemplified the sense of human responsibility, first

learned the nobleness of a ruled and disciplined life, first

enlarged their thoughts of the uses of existence, first were

taught the dignity and sacredness of honest toil. These great

axioms of modern life passed silently from the special homes

of religious employment to those of civil; from the cloisters

and cells of men who, when they were not engaged in worship,

were engaged in field-work or book-work,--clearing the forest,

extending cultivation, multiplying manuscripts--to the guild

of the craftsman, the shop of the trader, the study of the

scholar. Religion generated and fed these ideas of what was

manly and worthy in man."

R. W. Church, The Gifts of Civilisation,

pages 279-283.

CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 312-337.

The Church and the Empire.

"Shortly after the beginning of the fourth century there

occurred an event which, had it been predicted in the days of

Nero or even of Decius, would have been deemed a wild fancy.

It was nothing less than the conversion of the Roman Emperor

to the Christian faith. It was an event of momentous

importance in the history of the Christian religion. The Roman

empire, from being the enemy and persecutor of the Church,

thenceforward became its protector and patron. The Church

entered into an alliance with the State, which was to prove

fruitful of consequences, both good and evil, in the

subsequent history of Europe. Christianity was now to reap the

advantages and incur the dangers arising from the friendship

of earthly rulers and from a close connection with the civil

authority. Constantine was born in 274. He was the son of

Constantius Chlorus. His mother, Helena, was of obscure birth.

She became a Christian--whether before or after his

conversion, is doubtful. ... After the death of Constantine's

father, a revolt against Galerius augmented the number of

emperors, so that, in 308, not less than six claimed to

exercise rule. The contest of Constantine was at first in the

West, against the tyrannical and dissolute Maxentius. It was

just before his victory over this rival at the Milvian Bridge,

near Rome, that he adopted the Christian faith. That there

mingled in this decision, as in most of the steps of his

career, political ambition, is highly probable. The strength

of the Christian community made it politic for him to win its

united support. But he sincerely believed in the God whom the

Christians worshipped, and in the help which, through his

providence, he could lend to his servants. ... Shortly before

his victory over Maxentius there occurred what he asserted to

be the vision of a flaming cross in the sky, seen by him at

noonday, on which was the inscription, in Greek, 'By this

conquer.' It was, perhaps, an optical illusion, the effect of

a parhelion beheld in a moment when the imagination ... was

strongly excited. He adopted the labarum, or the standard of

the cross, which was afterwards carried in his armies. [See

ROME: A. D. 323.] In later contests with Licinius, the ruler

in the East, who was a defender of paganism, Constantine

became more distinctly the champion of the Christian cause.

The final defeat of Licinius, in 323, left him the master of

the whole Roman world. An edict signed by Galerius,

Constantine, and Licinius, in 311, had proclaimed freedom and

toleration in matters of religion. The edict of Milan, in 312,

emanating from the two latter, established unrestricted

liberty on this subject. If we consider the time when it was

issued, we shall be surprised to find that it alleges as a

motive for the edict the sacred rights of conscience."

G. P. Fisher, History of the Christian Church,

pages 87-88.

"Towards the end of the year Constantine left Rome for Milan,

where he met Licinius. This meeting resulted in the issue of

the famous edict of Milan. Up to that hour Christianity had

been an 'illicita religio,' and it was a crime to be a

Christian. Even in Trajan's answer to Pliny this position is

assumed, though it forms the basis of humane regulations. The

edict of Milan is the charter of Christianity; it proclaims

absolute freedom in the matter of religion. Both Christians

and all others were to be freely permitted to follow

whatsoever religion each might choose. Moreover, restitution

was to be made to the Christian body of all churches and other

buildings which had been alienated from them during the persecution.

{452}

This was in 313 A. D. ... But the causes of dissension

remained behind. Once more (323) the question between paganism

and Christianity was to be tried on the field of battle, and

their armies confronted one another on the plains of

Hadrianople. Again the skill of Constantine and the trained

valour of his troops proved superior to the undisciplined

levies of Licinius; while at sea Crispus, the eldest and

ill-fated son of Constantine, destroyed the enemy's fleet in

the crowded waters of the Hellespont, sowing thereby the seeds

of his father's jealousy. Byzantium fell, but not without a

vigorous resistance; and, after one more crushing defeat on

the site of the modern Scutari, Licinius submitted himself to

the mercy of Constantine. ... What we notice in the whole of

these events is the enormous power which still belonged to

paganism. The balance still wavered between paganism and

Christianity. ... Constantine had now, by a marvellous

succession of victories, placed himself in a position of

supreme and undisputed power. At this juncture it is of

interest to observe that ... the divided empire, which

followed the reign of Constantine, served to sustain

Catholicity at least in one half of the world. ... The

foundation of Constantinople was the outward symbol of the new

monarchy and of the triumph of Christianity. ... The choice of

this incomparable position for the new capital of the world

remains the lasting proof of Constantine's genius. ... The

magnificence of its public buildings, its treasures of art,

its vast endowments, the beauty of its situation, the rapid

growth of its commerce, made it worthy to be 'as it were a

daughter of Rome herself.' But the most important thought for

us is the relation of Constantinople to the advance of

Christianity. That the city which had sprung into supremacy

from its birth and had become the capital of the conquered

world, should have excluded from the circuit of its walls all

public recognition of polytheism, and made the Cross its most

conspicuous ornament, and the token of its greatness, gave a

reality to the religious revolution. ... The imperial centre

of the world had been visibly displaced."

A. Carr, The Church and the Roman Empire, chapter 4.

With the first General Council of the Church, held at Nicæa,

A. D. 325 (see NICÆA), "the decisions ... of which received

the force of law from the confirmation of the Emperor, a

tendency was entered upon which was decisive for the further

development; decisive also by the fact that the Emperor held

it to be his duty to compel subordination to the decisions of

the council on penalty of banishment, and actually carried out

this banishment in the case of Arius and several of his

adherents. The Emperor summoned general synods, the fiscus

provided the cost of travel and subsistence (also at other

great synods), an imperial commissioner opened them by reading

the imperial edict, and watched over the course of business.

Only the bishops and their appointed representatives had

votes. Dogmatic points fixed ... were to be the outcome of

unanimous agreement, the rest of the ordinances (on the

constitution, discipline and worship) of a majority of votes."

W. Moeller, History of the Christian Church, page 337.

"The direct influence of the emperor, however, does not appear

until the Emperor Marcian procured from the Council of

Chalcedon the completion of the Patriarchal system. Assuming

that Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were Patriarchates by the

recognition of their privileges at the Council of Nicæa

(though the canon of that council does not really admit that

inference), the Council of Chalcedon, by its ninth,

seventeenth and twenty-eighth canons, enlarged and fixed the

patriarchal jurisdiction and privileges of the Church of

Constantinople, giving it authority over the Dioceses of

Thrace, Asia and Pontus, with the power of ordaining and

requiring canonical obedience from the metropolis of those

Dioceses, and also the right to adjudicate appeals in causes

ecclesiastical from the whole Eastern Church. The Bishop of

Jerusalem also obtained in this council patriarchal authority

over Palestine. The organization of the Church was thus

conformed to that of the empire, the patriarchs corresponding

to the Prætorian Prefects, the exarchs, to the governors of

the Dioceses, and the metropolitans to the governors of the

provinces--the Bishop of Rome being given by an edict of

Valentinian III., of the year 445, supreme appellate

jurisdiction in the West, and the Bishop of Constantinople, by

these canons of Chalcedon, supreme appellate jurisdiction in

the East. ... Dean Milman remarks that the Episcopate of St.

John Chrysostom was the last attempt of a bishop of

Constantinople to be independent of the political power, and

that his fate involved the freedom of the Church of that

city."

J. H. Egar, Christendom: Ecclesiastical and Political, from

Constantine to the Reformation, pages 25-27.

"The name of patriarch, probably borrowed from Judaism, was

from this period the appellation of the highest dignitaries of

the church, and by it were more immediately, but not

exclusively, designated the bishops of Constantinople,

Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. One patriarch accordingly

presided over several provinces, and was distinguished from

the metropolitan in this, that the latter was subordinate to

him, and had only the superintendence of one province or a

small district. However the designation applied only to the

highest rulers of the church in the east, and not to those in

the west, for here the title of patriarch was not unfrequently

given, even in later times, to the metropolitan. The first

mention of this title occurs in the second letter of the Roman

bishop, Anacletus at the beginning of the second century, and

it is next spoken of by Socrates; and after the Council of

Chalcedon, in 451, it came into general use. The bishop of

Constantinople bore the special title of œcumenical bishop or

patriarch; there were also other titles in use among the

Nestorians and Jacobites. The Primates and Metropolitans or

Archbishops arose contemporaneously. The title of Eparch is

also said to have been given to primates about the middle of

the fifth century. The metropolitan of Ephesus subscribed

himself thus in the year 680, therefore in the succeeding

period. There was no particular title of long continuance for

the Roman bishop until the sixth century; but from the year

536 he was usually called Papa, and from the time of Gregory

the Great he styled himself Servus Servorum Dei."

J. E. T. Wiltsch, Handbook of the Geography and

Statistics of the Church, pages 70, 71 and 72.

{453}

"Christianity may now be said to have ascended the imperial

throne: with the single exception of Julian, from this period

the monarchs of the Roman empire professed the religion of the

Gospel. This important crisis in the history of Christianity

almost forcibly arrests the attention to contemplate the

change wrought in Christianity by its advancement into a

dominant power in the state; and the change in the condition

of mankind up to this period, attributable to the direct

authority or indirect influence of the new religion. By

ceasing to exist as a separate community, and by advancing its

pretentions to influence the general government of mankind,

Christianity to a certain extent, forfeited its independence.

It could not but submit to these laws, framed, as it might

seem, with its own concurrent voice. It was no longer a

republic, governed exclusively--as far, at least, as its

religious concerns--by its own internal polity. The

interference of the civil power in some of its most private

affairs, the promulgation of its canons, and even, in some

cases, the election of its bishops by the state, was the price

which it must inevitably pay for its association with the

ruling power. ... During the reign of Constantine Christianity

had made a rapid advance, no doubt, in the number of its

proselytes as well as in its external position. It was not yet

the established religion of the empire. It did not as yet

stand forward as the new religion adapted to the new order of

things, as a part of the great simultaneous change which gave

to the Roman world a new capital, a new system of government,

and, in some important instances, anew jurisprudence. ... The

religion of the emperor would soon become that of the court,

and, by somewhat slower degrees, that of the empire. At

present, however, as we have seen, little open aggression took

place upon paganism. The few temples which were closed were

insulated cases, and condemned as offensive to public

morality. In general the temples stood in all their former

majesty, for as yet the ordinary process of decay from neglect

or supineness could have produced little effect. The

difference was, that the Christian churches began to assume a

more stately and imposing form. In the new capital they

surpassed in grandeur, and probably in decoration, the pagan

temples, which belonged to old Byzantium. The immunities

granted to the Christian clergy only placed them on the same

level with the pagan priesthood. The pontifical offices were

still held by the distinguished men of the state: the emperor

himself was long the chief pontiff; but the religious office

had become a kind of appendage to the temporal dignity. The

Christian prelates were constantly admitted, in virtue of

their office, to the imperial presence."

H. H. Milman, History of Christianity, book 3, chapter 4.

"As early as Constantine's time the punishment of crucifixion

was abolished; immoral practices, like infanticide, and the

exhibition of gladiatorial shows, were discouraged, the latter

of these being forbidden in Constantinople; and in order to

improve the relation of the sexes, severe laws were passed

against adultery, and restrictions were placed on the facility

of divorce. Further, the bishops were empowered, in the name

of religion, to intercede with governors, and even with the

emperor, in behalf of the unfortunate and oppressed. And

gradually they obtained the right of exercising a sort of

moral superintendence over the discharge of their official

duties by the judges, and others, who belonged to their

communities. The supervision of the prisons, in particular,

was entrusted to them; and, whereas in the first instance

their power of interference was limited to exhortations

addressed to the judges who superintended them, in Justinian's

reign the bishops were commissioned by law to visit the

prisons on two days of each week in order to inquire into,

and, if necessary, report upon, the treatment of the

prisoners. In all these and many other ways, the influence of

the State in controlling and improving society was advanced by

its alliance with the Church."

H. F. Tozer, The Church and the Eastern Empire,

pages 56-57.

"The Christians were still a separate people. ... It can

scarcely be doubted that the stricter moral tone of

Constantine's legislation more or less remotely emanated from

Christianity. ... During the reign of Constantine Christianity

continued to advance beyond the borders of the Roman empire,

and in some degree to indemnify herself for the losses which

she sustained in the kingdom of Persia. The Ethiopians appear

to have attained some degree of civilization; a considerable

part of the Arabian commerce was kept up with the other side

of the Red Sea through the port of Adulis; and Greek letters

appear, from inscriptions recently discovered, to have made

considerable progress among this barbarous people. ... The

theological opinions of Christianity naturally made more rapid

progress than its moral influence. The former had only to

overpower the resistance of a religion which had already lost

its hold upon the mind, or a philosophy too speculative for

ordinary understandings and too unsatisfactory for the more

curious and inquiring; it had only to enter, as it were, into

a vacant place in the mind of man. But the moral influence had

to contest, not only with the natural dispositions of man, but

with the barbarism and depraved manners of ages. While, then,

the religion of the world underwent a total change, the Church

rose on the ruins of the temple, and the pontifical

establishment of paganism became gradually extinct or suffered

violent suppression; the moral revolution was far more slow

and far less complete. ... Everywhere there was exaggeration

of one of the constituent elements of Christianity; that

exaggeration which is the inevitable consequence of a strong

impulse upon the human mind. Wherever men feel strongly, they

act violently. The more speculative Christians, therefore, who

were more inclined, in the deep and somewhat selfish

solicitude for their own salvation, to isolate themselves from

the infected class of mankind, pressed into the extreme of

asceticism; the more practical, who were in earnest in the

desire of disseminating the blessings of religion throughout

society, scrupled little to press into their service whatever

might advance their cause. With both extremes the dogmatical

part of the religion predominated. ... In proportion to the

admitted importance of the creed, men became more sternly and

exclusively wedded to their opinions. ... While they swept in

converts indiscriminately from the palace and the public

street, while the emperor and the lowest of the populace were

alike admitted on little more than the open profession of

allegiance, they were satisfied if their allegiance in this

respect was blind and complete. Hence a far larger admixture

of human passions, and the common vulgar incentives of action,

were infused into the expanding Christian body.

{454}

Men became Christians, orthodox Christians, with little

sacrifice of that which Christianity aimed chiefly to

extirpate. Yet, after all, this imperfect view of Christianity

had probably some effect in concentrating the Christian

community, and holding it together by a new and more

indissoluble bond. The world divided into two parties. ...

All, however, were enrolled under one or the other standard,

and the party which triumphed eventually would rule the whole

Christian world."

H. H. Milman, History of Christianity,

book 3, chapter 4-5.

"Of this deterioration of morals we have abundant evidence.

Read the Canons of the various Councils and you will learn

that the Church found it necessary to prohibit the commission

of the most heinous and abominable crimes not only by the

laity, but even by the clergy. Read the homilies of such

preachers as Chrysostom, Basil, and Gregory, and you may infer

what the moral tone of a Christian congregation must have been

to which such reproofs could be addressed. Read, above all,

the treatise on Providence, or De Gubernatione Dei, written at

the close of our period by Salvian, a presbyter of Marseilles.

The barbarians had over-spread the West, and Christians had

suffered so many hardships that they began to doubt whether

there was any Divine government of human affairs. Salvian

retorted that the fact of their suffering was the best

evidence of the doctrine of Providence, for the miseries they

endured were the effects of the Divine displeasure provoked by

the debauchery of the Church. And then he proceeds to draw up

an indictment and to lend proof which I prefer not to give in

detail. After making every allowance for rhetorical

exaggeration, enough remains to show that the morality of the

Church had grievously declined, and that the declension was

due to the inroads of Pagan vice. ... Under this head, had

space permitted, some account would have been given of the

growth of the Christian literature of this period, of the

great writers and preachers, and of the opposing schools of

interpretation which divided Christendom. In the Eastern

Church we should have had to notice [at greater length the

work of] Eusebius of Cæsarea, the father of Church History and

the friend of Constantine; Ephrem the Syrian, the

poet-preacher; the three Cappadocians, Basil of Cæsarea,

Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus, each great in his

own way, the first as a preacher and administrator, the second

as a thinker, the third as a poet and panegyrist; Chrysostom,

the orator and exegete; Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret

of Kyros, along with Chrysostom the most influential

representatives of the School of Antioch. In the Western

Church we should have had to speak of Ambrose, the eloquent

preacher and voluminous writer; of Jerome, the biblical

critic; and of Augustine, the philosopher and

controversialist, whose thoughts live among us even at the

present day."

W. Stewart, The Church of the 4th and 5th Centuries (St.

Giles' Lectures, 4th series).

See ROME: A. D. 323, to 391-395.

"Hitherto Christian asceticism had been individualistic in its

character. ... In the third century hermits began to form a

class by themselves in the East and in Africa; in the fourth

they began to be organized into communities. After the

institution of monastic societies, this development of

Christian asceticism spread far and wide from the deserts of

the Thebaid and Lower Egypt; Basil, Jerome, Athanasius,

Augustine, Ambrose, were foremost among its earliest advocates

and propagators; Cassian, Columbanus, Benedict, and others,

crowned the labours of their predecessors by a more elaborate

organization."

I. Gregory Smith, Christian Monasticism, pages 23-25.

CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 318-325.

The Arian Controversy and the Council of Nicæa.

See ARIANISM:

and NICÆA, THE FIRST COUNCIL OF.

CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054.

The Eastern (Greek, or Orthodox) Church.

"'The Eastern Church,' says a well-known writer, 'was like the

East, stationary and immutable; the Western, like the West,

progressive and flexible. This distinction is the more

remarkable, because at certain periods of their course, there

can be no doubt that the civilization of the Eastern Church

was far higher than that of the Western.'"

G. F. Maclear, The Slavs, page 25.

It is the more remarkable because this long-continuing

uniformity, while peculiarly adapted to a people and a church

which should retain and transmit an inheritance of faith and

culture, stands in singular contrast to the reputed character

of the Greek-speaking peoples of the East. The word Greek,

however, has, as an adjective, many meanings, and there is

danger of wrong inference through inattention to these; some

of its distinctive characters are therefore indicated in

brackets in various places in the following matter. "The New

Rome at the time of its foundation was Roman. ... But from the

first it was destined to become Greek; for the Greeks, who now

began to call themselves Romans--an appellation which they

have ever since retained--held fast to their language,

manners, and prejudices, while they availed themselves to the

full of their rights as Roman citizens. The turning-point in

this respect was the separation of the empires of the East and

the West in the time of Arcadius and Honorius; and in

Justinian's time we find all the highest offices in the hands

of the Greeks, and Greek was the prevailing language. But the

people whom we call by this name were not the Hellenes of

Greece proper, but the Macedonian Greeks. This distinction

arose with the establishment of Greek colonies with municipal

government throughout Asia by Alexander the Great and his

successors. The type of character which was developed in them

and among those who were Hellenised by their influence,

differed in many respects from that of the old Greeks. The

resemblance between them was indeed maintained by similarity

of education and social feelings, by the possession of a

common language and literature, and by their exclusiveness,

which caused them to look down on less favoured races; but

while the inhabitants of Greece retained more of the

independent spirit and of the moral character and patriotism

of their forefathers, the Macedonian Greeks were more

cosmopolitan, more subservient, and more ready to take the

impress of those among whom they were thrown: and the

astuteness and versatility which at all times had formed one

element in the Hellenic character, in them became the leading

characteristic. The influence of this type is traceable in the

policy of the Eastern Empire, varying in intensity in

different ages in proportion to the power exercised by the

Greeks: until, during the later period of the history--in the

time of the Comneni, and still more in that of the

Palæologi--it is the predominant feature."

H. F. Tozer, The Church and the Eastern Empire,

pages 9-10.

{455}

"What have been the effects of Christianity on what we call

national character in Eastern Christendom? ... The Greeks of

the Lower Empire are taken as the typical example of these

races, and the Greeks of the Lower Empire have become a byword

for everything that is false and base. The Byzantine was

profoundly theological, we are told, and profoundly vile. ...

Those who wish to be just to [it] ... will pass ... to the ...

equitable and conscientious, but by no means, indulgent,

judgments of Mr. Finlay, Mr. Freeman, and Dean Stanley. One

fact alone is sufficient to engage our deep interest in this

race. It was Greeks [Hellenist Jews] and people imbued with

Greek ideas who first welcomed Christianity. It was in their

language that it first spoke to the world, and its first home

was in Greek households and in Greek cities. It was in Greek

[Hellenistic] atmosphere that the Divine Stranger from the

East, in many respects so widely different from all that

Greeks were accustomed to, first grew up to strength and

shape; first showed its power of assimilating and reconciling;

first showed what it was to be in human society. Its earliest

nurslings were Greeks; Greeks [Hellenist Jews] first took in

the meaning and measure of its amazing and eventful

announcements; Greek sympathies first awoke and vibrated to

its appeals; Greek obedience, Greek courage, Greek suffering

first illustrated its new lessons. Had it not first gained

over Greek mind and Greek belief, it is hard to see how it

would have made its further way. ... The Roman conquest of the

world found the Greek race, and the Eastern nations which it

had influenced, in a low and declining state--morally,

socially, politically. The Roman Empire, when it fell, left

them in the same discouraging condition, and suffering besides

from the degradation and mischief wrought on all its subjects

by its chronic and relentless fiscal oppression. ... These

were the men in whose childish conceit, childish frivolity,

childish self-assertion, St. Paul saw such dangers to the

growth of Christian manliness and to the unity of the

Christian body--the idly curious and gossiping men of Athens;

the vain and shamelessly ostentatious Corinthians, men in

intellect, but in moral seriousness babes; the Ephesians,

'like children carried away with every blast of vain

teaching,' the victims of every impostor, and sport of every

deceit; the Cretans, proverbially, 'ever liars, evil beasts,

slow bellies;' the passionate, volatile, Greek-speaking, Celts

of Asia, the 'foolish' Galatians. ... The Greek of the Roman

times is portrayed in the special warnings of the Apostolic

Epistles. After Apostolic times he is portrayed in the same

way by the heathen satirist Lucian, and by the Christian

preacher Chrysostom; and such, with all his bad tendencies,

aggravated by almost uninterrupted misrule and oppression, the

Empire, when it broke up, left him. The prospects of such a

people, amid the coming storms, were dark. Everything, their

gifts and versatility, as well as their faults, threatened

national decay and disintegration. ... These races whom the

Empire of the Cæsars left like scattered sheep to the mercy of

the barbarians, lived through a succession of the most

appalling storms, and kept themselves together, holding fast,

resolute and unwavering, amid all their miseries and all their

debasement, to the faith of their national brotherhood. ...

This, it seems to me, Christianity did for a race which had

apparently lived its time, and had no future before it--the

Greek race in the days of the Cæsars. It created in them, in a

new and characteristic degree, national endurance, national

fellowship and sympathy, national hope. ... It gave them an

Empire of their own, which, undervalued as it is by those

familiar with the ultimate results of Western history, yet

withstood the assaults before which, for the moment, Western

civilisation sank, and which had the strength to last a

life--a stirring and eventful life--of ten centuries. The

Greek Empire, with all its evils and weaknesses, was yet in

its time the only existing image in the world of a civilised

state. ... The lives of great men profoundly and permanently

influence national character; and the great men of later Greek

memory are saints. They belong to the people more than

emperors and warriors; for the Church is of the people. ...

The mark which such men left on Greek society and Greek

character has not been effaced to this day, even by the

melancholy examples of many degenerate successors. ... Why, if

Christianity affected Greek character so profoundly, did it

not do more? Why, if it cured it of much of its instability

and trifling, did it not also cure it of its falsehood and

dissimulation? Why, if it impressed the Greek mind so deeply

with the reality of the objects of faith, did it not also

check the vain inquisitiveness and spirit of disputatiousness

and sophistry, which filled Greek Church history with furious

wranglings about the most hopeless problems? Why, if it could

raise such admiration for unselfishness and heroic nobleness,

has not this admiration borne more congenial fruit? Why, if

heaven was felt to be so great and so near, was there in real

life such coarse and mean worldliness? Why, indeed? ...

Profoundly, permanently, as Christianity affected Greek

character, there was much in that character which Christianity

failed to reach, much that it failed to correct, much that was

obstinately refractory to influences which, elsewhere, were so

fruitful of goodness and greatness. The East, as well as the

West, has still much to learn from that religion, which each

too exclusively claims to understand, to appreciate, and to

defend."

R. W. Church, The Gifts of Civilisation,

pages 188-216.

"The types of character that were developed in the Eastern

Church, as might be expected, were not of the very highest.

There was among them no St. Francis, no St. Louis. The

uniformity which pervades everything Byzantine prevented the

development of such salient characters as are found in the

West. It is difficult, no doubt, to form a true estimate of

the influence of religion on men's lives in Eastern countries,

just as it is of their domestic relations, and even of the

condition of the lower classes, because such matters are

steadily ignored by the contemporary historians. But all the

evidence tends to show that individual rather than heroic

piety was fostered by the system which prevailed there. That

at certain periods a high tone of spirituality prevailed among

certain classes is sufficiently proved by the beautiful hymns

of the Eastern Church, many of which, thanks to Dr. Neale's

singular felicity in translation, are in use among ourselves.

But the loftier development of their spirit took the form of

asceticism, and the scene of this was rather the secluded

monastery, or the pillar of the Stylite, than human society at

large. But if the Eastern Church did not rise as high as her

sister of the West, she never sank as low."

H. F. Tozer, The Church and the Eastern Empire,

pages 45-46.

{456}

"The Greek Church, or, as it calls itself, the Holy Orthodox,

Catholic, Apostolic, Oriental Church, has a venerable if not

an eventful history. Unlike the Church of the West, it has not

been moulded by great political movements, the rise and fall

of kingdoms, and the convulsions which have passed over the

face of modern society. Its course has been out of the sight

of European civilisation, it has grown up among peoples who

have been but slightly affected, if they have been affected at

all, by the progressive movements of mankind. It has no middle

ages. It has no renaissance. It has no Reformation. It has

given birth to no great universities and schools of learning.

It has no Protestantism. It remains very much as the fourth

and fifth centuries left it. ... When the royal throne in the

days of the first Christian Emperor was removed from Rome to

Constantinople, there arose at once a cause of strife between

the bishops of old and new Rome, as Byzantium or

Constantinople was named. Each claimed pre-eminence, and each

alternately received it from the governing powers, in Church

and State. One Council decreed (A. D. 381) that the Bishop of

the new Rome should be inferior only to that of the old;

another declared (A. D. 451) the equality of both prelates.

The Patriarch of Constantinople at the close of the sixth

century claimed superiority over all Christian Churches,--a

claim which might have developed, had circumstances favoured

it, into an Eastern Papacy. The assumption was, however, but

short-lived, and the Bishop of Rome, Boniface, obtained from

the Emperor Phocas in 606 the much-coveted position. The

Eastern Church submitted, but from this time looked with a

jealous eye on her Western sister. She noted and magnified

every point of divergence between them. Differences or

apparent differences in doctrine and ritual were denounced as

heresies. Excommunications fulminated between the Eastern and

Western city, and ecclesiastical bitterness was intensified by

political intrigue. ... In the ninth century the contest grew

very fierce. The holder of the Eastern see, Photius,

formulated and denounced the terrible doctrinal and other

defections of the Western prelate and his followers. The list

is very formidable. They, the followers of Rome, deemed it

proper to fast on the seventh day of the week--that is on the

Jewish Sabbath; in the first week of Lent they permitted the

use of milk and cheese; they disapproved wholly of the

marriage of priests; they thought none but bishops could

anoint with the holy oil or confirm the baptized, and that

they therefore anointed a second time those who had been

anointed by presbyters; and fifthly, they had adulterated the

Constantinopolitan Creed by adding to it the words Filioque,

thus teaching that the Holy Spirit did not proceed only from

the Father, but also from the Son. This last was deemed, and

has always been deemed by the Greek Church the great heresy of

the Roman Church. ... The Greek Church to-day in all its

branches--in Turkey, Greece, and Russia--professes to hold

firmly by the formulas and decisions of the seven Œcumenical

or General Councils, regarding with special honour that of

Nice. The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds are the symbols of its

faith, the Filioque clause being omitted from the former, and

the eighth article reading thus: 'And in the Holy Ghost, the

Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, and

with the Father and Son together is worshipped and glorified.'

... The Greek Church, unlike the Latin, denounces the use of

images as objects of devotion, and holds in abhorrence every

form of what it terms 'image worship.' Its position in this

manner is very curious. It is true, no figures of our Lord, of

the Virgin, or saints, such as one sees in churches, wayside

chapels, and in the open fields in countries where the Roman

Church is powerful, are to be seen in Russia, Greece, or any

of those lands where the Eastern Church is supreme. On the

other hand, pictures of the plainest kind everywhere take

their place, and are regarded with the deepest veneration."

J. C. Lees, The Greek Church, (in the Churches of

Christendom). lecture 4.

See, also,

FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY.

CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 337-476.

The fall of Imperial Rome.

The rise of Ecclesiastical Rome.

The political and religious history of the Empire from the

death of Constantine is so fully narrated under Rome that mere

mention here of a few events will suffice, viz.: the revival

of Paganism under the Emperor Julian; the reascendency of

Christianity; the formal establishment of Christianity as the

religion of the Romans, by the suffrages of the senate; the

final division of the Empire into East and West between the

sons of Theodosius; the three sieges and the sacking of Rome

by Alaric; the legal separation of the Eastern and Western

Empires; the pillage of Rome by the Vandals and its final

submission to the barbarians.

See ROME: A. D. 337-361, to 445-476.

For an account of the early bishops of Rome, see PAPACY.

"A heathen historian traces the origin of the calamities which

he records to the abolition of sacrifice by Theodosius, and

the sack of Rome to the laws against the ancient faith passed

by his son. This objection of the heathens that the overthrow

of idolatry and the ascendency of Christianity were the cause

of the misfortunes of the empire was so wide spread, and had

such force with those, both Pagans and Christians, who

conceived history to be the outcome of magical or demonic

powers, that Augustine devoted twelve years of his life to its

refutation. His treatise, 'De Civitate Dei,' was begun in 413,

and was not finished till 426, within four years of his death.

Rome had once been taken; society, consumed by inward

corruption, was shaken to its foundations by the violent onset

of the Teutonic tribes; men's hearts were failing them for

fear; the voice of calumny cried aloud, and laid these woes to

the charge of the Christian faith. Augustine undertook to

refute the calumny, and to restore the courage of his

fellow-Christians. Taking a rapid survey of history, he asks

what the gods had ever done for the well-being of the state or

for public morality. He maintains that the greatness of Rome

in the past was due to the virtues of her sons, and not to the

protection of the gods. He shows that, long before the rise of

Christianity, her ruin had begun with the introduction of

foreign vices after the destruction of Carthage, and declares

that much in the ancient worship, instead of preventing, had

hastened that ruin. He rises above the troubles of the

present, and amid the vanishing glories of the city of men he

proclaims the stability of the city of God. At a time when the

downfall of Rome was thought to presage approaching doom,

Augustine regarded the disasters around him as the

birth-throes of a new world, as a necessary moment in the

onward movement of Christianity."

W. Stewart, The Church of the 4th and 5th Centuries (St.

Giles' Lectures, 4th series).

{457}

"There is as little ground for discovering a miraculous, as

there is for disowning a providential element in the course of

events. The institutions of Roman authority and law had been

planted regularly over all the territory which the conquering

hordes coveted and seized; alongside of every magistrate was

now placed a minister of Christ, and by every Hall of Justice

stood a House of Prayer. The Representative of Cæsar lost all

his power and dignity when the armies of Cæsar were scattered

in flight; the minister of Christ felt that behind him was an

invisible force with which the hosts of the alien could not

cope, and his behaviour impressed the barbarian with the

conviction that there was reality here. That beneficent

mission of Leo, A. D. 452, of which Gibbon says: 'The pressing

eloquence of Leo, his majestic aspect and sacerdotal robes,

excited the veneration of Attila for the spiritual father of

the Christians'--would be but an instance of what many

nameless priests from provincial towns did, 'not counting

their lives dear to them.' The organisation of the Latin state

vitalised by a new spiritual force vanquished the victors. It

was the method and the discipline of this organisation, not

the subtlety of its doctrine, nor the fervour of its

officials, that beat in detail one chief with his motley

following after another. Hence too it came about that the

Christianity which was adopted as the religion of Europe was

not modified to suit the tastes of the various tribes that

embraced it, but was delivered to each as from a common

fountain-head. ... It was a social triumph, proceeding from

religious motives which we may regard with unstinted

admiration and gratitude."

J. Watt, The Latin Church

(St. Giles' Lectures, 4th series.)

"The temporal fall of the Imperial metropolis tended to throw

a brighter light upon her ecclesiastical claims. The

separation of the East and the West had already enhanced the

religious dignity of the ancient capital. The great Eastern

patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem had up to

that time all held themselves equal, if not superior to Rome.

Constantinople had even assumed certain airs of supremacy over

all. The General Councils which had defined the Faith at Nicæa

and Constantinople had been composed almost wholly of

Orientals. The great Doctors of the Church, the men who had

defended or diffused the common Faith, had been mostly Greeks

by origin and language. None had been Romans, and it was

rarely, till the fourth century, that any of them had written

in the Latin tongue. When Athanasius, exiled from Alexandria,

came to Italy and Gaul, it was three years before he could

learn enough of the language of the West to address its

congregations in public. But this curious fact shows that the

Western Christians were now no longer the little Greek colony

of the first and second centuries. Christianity had become the

national religion of the native races. The Romans might now

feel that they were becoming again a people; that their

glorious career was assuming, as it were, a new point of

departure. ... For at this moment the popular instinct could

not fail to perceive how strongly the conscience of the

barbarians had been affected by the spiritual majesty of

Christian Rome. The Northern hordes had beaten down all armed

resistance. They had made a deep impression upon the strength

of the Eastern Empire; they had, for a moment at least,

actually overcome the Western; they had overrun many of the

fairest provinces, and had effected a permanent lodgement in

Gaul and Spain, and still more recently in Africa. Yet in all

these countries, rude as they still were, they had submitted

to accept the creed of the Gospel. There was no such thing as

a barbarian Paganism established within the limits of the

Empire anywhere, except perhaps in furthest Britain."

C. Merivale, Four lectures on some Epochs of Early

Church History, pages 130-136.

"When the surging tides of barbarian invasion swept over

Europe, the Christian organization was almost the only

institution of the past which survived the flood. It remained

as a visible monument of what had been, and, by so remaining,

was of itself an antithesis to the present. The chief town of

the Roman province, whatever its status under barbarian rule,

was still the bishop's see. The limits of the old 'province,'

though the boundary of a new kingdom might bisect them, were

still the limits of his diocese. The bishop's tribunal was the

only tribunal in which the laws of the Empire could be pleaded

in their integrity. The bishop's dress was the ancient robe of

a Roman magistrate. The ancient Roman language which was used

in the Church services was a standing protest against the

growing degeneracy of the 'vulgar tongue.' ... As the forces

of the Empire became less and less, the forces of the Church

became more and more. The Churches preserved that which had

been from the first the secret of Imperial strength. For

underneath the Empire which changed and passed, beneath the

shifting pageantry of Emperors who moved across the stage and

were seen no more, was the abiding empire of law and

administration,--which changed only as the deep sea changes

beneath the windswept waves. That inner empire was continued

in the Christian Churches. In the years of transition from the

ancient to the modern world, when all civilized society seemed

to be disintegrated, the confederation of the Christian

Churches, by the very fact of its existence upon the old

imperial lines, was not only the most powerful, but the only

powerful organization in the civilized world. It was so vast,

and so powerful, that it seemed to be, and there were few to

question its being, the visible realization of that Kingdom of

God which our Lord Himself had preached."

E. Hatch; The Organization of the Christian Churches,

pages 160-178.

{458}

CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 347-412.

The Syrian Churches.

"St. Chrysostom was born there A. D. 347; and it was in his

time that Antioch, with its hundred thousand Christians,

became the leading Church in Asia, especially in the Arian

controversy [see ARIANISM], for Arianism was very prevalent

there. But all this lies outside our period. The so-called

'School of Antioch' has its origin just before ... our period

[311, Wiltsch]. Dorotheus, ... and the martyr Lucian may be

regarded as its founders. In contrast to the allegorising

mysticism of the School of Alexandria, it was distinguished by

a more sober and critical interpretation of Scripture. It

looked to grammar and history for its principles of exegesis.

But we must not suppose that there was at Antioch an

educational establishment like the Catechetical School at

Alexandria, which, by a succession of great teachers, kept up

a traditional mode of exegesis and instruction. It was rather

an intellectual tendency which, beginning with Lucian and

Dorotheus, developed in a definite direction in Antioch and

other Syrian Churches. ... These notices of the Churches of

Jerusalem, Cæsarea in Palestine, and Antioch must suffice as

representative of the Syrian Churches. The number of these

Churches was considerable even in the second century, and by

the beginning of the fourth was very large indeed, as is seen

by the number of bishops who attend local Councils."

A. Plummer, The Church of the Early Fathers, chapter 3.

"It has often astonished me that no one has ever translated

the letters of St. Jerome. The letters of St. Augustine have

been translated, and are in many parts very entertaining

reading, but they are nothing in point of living interest when

compared with St. Jerome's. These letters illustrate life

about the year 400 as nothing else can. They show us, for

instance, what education then was, what clerical life

consisted in; they tell us of modes and fashions, and they

teach us how vigorous and constant was the communication at

that same period between the most distant parts of the Roman

empire. We are apt to think of the fifth century as a time

when there was very little travel, and when most certainly the

East and West--Ireland, England, Gaul and Palestine--were much

more widely and completely separated than now, when steam has

practically annihilated time and space. And yet such an idea

is very mistaken. There was a most lively intercourse existing

between these regions, a constant Church correspondence kept up

between them, and the most intense and vivid interest

maintained by the Gallic and Syrian churches in the minutest

details of their respective histories. Mark now how this

happened. St. Jerome at Bethlehem was the centre of this

intercourse. His position in the Christian world in the

beginning of the fifth century can only be compared to, but

was not at all equalled by, that of John Calvin at the time of

the Reformation. Men from the most distant parts consulted

him. Bishops of highest renown for sanctity and learning, like

St. Augustine, and Exuperius of Toulouse in southern France,

deferred to his authority. The keen interest he took in the

churches of Gaul, and the intimate knowledge he possessed of

the most petty local details and religious gossip therein, can

only be understood by one who has studied his very abusive

treatise against Vigilantius or his correspondence with

Exuperius. ... But how, it may be asked, was this

correspondence carried on when there was no postal system?

Here it was that the organization of monasticism supplied a

want. Jerome's letters tell us the very name of his postman.

He was a monk named Sysinnius. He was perpetually on the road

between Marseilles and Bethlehem. Again and again does Jerome

mention his coming and his going. His appearance must indeed

have been the great excitement of life at Bethlehem.

Travelling probably via Sardinia, Rome, Greece, and the

islands of the Adriatic, he gathered up all kinds of clerical

news on the way--a piece of conduct on his part which seems to

have had its usual results. As a tale-bearer, he not only

revealed secrets, but also separated chief friends, and this

monk Sysinnius with his gossips seems to have been the

original cause of the celebrated quarrel between Augustine and

Jerome."

G. T. Stokes, Ireland and the Celtic Church,

pages 170-172.

CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 496-800.

The Frankish Church to the Empire of Charlemagne.

"The baptism of Chlodovech [Clovis--see FRANKS: A. D. 481-

511] was followed by the wholesale conversion of the Franks.

No compulsion was used to bring the heathen into the Church.

As a heathen, Chlodovech had treated the Church with

forbearance; he was equally tolerant to heathenism when he was

a Christian. But his example worked, and thousands of noble

Franks crowded to the water of regeneration. Gregory of Tours

reckons the Franks as Christians after the baptism of their

king, which took place at Christmas, A. D. 496. His conversion

made no alteration in the policy and conduct of Chlodovech; he

remained the same mixture of cunning and audacity, of cruelty

and sensuality, that he was before. ... But, though his

baptism was to him of no moral import, its consequences were

wide spreading. When Gregory of Tours compares the conversion

of Chlodovech with that of Constantine the Great, he was fully

in the right. ... And the baptism of Chlodovech declared to

the world that the new blood being poured into the veins of

the old and expiring civilization, had been quickened by the

same elements, and would unite with the old in the new

development. ... That many of those who were baptized carried

with them into their new Christianity their old heathen

superstitions as well as their barbarism is certain; and the

times were not those in which the growth of the great

Christian graces was encouraged; the germs, however, of a new

life were laid."

S. Baring-Gould, The Church in Germany, chapter 3.

"The details of the history of the Merovingian period of

Frankish history are extraordinarily complicated; happily, it

is not at all necessary for our purpose to follow them. ... In

the earlier years after the conquest, all ranks of the clergy

were filled by Gallo-Romans. The Franks were the dominant

race, and were Christian, but they were new converts from a

rude heathenism, and it would take some generations to raise

up a 'native ministry' among them. Not only the literature of

the (Western) Church, but all its services, and, still more,

the conversational intercourse of all civilized and Christian

people, was in Latin. Besides, the Franks were warriors, a

conquering caste, a separate nation; and to lay down the

battle-axe and spear, and enter into the peaceful ranks of the

Romano-Gallic Church, would have seemed to them like changing

their nationality for that of the more highly cultured,

perhaps, but, in their eyes, subject race. The Frank kings did

not ignore the value of education. Clovis is said to have

established a Palatine school, and encouraged his young men to

qualify themselves for the positions which his conquests had

opened out to them.

{459}

His grandsons, we have seen, prided themselves on

their Latin culture. After a while, Franks aspired to the

magnificent positions which the great sees of the Church

offered to their ambition; and we find men with Teutonic

names, and no doubt of Teutonic race, among the bishops. ...

For a still longer period, few Franks entered into the lower

ranks of the Church. Not only did the priesthood offer little

temptation to them, but also the policy of the kings and

nobles opposed the diminution of their military strength, by

refusing leave to their Franks to enter into holy orders or

into the monasteries. The cultured families of the cities

would afford an ample supply of men for the clergy, and

promising youths of a lower class seem already not

infrequently to have been educated for the service of the

Church. It was only in the later period, when some approach

had been made to a fusion of the races, that we find Franks

entering into the lower ranks of the Church, and

simultaneously we find Gallo-Romans in the ranks of the

armies. ... Monks wielded a powerful spiritual influence. But

the name of not a single priest appears in the history of the

times as exercising any influence or authority. ... Under the

gradual secularization of the Church in the Merovingian

period, the monasteries had the greatest share in keeping

alive a remnant of vital religion among the people; and in the

gradual decay of learning and art, the monastic institution

was the ark in which the ancient civilization survived the

deluge of barbarism, and emerged at length to spread itself

over the modern world."

E. L. Cutts, Charlemagne, chapters 5 and 7.

"Two Anglo-Saxon monks, St. Wilfrid, bishop of York, and St.

Willibrord undertook the conversion of the savage fishermen of

Friesland and Holland at the end of the seventh and beginning

of the eighth century; they were followed by another

Englishman, the most renowned of all these missionaries,

Winfrith, whose name was changed to Boniface, perhaps by the

Pope, in recognition of his active and beneficent apostleship.

When Gregory II. appointed him bishop of Germany (723), he

went through Bavaria and established there the dioceses of

Frisingen, Passau, and Ratisbon. When Pope Zacharias bestowed

the rank of metropolitan upon the Church of Mainz in 748, he

entrusted its direction to St. Boniface, who from that time

was primate, as it were, of all Germany, under the authority

of the Holy See. St. Boniface was assassinated by the Pagans

of Friesland in 755."

V. Duruy, History of the Middle Ages, book 3, chapter 8.

"Boniface, whose original name was Winfrid, was of a noble

Devonshire family (A. D. 680), educated at the monastery of

Nutcelle, in Hampshire, and at the age of thirty-five years

had obtained a high reputation for learning and ability, when

(in A. D. 716), seized with the prevalent missionary

enthusiasm, he abandoned his prospects at home, and set out

with two companions to labour among the Frisians. ... Winfrid

was refused permission by the Duke to preach in his dominions,

and he returned home to England. In the following spring he

went to Rome, where he remained for some months, and then,

with a general authorization from the pope to preach the

gospel in Central Europe, he crossed the Alps, passed through

Bavaria into Thuringia, where he began his work. While here

the death of Radbod, A. D. 719, and the conquest of Frisia by

Charles Martel, opened up new prospects for the evangelization

of that country, and Boniface went thither and laboured for three

years among the missionaries, under Willibrord of Utrecht.

Then, following in the track of the victorious forces of

Charles Martel, he plunged into the wilds of Hessia, converted

two of its chiefs whose example was followed by multitudes of

the Hessians and Saxons, and a monastery arose at Amöneburg as

the head-quarters of the mission. The Bishop of Rome being

informed of this success, summoned Boniface to Rome, A. D.

723, and consecrated him a regionary bishop, with a general

jurisdiction over all whom he should win from paganism into

the Christian fold, requiring from him at the same time the

oath which was usually required of bishops within the

patriarchate of Rome, of obedience to the see. ... Boniface

was not only a zealous missionary, an earnest preacher, a

learned scholar, but he was a statesman and an able

administrator. He not only spread the Gospel among the

heathen, but he organized the Church among the newly converted

nations of Germany; he regulated the disorder which existed in

the Frankish Church, and established the relations between

Church and State on a settled basis. The mediæval analysts

tell us that Boniface crowned Pepin king, and modern writers

have usually reproduced the statement. 'Rettberg, and the able

writer of the biography of Boniface in Herzog (Real Ecyk, s.

v.), argue satisfactorily from Boniface's letters that he took

no part in Pepin's coronation.' When Boniface withdrew from

the active supervision of the Frankish Churches, it is

probable that his place was to some extent supplied in the

councils of the mayor and in the synods of the Church by

Chrodegang, Bishop of Metz, a man whose character and

influence in the history of the Frank Church have hardly

hitherto been appreciated."

E. L. Cutts, Charlemagne, chapter 12.

"Both Karlmann and Pippin tried to reform certain abuses that

had crept into the Church. Two councils, convoked by Karlmann,

the one in Germany (742), the other in the following year at

Lestines (near Charleroi, in Belgium), drew up decrees which

abolished superstitious rites and certain Pagan ceremonies,

still remaining in force; they also authorized grants of

Church lands by the 'Prince' for military purposes on

condition of a payment of an annual rent to the Church; they

reformed the ecclesiastical life, forbade the priests to hunt

or to ride through the woods with dogs, falcons, or

sparrow-hawks; and, finally, made all priests subordinate to

their diocesan bishops, to whom they were obliged to give

account each year of their faith and their ministry--all of

which were necessary provisions for the organization of the

ecclesiastical hierarchy and for the regulation of church

government. Similar measures were taken by the Council of

Soissons, convoked by Pippin in 744. In 747, Karlmann

renounced the world and retired to the celebrated Italian

monastery of Monte Cassino. As he left he entrusted his

children to the care of their uncle, Pippin, who robbed them

of their inheritance and ruled alone over the whole Frankish

Empire. ... Charlemagne enlarged and completed the work which

had only been begun by Charles Martel and Pippin. ... The

Middle Ages acknowledged two Masters, the Pope and the

Emperor, and these two powers came, the one from Rome, and the

other from Austrasian France. ... The mayors of Austrasia,

Pippin of Heristal, and Charles Martel, rebuilt the Frankish

monarchy and prepared the way for the empire of Charlemagne;

... the Roman pontiffs ... gathered around them all the

churches of the West, and placed themselves at the head of the

great Catholic society, over which one day Gregory VII. and

Innocent III. should claim to have sole dominion."

V. Duruy, History of the Middle Ages, pages 119-122, 108.

See MAYORS OF THE PALACE;

FRANKS: A. D. 768-814;

and PAPACY: A. D. 755-774, and 774.

{460}

The coronation of Charlemagne at Rome by Pope Leo III. (see

ROMAN EMPIRE, A. D. 800) gave the Western Church the place in

the state it had held under the earlier Roman emperors. The

character of so great a man, the very books he read and all

that fed the vigorous ideal element in so powerful a spirit

are worthy of interest; for this at least he sought to

accomplish--to give order to a tumultuous and barbarian

world, and to establish learning, and purify the church:

"While at table, he liked to hear a recital or a reading, and

it was histories and the great deeds of past times which were

usually read to him. He took great pleasure, also, in the

works of St. Augustine, and especially in that whose title is

'De Civitate Dei.' ... He practiced the Christian religion in

all its purity and with great fervour, whose principles had

been taught him from his infancy. ... He diligently attended

... church in the evening and morning, and even at night, to

assist at the offices and at the holy sacrifice, as much as

his health permitted him.' He watched with care that nothing

should be done but with the greatest propriety, constantly

ordering the guardians of the church not to allow anything to

be brought there or left there inconsistent with or unworthy

of the sanctity of the place. ... He was always ready to help

the poor, and it was not only in his own country, or within

his own dominions that he dispensed those gratuitous

liberalities which the Greeks call 'alms,' but beyond the

seas--in Syria, in Egypt, in Africa, at Jerusalem, at

Alexandria, at Carthage, everywhere where he learned that

Christians were living in poverty--he pitied their misery and

loved to send them money. If he sought with so much care the

friendship of foreign sovereigns, it was, above all, to

procure for the Christians living under their rule help and

relief. Of all the holy places, he had, above all, a great

veneration for the Church of the Apostle St. Peter at Rome."

Eginhard, Life of Charlemagne.

"The religious side of Charles' character is of the greatest

interest in the study of his remarkable character as a whole

and his religious policy led to the most important and durable

results of his reign. He inherited an ecclesiastical policy

from his father; the policy of regulating and strengthening

the influence of the Church in his dominions as the chief

agent of civilization, and a great means of binding the

various elements of the empire into one; the policy of

accepting the Bishop of Rome as the head of Western

Christianity, with patriarchal authority over all its

Churches."

E. L. Cutts, Charlemagne, chapter 23.

The following is a noteworthy passage from Charlemagne's

Capitulary of 787: "It is our wish that you may be what it

behoves the soldiers of the church to be;--religious in

heart, learned in discourse, pure in act, eloquent in speech;

so that all who approach your house in order to invoke the

Divine Master, or to behold the excellence of the religious

life, may be edified in beholding you, and instructed in

hearing you discourse or chant, and may return home rendering

thanks to God most High. Fail not, as thou regardest our

favour, to send a copy of this letter to all thy suffragans

and to all the monasteries; and let no monk go beyond his

monastery to administer justice or to enter the assemblies and

the voting-places. Adieu."

J. B. Mullinger, The Schools of Charles the Great.

CHRISTIANITY: 5th-7th Centuries.

The Nestorian, Monophysite and Monothelite Controversies.

See NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE, and MONOTHELITE.

CHRISTIANITY: 5th-9th Centuries.

The Irish Church and its missions.

The story of the conversion of Ireland by St. Patrick, and of

the missionary labors of the Church which he founded, is

briefly told elsewhere.

See IRELAND: 5TH-8TH CENTURIES.

"The early Church worked her way, in the literal sense of the

word, 'underground,' under camp and palace, under senate and

forum. But turn where we will in these Celtic missions, we

notice how different were the features that marked them now.

In Dalaradia St. Patrick obtains the site of his earliest

church from the chieftain of the country, Dichu. At Tara, he

obtains from King Laoghaire a reluctant toleration of his

ministry. In Connaught he addresses himself first to the

chieftains of Tirawley, and in Munster baptizes Angus, the

king, at Cashel, the seat of the kings. What he did in Ireland

reproduces itself in the Celtic missions of Wales and

Scotland, and we cannot but take note of the important

influence of Welsh and Pictish chiefs. ... The people may not

have adopted the actual profession of Christianity, which was

all perhaps that in the first instance they adopted from any

clear or intelligent appreciation of its superiority to their

former religion. But to obtain from the people even an actual

profession of Christianity was an important step to ultimate

success. It secured toleration at least for Christian

institutions. It enabled the missionaries to plant in every

tribe their churches, schools, and monasteries, and to

establish among the half pagan inhabitants of the country

societies of holy men, whose devotion, usefulness, and piety

soon produced an effect on the most barbarous and savage

hearts.'"

G. F. Maclear, Conversion of the West: The Celts,

chapter 11.

"The Medieval Church of the West found in the seventh century

an immense task before it to fulfil. ... The missionaries who

addressed themselves to the enormous task of the conversion of

Germany may be conveniently divided into three groups--the

British, the Frankish, and, entering somewhat later into an

honourable rivalry with these, the Anglo-Saxon. A word or two

upon each of these groups. The British--they include Irish and

Scotch--could no longer find a field for the exercise of their

ministry in England, now that there the Roman rule and

discipline, to which they were so little disposed to submit,

had everywhere won the day. Their own religious houses were

full to overflowing. At home there was little for them to do,

while yet that divine hunger and thirst for the winning of

souls, which had so possessed the heart of St. Patrick, lived

on in theirs. To these so minded, pagan Germany offered a welcome

field of labour, and one in which there was ample room for all.

{461}

Then there were the Frankish missionaries, who enjoyed the support

of the Frankish kings, which sometimes served them in good

stead; while at other times this protection was very far from

a recommendation in their eyes who were easily persuaded to

see in these missionaries the emissaries of a foe. Add to

these the Anglo-Saxons; these last, mindful of the source from

which they had received their own Christianity, making it a

point to attach their converts to Rome, even as they were

themselves bound to her by the closest ties. The language

which these spoke--a language which as yet can have diverged

very little from the Low German of Frisia, must have given to

them many facilities which the Frankish missionaries possessed

in a far slighter degree, the British not at all; and this may

help to account for a success on their parts far greater than

attended the labours of the others. To them too it was mainly

due that the battle of the Creeds, which had been fought and

lost by the Celtic missionaries in England, and was presently

renewed in Germany, had finally the same issues there as in

England. ... At the same time, there were differences in the

intensity and obstinacy of resistance to the message of truth,

which would be offered by different tribes. There was ground,

which at an early day had been won for the Gospel, but which

in the storms and confusion of the two preceding centuries had

been lost again; the whole line, that is, of the Danube and

the Rhine, regions fair and prosperous once, but in every

sense wildernesses now. In these we may note a readier

acceptance of the message than found place in lands which in

earlier times that message had never reached; as though

obscure reminiscences and traditions of the past, not wholly

extinct, had helped to set forward the present work."

R C. Trench, Lectures on Medieval Church History,

lecture 5.

"From Ireland came Gallus, Fridolin, Kilian, Trutbert and

Levin. ... The order in which these men succeeded one another

cannot always be established, from the uncertainty of the

accounts. ... We know thus much, that of all those

above-mentioned, Gallus was the first, for his labours in

Helvetia (Switzerland) were continued from the preceding into

the period of which we are now treating. On the other hand, it

is uncertain as to Fridolin whether he had not completed his

work before Gallus, in the sixth century, for in the opinion

of some he closed his career in the time of Clodoveus I., but,

according to others, he is said to have lived under Clodoveus

II., or at another period. His labours extended over the lands

on the Moselle, in the Vosges Mountains, over Helvetia, Rhætia

and Nigra Silva (the Black Forest). He built the monastery of

Sekkinga on the Rhine. Trutbert was a contemporary and at the

same time a countryman of Gallus. His sphere of action is said

to have been Brisgovia (Breisgau) and the Black Forest. Almost

half a century later Kilian proclaimed the gospel in Franconia

and Wirtzburg, with two assistants, Colonatus and Totnanus. In

the latter place they converted duke Gozbert, and were put to

death there in 688. After the above mentioned missionaries

from Ireland, in the seventh century, had built churches and

monasteries in the southern Germany, the missionaries from

Britain repaired with a similar purpose, to the northern

countries. ... Men from other nations, as Willericus, bishop

of Brema, preached in Transalbingia at the beginning of the

ninth century. Almost all the missionaries from the kingdom of

the Franks selected southern Germany as their sphere of

action: Emmeran, about 649, Ratisbona, Rudbert, about 696,

Bajoaria (Bavaria), Corbinian the country around Frisinga,

Otbert the Breisgau and Black Forest, and Pirminius the

Breisgau, Bajoaria, Franconia, Helvetia, and Alsatis."

J. E. T. Wiltsch, Handbook of the Geography and

Statistics of the Church, 11. 1, pages 365-367.

CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 553-800.

The Western Church.

Rise of the Papacy.

"Though kindly treated, the Church of Rome did not make any

progress under the Ostrogoths. But when their power had been

broken (553), and Rome had been placed again under the

authority of the Emperor of Constantinople [see ROME: A. D.

535-553], the very remoteness of her new master insured to the

Church a more prosperous future. The invasion of the Lombards

drove a great many refugees into her territory, and the Roman

population showed a slight return of its old energy in its

double hatred toward them, as barbarians and as Arians. ... It

was at this favorable point in the state of affairs, though

critical in some respects, that Gregory the Great made his

appearance (590-604). He was a descendant of the noble Anicia

family, and added to his advantages of birth and position the

advantages of a well-endowed body and mind. He was prefect of

Rome when less than thirty years old, but after holding this

office a few months he abandoned the honors and cares of

worldly things for the retirement of the cloister. His

reputation did not allow him to remain in the obscurity of

that life. Toward 579 he was sent to Constantinople by Pope

Pelagius II. as secretary or papal nuncio, and he rendered

distinguished services to the Holy See in its relations with

the Empire and in its struggles against the Lombards. In 590

the clergy, the senate, and the people raised him with one

accord to the sovereign pontificate, to succeed Pelagius. As

it was still necessary for every election to be confirmed by

the Emperor at Constantinople, Gregory wrote to him to beg him

not to sanction this one; but the letter was intercepted and

soon orders arrived from Maurice ratifying the election.

Gregory hid himself, but he was discovered and led back to

Rome. When once Pope, though against his will, he used his

power to strengthen the papacy, to propagate Christianity, and

to improve the discipline and organization of the Church. ...

Strengthened thus by his own efforts, he undertook the

propagation of Christianity and orthodoxy both within and

without the limits of the old Roman Empire. Within those

limits there were still some who clung to paganism, in Sicily,

Sardinia, and even at the very gates of Rome, at Terracina,

and doubtless also in Gaul, as there is a constitution of

Childebert still extant dated 554, and entitled: 'For the

abolition of the remains of idolatry.' There were Arians very

near to Rome--namely, the Lombards; but through the

intervention of Theudalinda, their queen, Gregory succeeded in

having Adelwald, the heir to the throne, brought up in the

Catholic faith; as early as 587 the Visigoths in Spain, under

Reccared, were converted. ... The Roman Empire had perished,

and the barbarians had built upon its ruins many slight

structures that were soon overthrown.

{462}

Not even had the Franks, who were destined to be perpetuated

as a nation, as yet succeeded in founding a social state of

any strength; their lack of experience led them from one

attempt to another, all equally vain; even the attempt of

Charlemagne met with no more permanent success. In the midst

of these successive failures one institution alone, developing

slowly and steadily through the centuries, following out the

spirit of its principles, continued to grow and gain in power,

in extent and in unity. ... The Pope had now become, in truth,

the ruler of Christendom. He was, however, still a subject of

the Greek Emperor; but a rupture was inevitable, as his

authority, on the one hand, was growing day by day, and the

emperor's on the contrary, was declining."

V. Duruy, History of the Middle Ages,

pages 114-115, 108-109, 117.

"The real power which advanced the credit of the Roman see

during these ages was the reaction against the Byzantine

despotism over the Eastern Church; and this is the explanation

of the fact that although the new map of Europe had been

marked out, in outline at least, by the year 500, the Roman

see clung to the eastern connection until the first half of

the eighth century. ... In the political or diplomatic

struggle between the Church and the Emperors, in which the

Emperors endeavored to make the Church subservient to the

imperial policy, or to adjust the situation to the necessities

of the empire, and the Church strove to retain its autonomy as

a witness to the faith and a legislator in the affairs of

religion, the Bishop of Rome became, so to speak, the

constitutional head of the opposition; and the East was

willing to exalt his authority, as a counterpoise to that of

the Emperor, to any extent short of acknowledging that the

primacy implied a supremacy."

J. H. Egar, Christendom: Ecclesiastical and Political,

from Constantine to the Reformation, page 99.

"The election system was only used for one degree of the

ecclesiastical dignitaries, for the bishopric. The lower

dignitaries were chosen by the bishop. They were divided into

two categories of orders--the higher and the lower orders.

There were three higher orders, namely, the priests, the

deacons, and the sub-deacons, and four lower orders, the

acolytes, the door-keepers, the exorcists, and the readers.

The latter orders were not regarded as an integral part of the

clergy, as their members were the servants of the others. As

regards the territorial divisions, the bishop governed the

diocese, which at a much later date was divided into parishes,

whose spiritual welfare was in the hands of the parish priest

or curate (curio). The parishes, taken together, constituted

the diocese; the united dioceses, or suffragan bishoprics,

constituted the ecclesiastical province, at whose head stood

the metropolitan or archbishop. When a provincial council was

held, it met in the metropolis and was presided over by the

metropolitan. Above the metropolitans were the Patriarchs, in

the East, and the Primates in the West, bishops who held the

great capitals or the apostolic sees, Constantinople,

Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, Jerusalem, Cesarea in Cappadocia,

Carthage in Africa, and Heraclius in Thrace; among them Rome

ranked higher by one degree, and from this supreme position

exercised a supreme authority acknowledged by all the Church."

V. Duruy, History of the Middle Ages, pages 109-110.

"The divergence of the two Churches, Eastern and Western, was

greater in reality than it appears to be from a superficial

view. It was based on essential variations in the character

and disposition of the people in the East and in the West, on

the nature of their civilization, and on the different, almost

antagonistic, development of the Christian idea in one Church

and in the other. ... The Eastern Church rejoiced in its

direct affiliation with apostolic times, in its careful

preservation of traditions, and was convinced of its especial

right to be considered the true heir and successor of Christ.

... The letter of the law superseded the spirit; religion

stiffened into formalism; piety consisted in strict observance

of ceremonial rites; external holiness replaced sincere and

heartfelt devotion. ... Throughout the West the tendency was

in a contrary direction--towards the practical application of

the religious idea. The effete, worn-out civilization of the

past was there renovated by contact and admixture with young

and vigorous races, and gained new strength and vitality in

the struggle for existence. The Church, freed from control,

became independent and self-asserting; the responsibility of

government, the preservation of social order, devolved upon

it, and it rose proudly to the task."

A. F. Heard, The Russian Church and Russian

Dissent, pages 6-10.

"On the overthrow of the Western Empire, and the

demonstration, rendered manifest to all, that with the

complete triumph of the new world of secular polities a new

spiritual development, a new phase of Divine guidance, was

opening, the conscience of the believers was aroused to a

sense of the sinfulness of their cowardly inactivity. 'Go ye

into all nations, and baptize them,' had been the last words

of their blessed Master. ... It is to this new or revived

missionary spirit which distinguished the sixth century, of

which I would place Pope Gregory the First, or the Great, as

the central figure, that I desire now to introduce you.

Remember that the Empire, which had represented the unity of

mankind, had become disintegrated and broken into fragments.

Men were no longer Romans, but Goths and Sueves, Burgundians

and Vandals, and beyond them Huns, Avars, Franks, and

Lombards, some with a slight tincture of Christian teaching,

but most with none. ... Let but the Gospel be proclaimed to

all, and leave the issue in God's hands! Such was the contrast

between the age of Leo and the age of Gregory! ... The

conversion of Clovis and the Franks is, I suppose, the

earliest instance of a Christian mission carried out on a

national scale by the common action of the Church represented

by the Pope and See of Rome. It becomes accordingly a great

historical event, deserving the earnest consideration not of

Churchmen only, but of all political enquirers."

C. Merivale, Four Lectures on some Epochs of Early

Church History, pages 172-177.

{463}

"Christianity thus renewed its ardor for proselytism, and

Gregory contributed to its success most wisely by enjoining

precepts of moderation upon his missionaries, and by the

skillful manner in which he made the transition to Catholicism

easy to the pagans; he wrote to Augustine: 'Be careful not to

destroy the pagan temples; it is only necessary to destroy the

idols, then to sprinkle the edifice with holy water, and to

build altars and place relics there. If the temples are well

built, it is a wise and useful thing for them to pass from the

worship of demons to the worship of the true God; for while

the nation sees its old places of worship still standing, it

will be the more ready to go there, by force of habit, to

worship the true God.' In the interior Gregory succeeded in

arranging the different degrees of power in the Church, and in

forcing the recognition of the supreme power of the Holy See.

We find him granting the title of Vicar of Gaul to the bishop

of Arles, and corresponding with Augustine, archbishop of

Canterbury, in regard to Great Britain, with the archbishop of

Seville in regard to Spain, with the archbishop of

Thessalonica in regard to Greece, and, finally, sending

legates 'a latere' to Constantinople. In his Pastoral, which

he wrote on the occasion of his election, and which became an

established precedent in the West, he prescribed to the

bishops their several duties, following the decisions of many

councils. He strengthened the hierarchy by preventing the

encroachments of the bishops upon one another: 'I have given

to you the spiritual direction of Britain,' he wrote to the

ambitious Augustine, 'and not that of the Gauls.' He

rearranged the monasteries, made discipline the object of his

vigilant care, reformed Church music, and substituted the

chant that bears his name for the Ambrosian chant, 'which

resembled,' according to a contemporary, 'the far-off noise of

a chariot rumbling over pebbles.' Rome, victorious again with

the help of Gregory the Great, continued to push her conquests

to distant countries after his death."

V. Duruy, History of the Middle Ages, page 116.

See,

CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 496-800,

and ROME: A. D. 590-640.

CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 597-800.

The English Church.

"It seems right to add a word of caution against the common

confusion between the British Church and the English Church.

They were quite distinct, and had very little to do with one

another. To cite the British bishops at the Councils of Arles

and Rimini as evidence of the antiquity of the English Church

is preposterous. There was then no England; and the ancestors

of English Churchmen were heathen tribes on the continent. The

history of the Church of England begins with the episcopate of

Archbishop Theodore (A. D. 668), or at the very earliest with

the landing of Augustine (A. D. 597). By that time the British

Church had been almost destroyed by the heathen English. ...

Bede tells us that down to his day the Britons still treated

English Christians as pagans."

A. Plummer, The Church of the Early Fathers, chapter 8.

"About the year 580, in the pontificate of Pelagius, Gregory

occupied the rank of a deacon among the Roman clergy. He was

early noted for his zeal and piety; coming into large

possessions, as an off-shoot of an ancient and noble family,

he had expended his wealth in the foundation of no less than

seven monasteries, and had become himself the abbot of one of

them, St. Andrew's, at Rome. Devoted as he was from the first

to all the good works to which the religious profession might

best apply itself, his attention was more particularly turned

to the cause of Christian missions by casually remarking a

troop of young slaves exhibited for sale in the Roman market.

Struck with the beauty or fresh complexion of these strangers,

he asked whether they were Christians or Pagans. They were

Pagans, it was replied. How sad, he exclaimed, that such fair

countenances should lie under the power of demons. 'Whence came

they?'--'From Anglia.'--'Truly they are Angels. What is the

name of their country?'--'Deira.'--'Truly they are subject to

the wrath of God: ira Dei. And their king?'--'Is named

Ælla.'--'Let them learn to sing Allelujah.' Britain had lately

fallen under the sway of the heathen Angles. Throughout the

eastern section of the island, the faith of Christ, which had

been established there from early times, had been, it seems,

utterly extirpated. The British church of Lucius and Albanus

still lingered, but was chiefly confined within the ruder

districts of Cornwall, Wales, and Cumbria. The reported

destruction of the people with all their churches, and all

their culture, begun by the Picts and Scots, and carried on by

the Angles and their kindred Saxons, had made a profound

impression upon Christendom. The 'Groans of the Britons' had

terrified all mankind, and discouraged even the brave

missionaries of Italy and Gaul. ... Gregory determined to make

the sacrifice himself. He prevailed on the Pope to sanction

his enterprise; but the people of Rome, with whom he was a

favourite, interposed, and he was constrained reluctantly to

forego the peril and the blessing. But the sight he had

witnessed in the market-place still retained its impression

upon him. He kept the fair-haired Angles ever in view; and

when, in the year 592, he was himself elevated to the popedom,

he resolved to send a mission, and fling upon the obscure

shores of Britain the full beams of the sun of Christendom, as

they then seemed to shine so conspicuously at Rome. Augustine

was the preacher chosen from among the inmates of one of

Gregory's monasteries, for the arduous task thus imposed upon

him. He was to be accompanied by a select band of twelve

monks, together with a certain number of attendants. ... There

is something very remarkable in the facility with which the

fierce idolaters, whose name had struck such terror into the

Christian nations far and near, yielded to the persuasions of

this band of peaceful evangelists."

C. Merivale, Four lectures on some Epochs of Early

Church History, pages 192-198.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 597-685.

The Roman missionaries in England landed in Kent and appear to

have had more influence with the petty courts of the little

kingdoms than with the people. The conversion of the North of

England must be credited to the Irish monastery on the island

of Iona. "At the beginning of the sixth century these Irish

Christians were seized with an unconquerable impulse to wander

afar and preach Christianity to the heathen. In 563 Columba,

with twelve confederates, left Ireland and founded a monastery

on a small island off the coast of Scotland (Iona or Hy),

through the influence of which the Scots and Picts of Britain

became converted to Christianity, twenty-three missions among

the Scots and eighteen in the country of the Picts having been

established at the death of Columba (597). Under his third

successor the heathen Saxons were converted; Aedan, summoned

by Osward of Northumbria, having labored among them from 635

to 651 as missionary, abbot, and bishop. His successors,

Finnan and Colman, worthily carried on his work, and

introduced Christianity into other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms near

East Anglia, Mercia, and Essex."

H. Zimmer, The Irish Element in Mediæval Culture,

pages 19-21.

{464}

"Two bands of devoted men had hitherto been employed in the

conversion of England, the Roman, assisted by their converts

and some teachers from France, and the Irish, who were plainly

the larger body. Between the two there were the old

differences as to the time of keeping Easter and the form of

the clerical tonsure. ... Thus, while Oswy [King of Mercia]

was celebrating Easter according to the custom he had learnt

at Iona, his queen Earfleda observed it according to the rule

which she had learnt in Kent, and was still practising the

austerities of Lent. These differences were tolerated during

the Episcopate of Aidan and Finan, but when Finan died and was

succeeded by Colman, the controversy" was terminated by Oswy,

after much debate, with the words--"'I will hold to St. Peter,

lest, when I present myself at the gates of Heaven, he should

close them against me.' ... Colman, with all his Irish

brethren, and thirty Northumbrians who had joined the

monastery, quitted Lindisfarne and sailed to Iona."

G. F. Maclear, Conversion of the West: The English,

pages 81-85.

The impartial historian to whom we owe all the early history

of the English Church, thus records the memory of these

devoted men as it remained in the minds of Englishmen long

after their departure. It is a brief passage, one like those

in the greater Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, which must

stand for much we do not know. Referring to their devoted

lives--"For this reason the religious habit was at that time

in great veneration; so that wheresoever any clergyman or monk

happened to come, he was joyfully received by all persons, as

God's servant; and if they chanced to meet him upon the way,

they ran to him, and bowing, were glad to be signed with his

hand, or blessed with his mouth. Great attention was also paid

to their exhortations; and on Sundays they flocked eagerly to

the church, or the monasteries, not to feed their bodies, but

to hear the word of God; and if any priest happened to come

into a village, the inhabitants flocked together to hear from

him the word of life; for the priests and clergymen went into

the village on no other account than to preach, baptize, visit

the sick, and, in few words, to take care of souls; and they

were so free from worldly avarice, that none of them received

lands and possessions for building monasteries, unless they

were compelled to do so by the temporal authorities; which

custom was for some time after observed in all the churches of

the Northumbrians. But enough has now been said on this

subject."

The Venerable Bede's Ecclesiastical History of England;

ed. by J. A. Giles, book 3, chapter 26.

The English Church passed through several stages during this

period. A notable one was the rise and fall of a loose

monastic system which attracted men and women of the better

classes, but for lack of a strict rule brought itself into

disrepute. Another was the development of classical learning

and the foundation of the school at Jarrow in Northumberland

resulting in making England the intellectual centre of the

world. Venerable Bede, who wrote the Ecclesiastical History of

the English Church, was the greatest teacher of this epoch;

and Alcuin, a Northumbrian by birth, and of the school at

York, of the next. Invited by Charlemagne to the Frankish

Court, he carried English learning to the Continent, and

although he died at the time of the foundation of the Empire,

left his influence in many ways on the development of European

culture. A single fact of interest will suffice, to show the

close connection of this early history with that of Rome and

the continent--viz., to Alcuin we are largely indebted for the

parent script which formed our Roman letters. (I. Taylor,

The Alphabet, volume 2, page 180.) Northumbrian learning and the

rich libraries of ancient and Anglo-Saxon literature were

destroyed by the Danes, who, in their incursions, showed for a

long time peculiar animosity to monks and monasteries.

Although the service of this early Anglo-Saxon Church was

partly in the vernacular, and large portions, if not all, of

the Gospels had been translated, little remains to us of its

early religious literature. The translations of the Gospel

into Anglo-Saxon that have come down to us are to be

attributed to a late period.

CHRISTIANITY: 9th Century.

The Bulgarian Church.

"In the beginning of this 9th century, a sister of the

reigning Bulgarian king, Bogoris, had fallen as a captive into

the keeping of the Greek emperor. For thirty-eight years she

lived at Constantinople, and was there instructed in the

doctrines of the Christian Faith. Meanwhile, the

administration passed into the hands of the empress Regent,

Theodora. She was interested in a certain monk named Cupharas,

who had been taken prisoner by the Bulgarians, and with a view

to his redemption, she opened negotiations with Bogoris. An

exchange of prisoners was finally effected. The sister of

Bogoris was restored to him, while Cupharas was permitted to

return to Constantinople. Before the release of the pious

monk, however, he had striven, though quite unavailingly, to

win the Bulgarian prince to the service of the Cross. These

fruitless endeavors were supplemented by the entreaties of the

king's sister, on her return from Constantinople. ... At last,

fear snapped the fetters which love had failed to disengage.

... His baptism was celebrated at midnight with profoundest

secrecy. The rite was administered by no less a personage than

the patriarch Photius. He emphasized the solemnity of the

occasion by presenting the neophyte with a lengthy treatise on

Christianity, theoretical and practical, considered mainly in

its bearings on the duties of a monarch. The emperor Michael

stood sponsor by proxy, and the Bulgarian king received, as

his Christian name, that of his imperial god-father. ... The

battle-cries of theology rang over Christendom, and the world

was regaled with the spectacle of a struggle between the rival

Churches for the possession of Bulgaria, a country till

recently so conspicuously destitute of dogma of any kind. The

Bulgarians themselves, doubtless much astonished at the uproar

for their sake, and, surely, more perplexed than ever by the

manners and customs of Christianity, began to waver in their

adherence to the Western Church, and to exhibit symptoms of an

inclination to transfer their allegiance to Constantinople.

The strife went on for years. At last, A. D. 877, the Latin

clergy having been dismissed from the country, Pope John VIII.

solemnly expostulated, protesting against the Greek

proclivities of the Bulgarians, and predicting dire results

from their identity with a Church which was rarely free from

heresy in one form or another. Nevertheless, the Byzantine

leanings of Bulgaria did culminate in union with the Eastern Church.

{465}

A Greek archbishop and bishops of the same communion, settled

in the country. ... 'The Eastern branch' of the Slavonic

languages, properly so called, 'comprehends the Russian, with

various local dialects, the Bulgarian, and the Illyrian. The

most ancient document of this Eastern branch is the so-called

ecclesiastical Slavonic, i. e., the ancient Bulgarian, into

which Cyrillus and Methodius translated the Bible in the

middle of the 9th century. This is still the authorized

version of the Bible for the whole Slavonic race, and to the

student of the Slavonic languages it is what Gothic is to the

student of German.'"

G. F. Maclear, Conversion of the West: The Slavs,

pages 54-69.

CHRISTIANITY: 9th Century.

Conversion of Moravia.

"In the opening years of the 9th century, Moravia stretched

from the Bavarian borders to the Hungarian river Drina, and

from the banks of the Danube, beyond the Carpathian mountains,

to the river Stryi in Southern Poland. Into this territory

Christianity had been ushered as early as A. D. 801, by

Charlemagne, who, as his custom was, enforced baptism at the

point of the sword, at least as far as the king was concerned.

Efforts were subsequently made by the archbishops of Salzburg

and Passau to fan this first feeble flicker into something

like a flame. But no success attended their exertions.

Paganism was overpoweringly strong, and Christianity not only

weak, but rude and uncouth in type. ... The story of this

country, during the process of emancipation from paganism, is

but a repetition of the incidents with which, in neighbouring

states, we have already become familiar. Ramifications of the

work of Cyril and Methodius extended into Servia. The Slavonic

alphabet made way there, as in Bohemia and Moravia, for

Christianity. The Servians 'enjoyed the advantage of a liturgy

which was intelligible to them; and we find that, early in the

10th century, a considerable number of Slavonian priests from

all the dioceses were ordained by the bishop of Nona, who was

himself a Slavonian by descent.'"

G. F. Maclear, Conversion of the West: The Slavs,

chapter 4.

CHRISTIANITY: 9th-10th Centuries.

The Eastern Church as a missionary Church.

"If the missionary spirit is the best evidence of vitality in

a church, it certainly was not wanting in the Eastern Church

during the ninth and tenth centuries of our era. This period

witnessed the conversion to Christianity of the principal

Slavonic peoples, whereby they are both linked with

Constantinople, and bound together by those associations of

creed, as well as race, which form so important a factor in

the European politics of the present day. The Moravians, the

Bulgarians, and the Russians were now brought within the fold

of the Church; and the way was prepared for that vast

extension of the Greek communion by which it has spread, not

only throughout the Balkan peninsula and the lands to the

north of it, but wherever Russian influence is found--as far

as the White Sea on the one side, and Kamtchatka on the other,

and into the heart of Central Asia. The leaders in this great

work were the two brothers, Cyril and Methodius, who in

consequence of this, have since been known as the Apostles of

the Slavonians. What Mezrop did for the Armenians, what

Ulfilas did for the Goths, was accomplished for that race by

Cyril in the invention of a Slavonic alphabet, which from this

cause is still known by the name of the Cyrillic. The same

teacher, by his translation of the Scriptures into their

tongue, provided them with a literary language, thereby

producing the same result which Luther's Bible subsequently

effected for Germany, and Dante's Divina Commedia for Italy.

It is no matter for surprise that, throughout the whole of

this great branch of the human race--even amongst the

Russians, who owed their Christianity to another source--the

names of these two brothers should occupy the foremost place

in the calendar of Saints. It is not less significant that

their names are not even mentioned by the Byzantine

historians."

H. F. Tozer, The Church and the Eastern Empire, chapter 7.

CHRISTIANITY: 9th-11th Centuries.

The Western Church as a missionary Church.

The earlier missions of the Western Church have been

described, but it is noteworthy that again and again missions

to the same regions are necessary. It requires such a map as

the one accompanying this article to make plain the slowness

of its diffusions and the long period needed to produce even a

nominally Christian Europe. "The views of Charlemagne for the

conquest and conversion of the Northern heathens [see SAXONS:

A. D. 772-804], were not confined to the limits, wide as they

were, of Saxony. The final pacification effected at Salz,

seemed to open his eyes to more extensive enterprises in

prospect. Political may have combined with religious motives

in inducing him to secure the peace of his new frontiers, by

enlisting the tribes of Denmark under the banner of the Cross,

and he conceived the idea of planting a church in the

neighbourhood of Hamburg, which should become a missionary

centre. This plan, though interrupted by his death, was not

neglected by his son Louis le Debonnaire, or 'the Pious.' ...

But it is easier to propose such a plan than find one willing

to carry it out. The well-known ferocity of the Northmen long

deterred anyone from offering himself for such a duty. At

length he received intelligence from Wala, the abbot of

Corbey, near Amiens, that one of his monks was not unwilling

to undertake the perilous enterprise, The intrepid volunteer

was Anskar."

G. F. Maclear, Conversion of the West: The Northmen,

chapter 2.

"In 822, Harold, the king of Jutland, and claimant of the

crown of Denmark, came to seek the help of Louis the Pious,

the son, and one of the successors, of Charlemagne. ... On

Harold's return to Denmark he was accompanied by Anskar, who

well deserves to be called the apostle of Scandinavia. ...

Thus Anskar and Autbert set out in the train of Harold, and

during the journey and voyage a kindly feeling sprang up

between the royal and the missionary families. Harold got no

cordial greeting from his proud heathen subjects when he

announced to them that he had done homage to the emperor, and

that he had embraced the gospel. He seems to have been very

sincere and very earnest in his endeavours to induce his

nobles and subjects to abandon idolatry and embrace

Christianity. To expect that he was altogether judicious in

these efforts would be to suppose that he had those views

regarding the relation that ought to subsist between rulers

and subjects, ... views regarding liberty of conscience and

the right of private judgment. ...

{466}

The result was that after two years, in 828, he was compelled

to abdicate the throne. ... The position of Anskar, difficult

as it was while Harold was on the throne, became still more

difficult after his abdication. ... But just at the time when

the door was shut against him in Denmark, another was opened

in Sweden, which promised to be wider and more effectual. ...

He was kindly received by the Swedish king, who gave him

permission to preach, and his subjects freedom to accept and

profess the gospel of Christ. As Anskar had been led to

expect, so he found, many Christian captives, who had been

brought from other countries,--France, Germany, Britain,

Ireland,--and who, having been as sheep without a shepherd,

gladly received from Anskar those consolations and

exhortations which were fitted to alleviate the sorrows of

their captivity. ... After a year and a half's stay in Sweden,

Anskar returned home, and gladdened the heart of the good

emperor, and doubtless of many others, by the cheering

prospect he was able to present of the acceptance of the

gospel by the Swedes. He was now made nominally bishop of

Hamburg, but with the special design of superintending and

conducting missionary operations both in Denmark and

Sweden.... Horik, king of Denmark, who had driven Harold from

his throne, ... had been hitherto an uncompromising enemy of

the gospel. Anskar undertook the management of some political

negotiations with him, and in the conduct of them made so

favourable an impression on him that he refused to have any

other negotiator or ambassador of the German king at his

court. He treated him as a personal friend, and gave him full

liberty to conduct missionary operations. These operations he

conducted with his usual zeal, and by God's blessing, with

much success. Many were baptized. The Christians of Germany

and Holland traded more freely with the Danes than before, and

the Danes resorted in larger numbers as traders to Holland and

Germany; and in these and other ways a knowledge of the

gospel, and some apprehension of the blessings which it brings

with it, were diffused among the people. ... Although the

Norwegians were continually coming into contact, in the

varying relations of war and peace, with the Swedes and the

Danes, the French and the Germans, the English and the Irish,

and although in this way some knowledge of the Christian

system must have been diffused among them, yet the formal

introduction of it into their country was a full century later

than its introduction into Denmark and Sweden."

Thomas Smith, Mediæval Missions, pages 122-138.

"The conversions in Denmark were confined to the mainland. The

islands still remained pagan, while human victims continued to

be offered till the Emperor Henry I. extorted from Gorm, the

first king of all Denmark, in A. D. 934, protection for the

Christians throughout his realm, and the abolition of human

sacrifices. In Sweden, for seventy years after Anskar's death,

the nucleus of a Christian Church continued to be restricted

to the neighbourhood of Birka, and the country was hardly

visited by Christian missionaries."

G. F. Maclear, Conversion of the West:

The Northmen, chapter 2.

"It is very remarkable that, in the whole history of the

introduction of Christianity into Norway and Iceland,

extending over a period of a century and a half, we meet not

with the name of any noted bishop, or ecclesiastic, or

missionary. There were, no doubt, ecclesiastics employed in

the work, and these would appear to have been generally

Englishmen; but they occupied a secondary place, almost their

only province being to baptize those whom the kings compelled

to submit to that ordinance. The kings were the real

missionaries; and one cannot help feeling a kind of admiration

for the ferocious zeal which one and another of them

manifested in the undertaking,--even as the Lord commended the

unjust steward because he had done wisely, although his wisdom

was wholly misdirected. The most persistent and the most

successful of these missionary kings was Olaf the Thick, who

came from England in 1017, and set himself with heart and soul

to the work of the demolition of heathenism, and the

substitution of Christianity as the national religion."

Thomas Smith, Mediæval Missions, pages 140-141.

CHRISTIANITY: 10th Century.

The Russian Church.

"In the middle of the 10th century, the widowed Princess Olga,

lately released from the cares of regency, travelled from Kief

to Constantinople. Whether her visit had political objects, or

whether she was prompted to pay it solely, as some say, by a

desire to know more of the holy faith of which only glimpses

had been vouchsafed her at home, cannot be positively decided.

But her sojourn in the imperial city was a turning-point in

her career. Baptism was administered to her by the patriarch

Polyeuctes, the emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus

officiating as sponsor. Polyeuctes then solemnly addressed the

princess, predicting that through her instrumentality Russia

should be richly blessed. 'Olga,' writes M. Mouravieff, 'now

become Helena by baptism, that she might resemble both in name

and deed the mother of Constantine the Great, stood meekly

bowing down her head, and drinking in, as a sponge that is

thirsty of moisture, the instructions of the prelate.' ...

Some latent impressions favourable to Christianity her

youngest grandson, Vladimir, doubtless owed to her.

Nevertheless when, at the death of his brother Yarapolk, for

which indeed he was held responsible, he mounted the throne,

no signs of a gracious character revealed themselves. He was,

on the contrary, a bitter and bigoted pagan. ... It seems to

have occurred to many missionaries of varying types, that a

chief of such mark should not be left at the mercy of his own

violent passions. The spiritual well-being of Vladimir

accordingly became the object of laborious journeys, of much

exertion, and of redundant eloquence. ... Last of all came a

Greek emissary. He was neither 'a priest nor a missionary, but

a philosopher.' ... Like Bogoris, the wild Russian chief was

greatly moved. ... The following year the king laid before the

elders of his council the rival pleas of these variously

recommended forms of faith, and solicited their advice. The

nobles mused awhile, and then counselled their master to

ascertain how each religion worked at home. This, they

thought, would be more practical evidence than the plausible

representations of professors. On this suggestion Vladimir

acted. Envoys were chosen,--presumably, for their powers of

observation,--and the embassy of inquiry started. 'This public

agreement,' says the historian of the Russian Church,

'explains in some degree the sudden and general acceptance of

Christianity which shortly after followed in Russia.

{467}

It is probable that not only the chiefs, but the common people

also, were expecting and ready for the change.' A report, far

from encouraging, was in due time received from the

ambassadors. Of the German and Roman, as well as the Jewish,

religions in daily life, they spoke in very disparaging terms,

while they declared the Mussulman creed, when reduced to

practice, to be utterly out of the question. Disappointed in

all these quarters, they now proceeded, by command, to

Constantinople, or, as the Russians called it, Tzaragorod. ...

Singularly enough, the Russian envoys, accustomed, as we must

suppose them to have been, only to the barest simplicity of

life, had complained not only of the paucity of decoration in

the Latin churches, but of a lack of beauty in their

appointments. Thus the preparations of the patriarch were

accurately fitted to their expectant frame of mind. They were

led into the church of S. Sophia, gleaming with variegated

marbles, and porphyries, and jasper, at that time 'the

masterpiece of Christian architecture.' The building glittered

with gold, and rich mosaics. The service was that of a high

festival, either of St. John Chrysostom, or of the Death of

the Virgin, and was conducted by the patriarch in person, clad

in his most gorgeous vestments. ... On their return to

Vladimir, they dilated with eager delight on the wonders they

had seen. The king listened gravely to their glowing account

of 'the temple, like which there was none upon earth.' After

sweetness, they protested, bitterness would be unbearable, so

that--whatever others might do--they at all events should at

once abandon heathenism. While the king hesitated, his boyers

turned the scale by reminding him that if the creed of the

Greeks had not indeed had much to recommend it, his pious and

sagacious grandmother, Princess Olga, would not have loved and

obeyed it. Her name acted like a talisman. Vladimir resolved

to conform to Christianity. But still, fondly clinging to the

habits of his forefathers, he cherished the idea of wooing and

winning his new religion by the sword. ... Under the auspices

of the sovereign, the stately church of St. Basil soon arose,

on the very spot recently occupied by the temple of Perun.

Kief became the centre of Christian influence, whence

evangelizing energies radiated in all directions. Schools and

churches were built, while Michael, the first metropolitan,

attended by his bishops, 'made progresses into the interior of

Russia, everywhere baptizing and instructing the people.' The

Greek canon law came into force, and the use of the

service-book and choral music of the Greek communion became

general, while, in the Slavonic Scriptures and Liturgy of

Cyril and Methodius, a road was discovered which led straight

to the hearts of the native population. 'Cyril and Methodius,

if anyone, must be considered by anticipation as the first

Christian teachers of Russia; their rude alphabet first

instructed the Russian nation in letters, and, by its quaint

Greek characters, still testifies in every Russian book, and

on every Russian house or shop, the Greek source of the

religion and literature of the empire.'"

G. F. Maclear, Conversion of the West: The Slavs,

chapter 5.

"As in the first centuries it was necessary that the leaven of

Christianity should gradually penetrate the entire

intellectual life of the cultivated nations, before a new

spiritual creation, striking its root in the forms of the

Grecian and Roman culture, which Christianity appropriated,

could in these forms completely unfold itself; so after the

same manner it was necessary that the leaven of Christianity

which ... had been introduced into the masses of the untutored

nations, should gradually penetrate their whole inward life,

before a new and peculiar spiritual creation could spring out

of it, which should go on to unfold itself through the entire

period of the middle ages. And the period in which we now are

must be regarded as still belonging to the epoch of transition

from that old spiritual creation which flourished on the basis

of Grecian and Roman culture to the new one."

A. Neander, General History of the Christian Religion

and Church, volume 3, page 456.

We leave the author's sentence incomplete, that it may

express the more fully all the subsequent history of

Christianity.

----------CHRISTIANITY: End----------

CHRISTINA, Queen-regent of Spain, A. D. 1833-1841.

Christina, Queen of Sweden, A. D. 1633-1654.

CHRISTINOS, The.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.

CHRISTOPHER I., King of Denmark. A. D. 1252-1259.

Christopher II., A. D. 1319-1334.

Christopher III., King of Denmark,

Sweden and Norway, A. D. 1439-1448.

CHRYSE.

Vague reports of a region called Chryse (the Golden),

somewhere beyond the Ganges, and of an island bearing the same

name, off the mouths of the Ganges, as well as of another

island called Argyre (the Silver Island), were prevalent among

the early Roman geographical writers. They probably all had

reference to the Malay peninsula, which Ptolemy called the

Golden Chersonese.

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Grog., chapter 25.

CHRYSLER'S FARM, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

CHRYSOBULUM.

See GOLDEN BULL, BYZANTINE.

CHRYSOPOLlS.

Modern Scutari, opposite Constantinople; originally the port

of the city of Chalcedon.

CHRYSOPOLIS, Battle of (A. D. 323).

See Rome: A. D. 305-323.

CHUMARS.

See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.

CHUMASHAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHUMASHAN FAMILY.

CHUR, The Bishopric of.

See TYROL,

and SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

CHURCH, The Armenian.

See ARMENIAN CHURCH.

CHURCH OF BOHEMIA, The Utraquist National.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1434-1457.

CHURCH IN BRAZIL, Disestablishment of the.

See BRAZIL: A. D. 1889-1891.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND: Origin and Establishment.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534; 1531-1563; and 1535-1539.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND: The Six Articles.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1539.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND: The completed Church-reform under Edward VI.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1547-1553.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND: The doubtful conflict of religions.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1553.

{468}

CHURCH OF ENGLAND:

Romanism restored by Mary.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1555-1558.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND:

Recovery of Protestantism under Elizabeth.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1558-1588.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND:

The Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND:

Rise of Puritanism.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559-1566; 1564-1565 (?).

CHURCH OF ENGLAND:

The Despotism of Laud.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1633-1640.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND:

Rise of the Independents.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND:

The Root and Branch Bill.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1641 (MARCH-MAY).

CHURCH OF ENGLAND:

The Westminster Assembly.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY), and 1646 (MARCH).

CHURCH OF ENGLAND:

The Solemn League and Covenant.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

CHURCH OF ENGLAND:

The Restoration.

The Savoy Conference.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1661 (APRIL-JULY).

CHURCH OF ENGLAND:

The Act of Uniformity and persecution of Nonconformists.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1662-1665.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND:

Charles' Declaration of Indulgence, and the Test Act.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1672-1673, and 1687.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND:

James' Declaration of Indulgence.

Trial of the seven Bishops.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1687-1688.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND:

The Church and the Revolution.

The Non-Jurors.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (APRIL-AUGUST).

CHURCH OF ENGLAND: A. D. 1704.

Queen Anne's Bounty.

See QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND: A. D. 1711-1714.

The Occasional Conformity Bill and the Schism Act.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1711-1714.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND: A. D. 1833-1845.

The Oxford or Tractarian Movement.

See OXFORD OR TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT.

----------CHURCH OF ENGLAND: End----------

CHURCH OF FRANCE.

See GALLICAN CHURCH.

CHURCH, The Greek or Eastern.

See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054.

CHURCH OF IRELAND, Disestablishment of the.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1868-1870.

CHURCH OF LATTER DAY SAINTS.

See MORMONISM: A. D. 1805-1830.

CHURCH OF ROME.

See PAPACY.

CHURCH, The Russian.

The great schism known as Raskol.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1655-1659.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:

Its birth.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1547-1557.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:

The First Covenant.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:

Rebellion and triumph of the Lords of the Congregation.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558-1560.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:

Restoration of Episcopacy.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1572.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:

The First National Covenant.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1581.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:

The Black Acts.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1584.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:

Appropriation of Church lands.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1587.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:

The Five Articles of Perth.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1618.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:

Laud's liturgy and Jenny Geddes' stool.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1637.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:

The signing of the National Covenant.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:

The First Bishops' War.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:

The Second Bishops' War.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1640.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:

The Westminster Assembly.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY).

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:

The Solemn League and Covenant.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:

Montrose and the Covenanters.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:

The restored king and restored prelacy.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:

Persecutions of the Covenanters.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1669-1679: 1679; 1681-1689.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:

The Revolution and re-establishment of the Presbyterian

Church.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1688-1690.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND:

The Disruption.

Formation of the Free Church.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1843.

----------CHURCH OF SCOTLAND: End----------

CHURUBUSCO, Battle of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

CIBALIS, Battle of (A. D. 313).

See ROME: A. D. 305-323.

CIBOLA, The Seven Cities of.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

CICERO, and the last years of the Roman Republic.

See ROME: B. C. 69-63, to 44-42.

CILICIA.-KILIKIA.

An ancient district in the southeastern corner of Asia Minor,

bordering on Syria. It was a satrapy of the Persian Empire,

then a part of the kingdom of the Selucidæ, and afterwards a

Roman province. The chief city of Cilicia was Tarsus, a very

ancient commercial emporium, whose people were noted for

mental acuteness. The Apostle Paul is to be counted among the

distinguished natives of Tarsus, and a quite remarkable number

of eminent teachers of philosophy were from the same

birthplace.

CILICIA, Pirates of.

During the Mithridatic wars piracy was developed to alarming

proportions in the eastern parts of the Mediterranean Sea.

Distracted by civil conflicts and occupied by foreign ones,

simultaneously, the Romans, for a considerable period, gave no

proper heed to the growth of this lawlessness, until they

found their commerce half destroyed and Rome and Italy

actually threatened with starvation by the intercepting of

their supplies from abroad. The pirates flourished under the

protection and encouragement of the king of Pontus, at whose

instance they established their chief headquarters, their

docks, arsenals and magazines, at various points on the coast

of Cilicia. Hence the name Cilician came to be applied to all

the pirates of the time. This era of piracy was brought to an

end, at last, by Pompey, who was sent against them, B. C. 67,

with extraordinary powers conferred by the law known as the

Lex Gabinia. He proceeded to his undertaking with remarkable

energy and ability, and his hunting down of the freebooters

which he accomplished effectually within three months from the

day his operations began, was really the most brilliant

exploit of his life.

H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 7, chapter 63.

ALSO IN:

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 1.

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 3, chapter 6-7.

{469}

CILICIAN GATES.

A pass through the Taurus range of mountains, opening from

Cappadocia into Cilicia, was anciently called the Pylæ Ciliciæ

or Cilician Gates. The city of Tyana was situated at the

entrance to the pass. Both Xenophon and Alexander, who

traversed it, seem to have regarded the pass as one which no

army could force if properly defended.

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,

chapter 10, section 2. and chapter 12, section 1.

CILURNUM.

A Roman city in Britain, "the extensive ruins of which, well

described as a British Pompeii, are visible near the modern

hamlets of Chesters."

T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.

CIMARRONES, The.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580,

and JAMAICA: A. D. 1655-1796.

CIMBRI AND TEUTONES, The.

"For a considerable period [second century, B. C.] an

'unsettled people' had been wandering along the northern verge

of the country occupied by the Celts on both sides of the

Danube. They called themselves the Cimbri, that is, the

Chempho, the champions, or, as their enemies translated it,

the robbers; a designation, however, which to all appearance

had become the name of the people even before their migration.

They came from the north, and the first Celtic people with

whom they came in contact were, so far as is known, the Boii,

probably in Bohemia. More exact details as to the cause and

the direction of their migration have not been recorded by

contemporaries and cannot be supplied by conjecture. ... But

the hypothesis that the Cimbri, as well as the similar horde

of the Teutones which afterwards joined them, belonged in the

main not to the Celtic nation, to which the Romans at first

assigned them, but to the Germanic, is supported by the most

definite facts: viz., by the existence of two small tribes of

the same name--remnants left behind to all appearance in their

primitive seats--the Cimbri in the modern Denmark, the

Teutones in the north-east of Germany in the neighbourhood of

the Baltic, where Pytheas, a contemporary of Alexander the

Great, makes mention of them thus early in connection with the

amber trade; by the insertion of the Cimbri and Teutones in

the list of the Germanic peoples among the Ingævones alongside

of the Chauci; by the judgment of Cæsar, who first made the

Romans acquainted with the distinction between the Germans and

the Celts, and who includes the Cimbri, many of whom he must

himself have seen, among the Germans; and lastly, by the very

names of the people and the statements as to their physical

appearance and habits. ... On the other hand it is conceivable

enough that such a horde, after having wandered perhaps for

many years, and having doubtless welcomed every

brother-in-arms who joined it in its movements near to or

within the land of the Celts, would include a certain amount

of Celtic elements. ... When men afterwards began to trace the

chain, of which this emigration, the first Germanic movement

which touched the orbit of ancient civilization, was a link,

the direct and living knowledge of it had long passed away."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 4, chapter 5.

"The name Kymri, or Cymri, still exists. It is the name that

the Welsh give themselves, but I am not aware that any other

people have called them by that name. These Kymri are a branch

of the great Celtic people, and this resemblance of the words

Kymri and Cimbri has led many modern writers to assume that

the Cimbri were also a Celtic people, as many of the ancient

writers name them. But these ancient writers are principally

the later Greeks, who are no authority at all on such a

matter. ... The name Cimbri has perished in Germany, while

that of the Teutones, by some strange accident, is now the

name of the whole Germanic population."

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 2, chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 7, chapter 9.

CIMBRI: B. C. 113-102.

Battles with the Romans.

The Cimbri and the Teutones made their first appearance on the

Roman horizon in the year 113 B. C. when they entered Noricum.

The Noricans were an independent people, as yet, but accepted

a certain protection from Rome, and the latter sent her

consul, Carbo, with an army, to defend them. Carbo made an

unfortunate attempt to deal treacherously with the invaders

and suffered an appalling defeat. Then the migrating

barbarians, instead of pressing into Italy, on the heels of

the flying Romans, turned westward through Helvetia to Gaul,

and occupied themselves for four years in ravaging that

unhappy country. In 109 B. C., having gathered their plunder

into the fortified town of Aduatuca and left it well

protected, they advanced into the Roman province of Narbo,

Southern Gaul, and demanded land to settle upon. The Romans

resisted and were again overwhelmingly beaten. But even now

the victorious host did not venture to enter Italy, and

nothing is known of its movements until 105 B. C., when a

third Roman army was defeated in Roman Gaul and its commander

taken prisoner and slain. The affrighted Romans sent strong

re-enforcements to the Rhone; but jealousy between the consul

who commanded the new army and the proconsul who retained

command of the old delivered both of them to destruction. They

were virtually annihilated, Oct. 6, B. C. 105, at Arausio

(Orange), on the left bank of the Rhone. It is said that

80,000 Roman soldiers perished on that dreadful field, besides

half as many more of camp followers. "This much is certain,"

says Mommsen, "that only a few out of the two armies succeeded

in escaping, for the Romans had fought with the river in their

rear. It was a calamity which materially and morally far

surpassed the day of Cannæ." In the panic which this disaster

caused at Rome the constitution of the Republic was broken

down. Marius, conqueror of Jugurtha, was recalled from Africa

and not only re-elected to the Consulship, but invested with

the office for five successive years. He took command in Gaul

and found that the formidable invaders had moved off into

Spain. This gave him time, fortunately, for the organizing and

disciplining of his demoralized troops. When the barbarians

reappeared on the Rhone, in the summer of 102 B. C., he faced

them with an army worthy of earlier Roman times. They had now

resolved, apparently, to force their way, at all hazards, into

Italy, and had divided their increasing host, to move on Rome

by two routes. The Cimbri, reinforced by the Tigorini, who had

joined them, made a circuit to the Eastern Alps, while the

Teutones, with Ambrones and Tougeni for confederates crossed

the Rhone and attacked the defenders of the western passes.

Failing to make any impression on the fortified camp of Marius

the Teutones rashly passed it, marching straight for the coast

road to Italy.

{470}

Marius cautiously followed and after some days gave battle to

the barbarians, in the district of Aquæ Sextiæ, a few miles

north of Massilia. The Romans that day took revenge for

Arausio with awful interest. The whole barbaric horde was

annihilated. "So great was the number of dead bodies that the

land in the neighborhood was made fertile by them, and the

people of Massilia used the bones for fencing their

vineyards." Meantime the Cimbri and their fellows had reached

and penetrated the Brenner pass and were in the valley of the

Adige. The Roman army stationed there had given way before

them, and Marius was needed to roll the invasion back. He did

so, on the 30th of July B. C. 101, when the Cimbri were

destroyed, at a battle fought on the Raudine Plain near

Vercellæ, as completely as the Teutones had been destroyed at

Aquæ Sextiæ.

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 4, chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 7, chapter 9.

CIMBRIAN CHERSONESUS.

The modern Danish promontory of Jutland; believed to have been

the home of the Cimbri before they migrated southwards and

invaded Gaul.

CIMINIAN FOREST, The.

The mountains of Viterbo, which formed anciently the frontier

of Rome towards Etruria, were then covered with a thick

forest--"the 'silva Ciminia' of which Livy gives so romantic a

description. It was, however, nothing but a natural division

between two nations which were not connected by friendship,

and wished to have little to do with each other. ... This

forest was by no means like the 'silva Hercynia' with which

Livy compares it, but was of just such an extent that,

according to his own account, the Romans only wanted a couple

of hours to march through it."

B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on the History of Rome, lecture 44.

CIMMERIANS, The.

"The name Cimmerians appears in the Odyssey,--the fable

describes them as dwelling beyond the ocean-stream, immersed

in darkness and unblessed by the rays of Helios. Of this

people as existent we can render no account, for they had

passed away, or lost their identity and become subject,

previous to the commencement of trustworthy authorities: but

they seem to have been the chief occupants of the Tauric

Chersonese (Crimea) and of the territory between that

peninsula and the river Tyras (Dneister) at the time when the

Greeks first commenced their permanent settlements on those

coasts in the seventh century B. C. The numerous localities

which bore their name, even in the time of Herodotus, after

they had ceased to exist as a nation,--as well as the tombs of

the Cimmerian kings then shown near the Tyras,--sufficiently

attest the fact; and there is reason to believe that they

were--like their conquerors and successors the Scythians--a

nomadic people, mare-milkers, moving about with their tents

and herds, suitably to the nature of those unbroken steppes

which their territory presented, and which offered little

except herbage in profusion. Strabo tells us--on what

authority we do not know--that they, as well as the Trêres and

other Thracians, had desolated Asia Minor more than once

before the time of Ardys [King of Lydia, seventh century B.

C.] and even earlier than Homer."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 17.

See, also, CUMÆ.

CIMON, Career of.

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

CIMON, Peace of.

See ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.

CINCINNATI: A. D. 1788.

The founding and naming of the city.

In 1787 "an offer was made to Congress by John Cleve Symmes

[afterwards famous for his theory that the earth is hollow,

with openings at the poles], to buy two millions of acres

between the Little and the Great Miamis. Symmes was a

Jerseyman of wealth, had visited the Shawanese country, had

been greatly pleased with its fertility, and had come away

declaring that every acre in the wildest part was worth a

silver dollar. It was too, he thought, only a question of

time, and a very short time, when this value would be doubled

and tripled. Thousands of immigrants were pouring into this

valley each year, hundreds of thousands of acres were being

taken up, and the day would soon come when the rich land along

the Miamis and the Ohio would be in great demand. There was

therefore a mighty fortune in store for the lucky speculator

who should buy land from Congress for five shillings an acre

and sell it to immigrants for twenty. But ... his business

lagged, and though his offer to purchase was made in August,

1787, it was the 15th of May, 1788, before the contract was

closed. In the meantime he put out a pamphlet and made known

his terms of sale. A copy soon fell into the hands of Matthias

Denman. He became interested in the scheme and purchased that

section on which now stands the city of Cincinnati. One third

he kept, one third he sold to Robert Patterson, and the

remainder to John Filson. The conditions of the purchase from

Symmes gave them two years in which to begin making clearings

and building huts. But the three determined to lose no time,

and at once made ready to layout a city directly opposite that

spot where the waters of the Licking mingled themselves with

the Ohio. Denman and Patterson were no scholars. But Filson

had once been a schoolmaster, knew a little of Latin and

something of history, and to him was assigned the duty of

choosing a name for the town. ... He determined to make one,

and produced a word that was a most absurd mixture of Latin,

Greek and French. He called the place Losantiville, which,

being interpreted, means the city opposite the mouth of the

Licking. A few weeks later the Indians scalped him."

J. B. McMaster, History of the People of the U. S.,

volume 1, page 516.

The name given a little later to Filson's settlement was

conferred on it by General St. Clair, Governor of the

Territory, in honor of the Society of the Cincinnati.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES: A. D. 1788-1802.

ALSO IN:

F. W. Miller, Cincinnati's Beginnings.

CINCINNATI: A. D. 1863.

Threatened by John Morgan's Rebel Raid.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JULY: KENTUCKY).

----------CINCINNATI: End----------

{471}

CINCINNATI, The Society of the.

"Men of the present generation who in childhood rummaged in

their grandmothers' cosy garrets cannot fail to have come

across scores of musty and worm-eaten pamphlets, their yellow

pages crowded with italics and exclamation points, inveighing

in passionate language against the wicked and dangerous

Society of the Cincinnati. Just before the army [of the

American Revolution] was disbanded, the officers, at the

suggestion of General Knox, formed themselves [April, 1783]

into a secret society, for the purpose of keeping up their

friendly intercourse and cherishing the heroic memories of the

struggle in which they had taken part. With the fondness for

classical analogies which characterized that time, they

likened themselves to Cincinnatus, who was taken from the plow

to lead an army, and returned to his quiet farm so soon as his

warlike duties were over. They were modern Cincinnati. A

constitution and by-laws were established for the order, and

Washington was unanimously chosen to be its president. Its

branches in the several states were to hold meetings each

Fourth of July, and there was to be a general meeting of the

whole society every year in the month of May. French officers

who had taken part in the war were admitted to membership, and

the order was to be perpetuated by descent through the eldest

male representatives of the families of the members. It was

further provided that a limited membership should from time to

time be granted, as a distinguished honour, to able and worthy

citizens, without regard to the memories of the war. A golden

American eagle attached to a blue ribbon edged with white was

the sacred badge of the order; and to this emblem especial

favour was shown at the French court, where the insignia of

foreign states were generally, it is said, regarded with

jealousy. No political purpose was to be subserved by this

order of the Cincinnati, save in so far as the members pledged

to one another their determination to promote and cherish the

union between the states. In its main intent the society was

to be a kind of masonic brotherhood, charged with the duty of

aiding the widows and the orphan children of its members in

time of need. Innocent as all this was, however, the news of

the establishment of such a society was greeted with a howl of

indignation all over the country. It was thought that its

founders were inspired by a deep-laid political scheme for

centralizing the government and setting up a hereditary

aristocracy. ... The absurdity of the situation was quickly

realized by Washington, and he prevailed upon the society, in

its first annual meeting of May, 1784, to abandon the

principle of hereditary membership. The agitation was thus

allayed, and in the presence of graver questions the

much-dreaded brotherhood gradually ceased to occupy popular

attention."

J. Fiske, The Critical Period of American History, chapter 3.

J. B. McMaster, History of the People of the U. S.,

volume 1, chapter 2.

"The hereditary succession was never abandoned. A

recommendation to that effect was indeed made to the several

State Societies, at the first General Meeting in Philadelphia.

... But the proposition, unwillingly urged, was accepted in

deprecatory terms by some, and by others it was totally

rejected. ... At the second General Meeting, it was resolved

'that the alterations could not take effect until they had

been agreed to by all the State Societies.' They never were so

agreed to, and consequently the original Institution remains

in full force. Those Societies that accepted the proposed

alterations unconditionally, of course perished with their own

generation."

A. Johnston, Some Accounts of the Society of the Cincinnati

(Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs,

volume 6, pages 51-53).

"The claim to membership has latterly been determined not by

strict primogeniture, but by a 'just elective preference,

especially in the line of the first-born,' who has a moral but

not an absolutely indisputable right; and membership has

always been renewed by election. ... Six only of the original

thirteen states--Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey,

Pennsylvania, Maryland, and South Carolina--are still [in

1873] represented at the General Meetings. The largest

society, that of Massachusetts, consisting originally of 343

members, now [1873] numbers less than 80; that of New York,

from 230 had in 1858 decreased to 73; the 268 of Pennsylvania

to about 60; the 110 of New Jersey, in 1866, to 60; and the

131 of South Carolina was, in 1849, reduced to 71."

F. S. Drake, Memorials of the Society of the

Cincinnati of Mass., page 37.

CINCO DE MAYO, Battle of (1862).

See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.

CINE, The.

Kinsfolk of the head of the tribe, among the ancient Irish.

CINQ MARS, Conspiracy of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1641-1642.

CINQUE PORTS, The.

"Hastings, Sandwich, Dover, Romney, Hythe--this is the order

in which the Cinque Ports were ranked in the times when they

formed a flourishing and important confederation. Winchelsea

and Rye were added to these five ... soon after the Norman

Conquest. ... The new comers were officially known as 'the two

Ancient Towns.' When therefore we wish to speak of this famous

corporation with strict accuracy we say, 'The five Cinque

Ports and two Ancient Towns.' The repetition of the number

'five' in this title probably never struck people so much as

we might expect, since it very soon came to be merely a

technical term, the French form of the word being pronounced,

and very often spelt 'Synke' or 'Sinke,' just as if it was the

English 'Sink.' ... The difference between the Cinque Ports

and the rest of the English coast towns is plainly indicated

by mediæval custom, since they were generally spoken of

collectively as 'The Ports.' ... Most writers upon this

subject ... have been at pains to connect the Cinque Ports by

some sort of direct descent with the five Roman stations and

fortresses which, under the Comes Littoris Saxonici [see SAXON

SHORE, COUNT OF], guarded the south-eastern shores of

Britain."

M. Burrows, The Cinque Ports, chapter 1-3.

"Our kings have thought them [the Cinque Ports] worthy a

peculiar regard; and, in order to secure them against

invasions, have granted them a particular form of government.

They are under a keeper, who has the title of Lord Warden of

the Cinque Ports (an officer first appointed by William the

Conqueror), who has the authority of an admiral among them,

and issues out writs in his own name. The privileges anciently

annexed to these ports and their dependents were [among

others]: An exemption from all taxes and tolls. ... A power to

punish foreigners, as well as natives, for theft. ... A power

to raise mounds or banks in any man's land against breaches of

the sea. ... To convert to their own use such goods as they

found floating on the sea; those thrown out of ships in a

storm; and those driven ashore when no wreck or ship was to be

seen. To be a guild or fraternity, and to be allowed the

franchises of court-leet and court-baron. A power to assemble

and keep a portmote or parliament for the Cinque Ports.

{472}

... Their barons to have the privilege of supporting the

canopy over the king's head at his coronation. In return for

these privileges the Cinque Ports were required to fit out 57

ships, each manned with 21 men and a boy, with which they were

to attend the king's service for 15 days at their own expense;

but if the state of affairs required their assistance any

longer they were to be paid by the crown. ... As the term

baron occurs continually throughout all the charters of the

Ports, it may not be improper to inform our readers that it is

of the same import as burgess or freeman. ... The

representatives of the Ports in parliament are to this day

styled barons." The post of Warden of the Cinque Ports,

"formerly considered of so much honour and consequence, is now

converted into a patent sinecure place, for life, with a

salary of £4,000 a year."

History of the Boroughs of Great Britain; together with the

Cinque Ports, volume 3.

The office of Warden of the Cinque Ports has been held during

the present century by Mr. Pitt, the Earl of Liverpool, the

Duke of Wellington, the Earl of Dalhousie, Viscount

Palmerston, and Earl Granville.

CINTRA, Convention of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).

CIOMPI, Tumult of the.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427.

CIRCARS, OR SIRKARS, The northern.

See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

CIRCASSIANS.

See CAUCASUS.

CIRCLES OF GERMANY, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

CIRCUMCELLIONES, The.

See DONATISTS.

CIRCUMNAVIGATION OF THE WORLD: A. D. 1519-1522.

Magellan's voyage: the first in history.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.

CIRCUMNAVIGATION OF THE WORLD: A. D. 1577-1580.

Drake's voyage.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

----------CIRCUMNAVIGATION: End----------

CIRCUS, Factions of the Roman.

"The race, in its first institution [among the Romans], was a

simple contest, of two chariots, whose drivers were

distinguished by white and red liveries: two additional

colours, a light green and a cerulian blue, were afterwards

introduced; and as the races were repeated twenty-five times,

one hundred chariots contributed in the same day to the pomp

of the circus. The four factions soon acquired a legal

establishment and a mysterious origin, and their fanciful

colours were derived from the various appearances of nature in

the four seasons of the year. ... Another interpretation

preferred the elements to the seasons, and the struggle of the

green and blue was supposed to represent the conflict of the

earth and sea. Their respective victories announced either a

plentiful harvest or a prosperous navigation, and the

hostility of the husbandmen and mariners was somewhat less

absurd than the blind ardour of the Roman people, who devoted

their lives and fortunes to the colour which they had

espoused. ... Constantinople adopted the follies, though not

the virtues, of ancient Rome; and the same factions which had

agitated the circus raged with redoubled fury in the

hippodrome. Under the reign of Anastasius [A. D. 491-518] this

popular frenzy was inflamed by religious zeal; and the greens,

who had treacherously concealed stones and daggers under

baskets of fruit, massacred, at a solemn festival, 3,000 of

their blue adversaries. From the capital this pestilence was

diffused into the provinces and cities of the East, and the

sportive distinction of two colours produced two strong and

irreconcilable factions, which shook the foundations of a

feeble government. ... A sedition, which almost laid

Constantinople in ashes, was excited by the mutual hatred and

momentary reconciliation of the two factions." This fearful

tumult, which acquired the name of the Nika sedition, from the

cry, "Nika" (vanquish), adopted by the rioters, broke out in

connection with the celebration of the festival of the Ides of

January, A. D. 532. For five days the city was given up to the

mob and large districts in it were burned, including many

churches and other stately edifices. The emperor Justinian

would have abandoned his palace and throne, but for the heroic

opposition of his consort, Theodora. On the sixth day, the

imperial authority was re-established by the great soldier,

Belisarius, after 30,000 citizens had been slain in the

hippodrome and in the streets.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 40.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

CIRCUS MAXIMUS AT ROME, The.

"The races and wild beast shows in the circi were among the

most ancient and most favourite Roman amusements, and the

buildings dedicated to these sports were numerous, and nearly

equal in magnificence to the amphitheatres. The Circus

Maximus, which was first provided with permanent seats for the

spectators as early as the time of Tarquinius Priscus, was

successively restored and ornamented by the republican

government in 327 and 174 B. C. and by Julius Cæsar, Augustus,

Claudius, Domitian and Trojan. The result was a building

which, in dimensions and magnificence, rivalled the Coliseum,

but has, unfortunately, proved far less durable, scarcely a

vestige of it now being left."

R. Burn, Rome and the Campagna,

introduction and chapter 12.

See, also, FORUM BOARIUM.

CIRENCESTER, Origin of.

See CORINIUM.

CIRRHA.

See DELPHI.

CIRRHÆAN, OR KIRRHÆAN WAR, THE.

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

CIRTA.

An ancient Numidian city. The modern town of Constantina in

Algeria is on its site.

See NUMIDIANS.

CISALPINE GAUL (GALLIA CISALPINA).

See ROME: B. C. 390-347.

CISALPINE REPUBLIC.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL);

1797 (MAY--OCTOBER);

1799 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER); and 1801-1803.

CISLEITHANIA.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.

CISPADANE GAUL.

Cisalpine Gaul south of the Padus, or Po.

See PADUS.

CISPADANE REPUBLIC, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL),

and 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

CISSIA (KISSIA).

See ELAM.

{473}

CISTERCIAN ORDER.

The Monastery of Citeaux.

"Harding was an Englishman who spent his boyhood in the

monastery of Sherborne in Dorset, till he was seized with a

passion for wandering and for study which led him first to

Scotland, then to Gaul, and at last to Rome. It chanced that

on his return thence, passing through the duchy of Burgundy,

he stopped at the abbey of Molêmes. As he saw the ways and

habits familiar to his childhood reproduced in those of the

monks, the wanderer's heart yearned for the peaceful life

which he had forsaken; he took the vows, and became a brother

of the house. But when, with the zeal of a convert, he began

to look more closely into his monastic obligations, he

perceived that the practice of Molêmes, and indeed of most

other monasteries, fell very far short of the strict rule of

S. Benedict. He remonstrated with his brethren till they had

no rest in their minds. At last after long and anxious debates

in the chapter, the abbot determined to go to the root of the

matter, and appointed two brethren, whose learning was

equalled by their piety, to examine diligently the original

rule and declare what they found in it. The result of their

investigations justified Harding's reproaches and caused a

schism in the convent. The majority refused to alter their

accustomed ways; finding they were not to be reformed, the

zealous minority, consisting of Robert the abbot, Harding

himself (or Stephen as he was called in religion) and sixteen

others equally 'stiff-necked in their holy obstinacy,' left

Molêmes, and sought a new abode in the wilderness. The site

which they chose--in the diocese of Chalon-sur-Saône, not far

from Dijon--was no happy valley, no 'green retreat' such as

the earlier Benedictine founders had been wont to select. It

was a dismal swamp overgrown with brushwood, a forlorn,

dreary, unhealthy spot, from whose marshy character the new

house took its name of 'the Cistern'--Cistellum, commonly

called Citeaux. There the little band set to work in 1098 to

carry into practice their views of monastic duty. ...

Three-and-twenty daughter houses were brought to completion

during his [Harding's] life-time. One of the earliest was

Pontigny, founded in 1114, and destined in after-days to

become inseparably associated with the name of another English

saint. Next year there went forth another Cistercian colony,

whose glory was soon to eclipse that of the mother-house

itself. Its leader was a young monk called Bernard, and the

place of its settlement was named Clairvaux. From Burgundy and

Champagne the 'White Monks,' as the Cistercians were called

from the colour of their habit, soon spread over France and

Normandy. In 1128 they crossed the sea and made an entrance

into their founder's native land."

K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings,

volume 1, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: S. R. Maitland, The Dark Ages, 21.

CITEAUX, The Monastery of.

See CISTERCIAN ORDER.

CITIES, Chartered.

See COMMUNE;

also BOROUGHS, and GUILDS.

CITIES, Free, of Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152, and after.

CITIES, Imperial and Free, of Germany

"The territorial disintegration of Germany [see GERMANY: 13TH

CENTURY] had introduced a new and beneficial element into the

national life, by allowing the rise and growth of the free

cities. These were of two classes: those which stood in

immediate connection with the Empire, and were practically

independent republics; and those which, while owning some

dependence upon spiritual or temporal princes, had yet

conquered for themselves a large measure of self-government.

The local distribution of the former, which is curiously

unequal, depended upon the circumstances which attended the

dissolution of the old tribal dukedoms. Wherever some powerful

house was able to seize upon the inheritance, free cities were

few: wherever the contrary was the case, they sprang up in

abundance. In Swabia and on the Rhine there were more than a

hundred: Franconia on the contrary counted only Nürnberg and

five smaller cities: Westphalia, Dortmund and Herford: while

in Bavaria, Regensburg stood alone. ... The Imperial free

cities ... were self-governed, under constitutions in which

the aristocratic and the democratic elements mingled in

various proportions: they provided for their own defence: they

were republics, in the midst of States where the personal will

of the ruler counted for more and more. ... In these cities

the refined and luxurious civilization, to which the princes

were indifferent, and on which the knights waged predatory

war, found expression in the pursuit of letters and the

cultivation of the arts of life. There, too, the Imperial

feeling, which was elsewhere slowly dying out of the land,

retained much of its force. The cities held, so to speak,

directly of the Empire, to which they looked for protection

against powerful and lawless neighbours, and they felt that

their liberties and privileges were bound up with the

maintenance of the general order. ... In them, too, as we

might naturally expect, religious life put on a freer aspect."

C. Beard, Martin Luther and the Reformation, page 16.

"Prior to the peace of Luneville [1801], Germany possessed 133

free cities, called Reichstädte. A Reichstadt ('civitas

imperii') was a town under the immediate authority of the

Emperor, who was represented by an imperial official called a

Vogt or Schultheis. The first mention of the term 'civitas

imperii' (imperial city) occurs in an edict of the emperor

Frederick II. [1214-1250], in which Lubeck was declared a

'civitas imperii' in perpetuity. In a later edict, of the year

1287, we find that King Rudolf termed the following places

'civitates regni' (royal cities), viz., Frankfort, Friedberg,

Wetzlar, Oppenheim, Wesel, and Boppart. All these royal cities

subsequently became imperial cities in consequence of the

Kings of Germany being again raised to the dignity of

Emperors. During the reign of Louis the Bavarian [1314-1347]

Latin ceased to be the official language, and the imperial

towns were designated in the vernacular 'Richstat.' In course

of time the imperial towns acquired, either by purchase or

conquest, their independence. Besides the Reichstädte, there

were Freistädte, or free towns, the principal being Cologne,

Basle, Mayence, Ratisbon, Spires, and Worms. The free towns

appear to have enjoyed the following immunities:--1. They were

exempt from the oath of allegiance to the Emperor. 2. They

were not bound to furnish a contingent for any expedition

beyond the Alps. 3. They were free from all imperial taxes and

duties. 4. They could not be pledged. 5. They were

distinguished from the imperial towns by not having the

imperial eagle emblazoned on the municipal escutcheon."

Subsequently "the free towns were placed on the same footing

as the Reichstädt, and the term 'Freistadt,' or free town, was

disused. The government of the imperial towns was in the hands

of a military and civil governor. ... On the imperial towns

becoming independent, the administration of the town was

entrusted to a college of from four to twenty-four persons,

according to the population, and the members of this kind of

town council were called either Rathsmann, Rathsfreund, or

Rathsherr, which means councilman or adviser.

{474}

The town councillors appear to have selected one or more of

their number as presidents, with the title of Rathsmeister,

Burgermeister, or Stadtmeister. ... Many of the imperial towns

gained their autonomy either by purchase or force of arms. In

like manner we find that others either lost their privileges

or voluntarily became subjects of some burgrave or

ecclesiastical prince, e. g., Cologne, Worms, and Spires

placed themselves under the jurisdiction of their respective

archbishops, whereas Altenburg, Chemnitz and Zwickau were

seized by Frederick the Quarrelsome in his war with the

Emperor; whilst others, like Hagenau, Colmar, Landau, and

Strasburg, were annexed or torn from the German Empire. As the

Imperial towns increased in wealth and power they extended the

circle of their authority over the surrounding districts, and,

in order to obtain a voice in the affairs of the empire, at

length demanded that the country under their jurisdiction

should be represented at the Reichstag (Imperial Diet). To

accomplish this, they formed themselves into Bunds or

confederations to assert their claims, and succeeded in

forcing the Emperor and the princes to allow their

representatives to take part in the deliberations of the Diet.

The principal confederations brought into existence by the

struggles going on in Germany were the Rhenish and Suabian

Bunds, and the Hansa. [See HANSA TOWNS.] ... At the Diet held

at Augsburg in 1474, it appears that almost all the imperial

towns were represented, and in 1648, on the peace of

Westphalia, when their presence in the Diet was formally

recognized, they were formed into a separate college. ... By

the peace of Luneville four of the imperial towns, viz.,

Aix-la-Chapelle, Cologne, Spires, and Worms, were ceded to

France. In 1803, all the imperial towns lost their autonomy

with the exception of the following six:--Augsburg, Nuremberg,

Frankfort, Lubeck, Hamburg, and Bremen; and in 1806 the first

three, and in 1810 the others, shared the same fate, but in

1815, on the fall of Napoleon, Bremen, Hamburg, Lubeck, and

Frankfort, recovered their freedom, and were admitted as

members of the German Bund, which they continued to be up to

the year 1866."

W. J. Wyatt, History of Prussia, volume 2, pages 427-432.

"According to the German historians the period of the greatest

splendour of these towns was during the 14th and 15th

centuries. ... In the 16th century they still enjoyed the same

prosperity, but the period of their decay was come. The

Thirty-Years War hastened their fall, and scarcely one of them

escaped destruction and ruin during that period. Nevertheless,

the treaty of Westphalia mentions them positively, and asserts

their position as immediate states, that is to say, states

which depended immediately upon the Emperor; but the

neighbouring Sovereigns, on the one hand, and on the other the

Emperor himself, the exercise of whose power, since the

Thirty-Years War, was limited to the lesser vassals of the

empire, restricted their sovereignty within narrower and

narrower limits. In the 18th century, 51 of them were still in

existence, they filled two benches at the diet, and had an

independent vote there; but, in fact, they no longer exercised

any influence upon the direction of general affairs. At home

they were all heavily burthened with debts, partly because

they continued to be charged for the Imperial taxes at a rate

suited to their former splendour, and partly because their own

administration was extremely bad. It is very remarkable that this

bad administration seemed to be the result of some secret

disease which was common to them all, whatever might be the

form of their constitution. ... Their population decreased,

and distress prevailed in them. They were no longer the abodes

of German civilization; the arts left them, and went to shine

in the new towns created by the Sovereigns, and representing

modern society. Trade forsook them--their ancient energy and

patriotic vigour disappeared. Hamburg almost alone still

remained a great centre of wealth and intelligence, but this

was owing to causes quite peculiar to herself."

A. de Tocqueville, State of Society in France before

1789, note C.

See, also, HANSA TOWNS.

Of the 48 Free Cities of the Empire remaining in 1803, 42 were

then robbed of their franchises, under the exigencies of the

Treaty of Luneville (see GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803). After the

Peace of Pressburg only three survived, namely, Hamburg,

Lubeck and Bremen (see GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806). These were

annexed to France by Napoleon in 1810.

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

The Congress of Vienna, in 1815, restored freedom to them, and

to Frankfort, likewise, and they became members of the

Germanic Confederation then formed.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS of.

Lubeck gave up its privileges as a free city in 1866, joining

the Prussian Customs Union. Hamburg and Bremen did the same in

1888, being absorbed in the Empire. This extinguished the last

of the "free cities."

See GERMANY: A. D. 1888.

CITY.

See BOROUGH.

CITY OF THE VIOLET CROWN.

"Ancient poets called Athens 'The City of the Violet Crown,'

with an unmistakable play upon the name of the Ionian stock to

which it belonged, and which called to mind the Greek word for

violet."

G. Schömann, Antiquities of Greece: The State,

part 3, chapter 3.

CITY REPUBLICS, Italian.

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

CIUDAD RODRIDGO: A. D. 1810-1812.

Twice besieged and captured by the French and by the English.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1810-1812.

CIVES ROMANI AND PEREGRINI.

"Before the Social or Marsic war (B. C. 90) there were only

two classes within the Roman dominions who were designated by

a political name, Cives Romani, or Roman citizens, and

Peregrini, a term which comprehended the Latini, the Socii and

the Provinciales, such as the inhabitants of Sicily. The Cives

Romani were the citizens of Rome, the citizens of Roman

colonies and the inhabitants of the Municipia which had

received the Roman citizenship."

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

See, also, ROME: B. C. 90-88.

CIVIL RIGHTS BILL,

The First.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1866 (April).-

The Second, and its declared unconstitutionality.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1875.

{475}

CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN ENGLAND.

"It was not till long after 1832 that the inherent mischief of

the partisan system [of appointments in the national civil

service] became manifest to the great body of thinking people.

When that result was attained, the final struggle with

patronage in the hands of members of Parliament began on a

large scale. It seems to have been, even then, foreseen by the

best informed that it could not be removed by any partisan

agency. They began to see the need of some method by which

fitness for the public service could be tested otherwise than

by the fiat of a member of Parliament or the vote of the

Cabinet or the Treasury. What that method should be was one of

the great problems of the future. No government had then

solved it. That there must be tests of fitness independent of

any political action, or mere official influence, became more

and more plain to thinking men. The leaders of the great

parties soon began to see that a public opinion in favor of

such tests was being rapidly developed, which seriously

threatened their power, unless the party system itself could

be made more acceptable to the people. ... There was an

abundance of fine promises made. But no member gave up his

patronage--no way was opened by which a person of merit could

get into an office or a place except by the favor of the party

or the condescension of a member. The partisan blockade of

every port of entry to the public service, which made it

tenfold easier for a decayed butler or an incompetent cousin

of a member or a minister, than for the promising son of a

poor widow, to pass the barrier, was, after the Reform Bill as

before, rigidly maintained. Fealty to the party and work in

its ranks--subserviency to members and to ministers--and

electioneering on their behalf--these were the virtues before

which the ways to office and the doors of the Treasury were

opened. Year by year, the public discontent with the whole

system increased. ... During the Melbourne administration,

between 1834 and 1841, a demand for examinations, as a

condition for admission to the service, came from two very

different quarters. One was the higher officials, who declared

that they could not do the public work with such poor servants

as the partisan system supplied. The other was the more

independent, thoughtful portion of the people, who held it to

be as unjust as it was demoralizing for members of Parliament

and other officers to monopolize the privilege of saying who

might enter the public service. Lord Melbourne then yielded so

far as to allow pass examinations to be instituted in some of

the larger offices; and he was inclined to favor competitive

examinations, but it was thought to be too great an innovation

to attempt at once. These examinations--several of them being

competitive--introduced by public officers in self-defence

many years previous to 1853, had before that time produced

striking results. In the Poor Law Commission, for example,

they had brought about a reform that arrested public

attention. Under the Committee on Education, they had caused

the selection of teachers so much superior 'that higher

salaries were bidden for them for private service.' ... These

examinations were steadily extended from office to office down

to the radical change made in 1853. ... It had been provided,

long before 1853, that those designed for the civil service of

India, should not only be subjected to a pass examination, but

should, before entering the service, be subjected to a course

of special instruction at Haileybury College, a sort of civil

West Point. This College was abolished in 1854, but equivalent

instruction was elsewhere provided for. The directors had the

patronage of nomination for such instruction. ... If it seems

strange that a severe course of study, for two years in such a

college, was not sufficient to weed out the incompetents which

patronage forced into it, we must bear in mind that the same

influence which sent them there was used to keep them there.

... Both the Derby and the Aberdeen administrations, in 1852

and 1853, took notice that the civil service was in a

condition of peril to British India; and, without distinction

of party, it was agreed that radical reforms must be promptly

made. There was corruption, there was inefficiency, there was

disgraceful ignorance, there was a humiliating failure in the

government to command the respect of the more intelligent

portion of the people of India, and there was a still more

alarming failure to overawe the unruly classes. It was as bad

in the army as in the civil offices. ... There was, in short,

a hotbed of abuses prolific of those influences which caused

the fearful outbreak of 1857. It was too late when reform was

decided upon, to prevent the outbreak, but not too late to

save British supremacy in India. A change of system was

entered upon in 1853. The 36th and 37th clauses of the India

act of that year provided 'that all powers, rights, and

privileges of the court of directors of the said India Company

to nominate or appoint persons to be admitted as students ...

shall cease; and that, subject to such regulations as might be

made, any person, being a natural born subject of her Majesty,

who might be desirous of presenting himself, should be

admitted to be examined as a candidate.' Thus, it will be

seen, Indian patronage received its death-blow, and the same

blow opened the door of study for the civil service of India

to every British citizen. ... In 1853, the British Government

had reached a final decision that the partisan system of

appointments could not be longer tolerated. Substantial

control of nominations by members of Parliament, however

guarded by restrictions and improved by mere pass

examinations, had continued to be demoralizing in its effect

upon elections, vicious in its influence upon legislation, and

fatal to economy and efficiency in the departments. ... The

administration, with Lord Aberdeen at its head, promptly

decided to undertake a radical and systematic reform. ... It

was decided that, in the outset, no application should be made

to Parliament. The reform should be undertaken by the English

Executive ... for the time being. The first step decided upon

was an inquiry into the exact condition of the public service.

Sir Stafford Northcote (the present Chancellor of the

Exchequer) and Sir Charles Trevelyan were appointed in 1853 to

make such inquiry and a report. They submitted their report in

November of the same year. ... A system of competitive

examinations ... [was] recommended. ... The report was

accompanied with a scheme for carrying the examinations into

effect, from which quote the following passages.

{476}

... 'Such a measure will exercise the happiest influence in

the education of the lower classes throughout England, acting

by the surest of all motives--the desire a man has of

bettering himself in life. ... They will have attained their

situations in an independent manner through their own merits.

The sense of this conduct cannot but induce self-respect and

diffuse a wholesome respect among the lower no less than the

higher classes of official men. ... The effect of it in giving

a stimulus to the education of the lower classes can hardly be

overestimated.' Such was the spirit of the report. This was

the theory of the merit system, then first approved by an

English administration for the home government. I hardly need

repeat that the examinations referred to as existing were

(with small exception) mere pass examinations, and that the

new examinations proposed were open, competitive examinations.

... But the great feature of the report, which made it really

a proposal for the introduction of a new system, was its

advocacy of open competition. Except the experiment just put

on trial in India, no nation had adopted that system. It was

as theoretical as it was radical. ... A chorus of ridicule,

indignation, lamentation, and wrath arose from all the

official and partisan places of politics. The government saw

that a further struggle was at hand. It appeared more clear

than ever that Parliament was not a very hopeful place in

which to trust the tender years of such a reform. ... The

executive caused the report to be spread broadcast among the

people, and also requested the written opinions of a large

number of persons of worth and distinction both in and out of

office. The report was sent to Parliament, but no action upon

it was requested. ... About the time that English public

opinion had pronounced its first judgment upon the official

report, and before any final action had been taken upon it,

the Aberdeen administration went out. ... Lord Palmerston came

into power early in 1855, than whom, this most practical of

nations never produced a more hard-headed, practical

statesman. ... Upon his administration fell the duty of

deciding the fate of the new system advocated in the report.

... He had faith in his party, and believed it would gain more

by removing grave abuses than by any partisan use of

patronage. ... Making no direct appeal to Parliament, and

trusting to the higher public opinion, Lord Palmerston's

administration advised that an order should be made by the

Queen in Council for carrying the reform into effect; and such

an order was made on the 21st of May, 1855."

D. B. Eaton, Civil Service in Great Britain.

CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.

"The question as to the Civil Service [in the United States]

arises from the fact that the president has the power of

appointing a vast number of petty officials, chiefly

postmasters and officials concerned with the collection of the

federal revenue. Such officials have properly nothing to do

with politics, they are simply the agents or clerks or

servants of the national government in conducting its

business; and if the business of the national government is to

be managed on such ordinary principles of prudence as prevail

in the management of private business, such servants ought to

be selected for personal merit and retained for life or during

good behaviour. It did not occur to our earlier presidents to

regard the management of the public business in any other

light than this. But as early as the beginning of the present

century a vicious system was growing up in New York and

Pennsylvania. In those states the appointive offices came to

be used as bribes or as rewards for partisan services. By

securing votes for a successful candidate, a man with little

in his pocket and nothing in particular to do could obtain

some office with a comfortable salary. It would be given to

him as a reward, and some other man, perhaps more competent

than himself, would have to be turned out in order to make

room for him. A more effective method of driving good citizens

'out of politics' could hardly be devised. It called to the

front a large class of men of coarse moral fibre. ... The

civil service of these states was seriously damaged in

quality, politics degenerated into a wild scramble for

offices, salaries were paid to men who did little or no public

service in return, and the line which separates taxation from

robbery was often crossed. About the same time there grew up

an idea that there is something especially democratic, and

therefore meritorious, about 'rotation in office.'" On the

change of party which took place upon the election of Jackson

to the presidency in 1828, "the methods of New York and

Pennsylvania were applied on a national scale. Jackson

cherished the absurd belief that the administration of his

predecessor Adams had been corrupt, and he turned men out of

office with a keen zest. During the forty years between

Washington's first inauguration and Jackson's the total number

of removals from office was 74, and out of this number 5 were

defaulters. During the first year of Jackson's ad-

ministration the number of changes made in the civil service

was about 2,000. Such was the abrupt inauguration upon a

national scale of the so-called Spoils System. The phrase

originated with W. L. Marcy, of New York, who, in a speech in

the senate in 1831 declared that 'to the victors belong the

spoils.' ... In the canvass of 1840 the Whigs promised to

reform the civil service, and the promise brought them many

Democratic votes; but after they had won the election they

followed Jackson's example. The Democrats followed in the same

way in 1845, and from that time down to 1885 it was customary

at each change of party to make a 'clean sweep' of the

offices. Soon after the Civil War the evils of the system

began to attract serious attention on the part of thoughtful

people."

J. Fiske, Civil Government in the United States,

pages 261-264.

"It was not until 1867 that any important move was made

[toward a reform]. ... This was by Mr. Jencks, of Rhode

Island, who introduced a bill, made an able report and several

speeches in its behalf. Unfortunately, death soon put an end

to his labors and deprived the cause of an able advocate. But

the seed he had sown bore good fruit. Attention was so

awakened to the necessity of reform, that President Grant, in

his message in 1870, called the attention of Congress to it,

and that body passed an act in March, 1871, which authorized

the President to prescribe, for admission to the Civil

Service, such regulations as would best promote its

efficiency, and ascertain the fitness of each candidate for

the position he sought. For this purpose, it says, he may

'employ suitable persons to conduct such inquiries, and may

prescribe their duties, and establish regulations for the

conduct of persons who may receive appointments in the Civil

Service.'

{477}

In accordance with this act, President Grant appointed a Civil

Service Commission, of which George William Curtis was made

chairman, afterwards succeeded by Dorman B. Eaton, and an

appropriation of $25,000 was made by Congress to defray its

expenses. A like sum was voted next year; but after that

nothing was granted until June, 1882, when, instead of $25,000

asked for by the President, $15,000 was grudgingly

appropriated. It is due to Mr. Silas W. Burt, Naval Officer in

New York, who had long been greatly interested in the subject

of Reform, to say that he deserves the credit of having been

the first to introduce open competitive examinations. Before

the appointment of Grant's committee, he had held such an

examination in his office. ... Under Grant's commission, open

competitive examinations were introduced in the departments at

Washington, and Customs Service at New York, and in part in

the New York Post office. Although this commission labored

under many disadvantages in trying a new experiment, it was

able to make a very satisfactory report, which was approved by

the President and his cabinet. ... The rules adopted by

Grant's commission were prepared by the chairman, Mr. Curtis.

They were admirably adapted for their purpose, and have served

as the basis of similar rules since then. The great interest

taken by Mr. Curtis at that time, and the practical value of

his work, entitled him to be regarded as the leader of the

Reform. ... Other able men took an active part in the

movement, but the times were not propitious, public sentiment

did not sustain them, and Congress refused any further

appropriation, although the President asked for it. As a

consequence, Competitive Examinations were everywhere

suspended, and a return made to 'pass examinations.' And this

method continued in use at Washington until July, 1883, after

the passage of the Civil Service Reform Act. ... President

Hayes favored reform of the Civil Service, and strongly urged

it in his messages to Congress; yet he did things not

consistent with his professions, and Congress paid little

attention to his recommendations, and gave him no effectual

aid. But we owe it to him that an order was passed in March,

1879, enforcing the use of competitive examinations in the New

York Custom House. The entire charge of this work was given to

Mr. Burt by the Collector. ... In 1880, Postmaster James

revived the competitive methods in some parts of his office.

... When the President, desiring that these examinations

should be more general and uniform, asked Congress for an

appropriation, it was refused. But, notwithstanding this,

competitive examinations continued to be held in the New York

Custom House and Post office until the passage of the Reform

Act of 1883. Feeling that more light was needed upon the

methods and progress of reform in other countries, President

Hayes had formally requested Mr. Dorman B. Eaton to visit

England for the purpose of making such inquiries. Mr. Eaton

spent several months in a careful, thorough examination; and

his report was transmitted to Congress in December, 1879, by

the President, in a message which described it as an elaborate

and comprehensive history of the whole subject. This report

was afterwards embodied in Mr. Eaton's 'Civil Service in Great

Britain.' ... For this invaluable service Mr. Eaton received

no compensation from the Government, not even his personal

expenses to England having been paid. And to Mr. Eaton is due,

also, the credit of originating Civil Service Reform

Associations."

H. Lambert, The Progress of Civil Service Reform in the

United States, pages 6-10.

"The National Civil Service Reform League was organized at

Newport, R. I., on the 11th of August, 1881. It was the result

of a conference among members of civil service reform

associations that had spontaneously arisen in various parts of

the country for the purpose of awakening public interest in

the question, like the clubs of the Sons of Liberty among our

fathers, and the anti-slavery societies among their children.

The first act of the League was a resolution of hearty

approval of the bill then pending in Congress, known as the

Pendleton bill. Within less than two years afterward the Civil

Service law was passed in Congress by a vote in the Senate of

38 yeas to 5 nays, 33 Senators being absent, and in the House

only a week later, by a vote of 155 yeas to 47 nays, 87

members not voting. In the House the bill was put upon its

passage at once, the Speaker permitting only thirty minutes

for debate. This swift enactment of righteous law was due,

undoubtedly, to the panic of the party of administration, a

panic which saw in the disastrous result of the recent

election a demand of the country for honest politics; and it

was due also to the exulting belief of the party of opposition

that the law would essentially weaken the dominant party by

reducing its patronage. The sudden and overwhelming vote was

that of a Congress of which probably the members had very

little individual knowledge or conviction upon the subject.

But the instinct in regard to intelligent public opinion was

undoubtedly sure, and it is intelligent public opinion which

always commands the future. ... The passage of the law was the

first great victory of the ten years of the reform movement.

The second is the demonstration of the complete practicability

of reform attested by the heads of the largest offices of

administration in the country. In the Treasury and Navy

departments, the New York Custom House and Post Office, and

other important custom houses and post offices, without the

least regard to the wishes or the wrath of that remarkable

class of our fellow-citizens, known as political bosses, it is

conceded by officers, wholly beyond suspicion of party

independence, that, in these chief branches of the public

service, reform is perfectly practicable and the reformed

system a great public benefit. And, although as yet these

offices are by no means thoroughly reorganized upon reform

principles, yet a quarter of the whole number of places in the

public service to which the reformed methods apply are now

included within those methods."

G. W. Curtis, Address at Annual Meeting of the National

Civil-Service Reform League. 1891.

CIVILIS, Revolt of.

See BATAVIANS: A. D. 69.

CIVITA-CASTELLAN A, Battle of (1798).

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

CIVITELLA, Siege of (1557).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

CLAIR-ON-EPTE, Treaty of.

See NORMANS: A. D. 876-911.

{478}

CLAIRVAUX, The Monastery of.

St. Bernard, "the greatest reformer of the abuses of the

monastic life, if not the greatest monk in history [A. D.

1091-1153] ... revived the practice in the monastery of

Citeaux, which he first entered, and in that of Clairvaux,

which he afterwards founded, of the sternest discipline which

had been enjoined by St. Benedict. He became the ideal type of

the perfect monk. ... He was not a Pope, but he was greater

than any Pope of his day, and for nearly half a century the

history of the Christian Church is the history of the

influence of one monk, the Abbot of Clairvaux."

C. J. Stillé, Studies in Mediæval History, chapter 12.

"The convent of Citeaux was found too small for the number of

persons who desired to join the society which could boast of

so eminent a saint. Finding his influence beneficial, Bernard

proceeded to found a new monastery. The spot which he chose

for his purpose was in a wild and gloomy vale, formerly known

as the Valley of Wormwood. ... The district pertained to the

bishopric of Langres; and here Bernard raised his far famed

abbey of Clairvaux."

H. Stebbing, History of Christ's Universal Church,

chapter 26.

ALSO IN:

A. Butler, Lives of the Saints, volume 8.

W. F. Hook, Ecclesiastical Biog., volume 2.

J. C. Morison, Life and Times of St. Bernard.

See, also, CISTERCIAN ORDER.

CLANS, Highland.

"The word Clan signifies simply children or descendants, and

the clan name thus implies that the members of it are or were

supposed to be descended from a common ancestor or eponymus,

and they were distinguished from each other by their

patronymics, the use of surnames in the proper sense being

unknown among them. [See GENS, ROMAN.] ... In considering the

genealogies of the Highland clans we must bear in mind that in

the early state of the tribal organisation the pedigree of the

sept or clan, and of each member of the tribe, had a very

important meaning. Their rights were derived through the

common ancestor, and their relation to him, and through him to

each other, indicated their position in the succession, as

well as their place in the allocation of the tribe land. In

such a state of society the pedigree occupied the same

position as the title-deed of the feudal system, and the

Sennachies were as much the custodiers of the rights of

families as the mere panegyrists of the clan. ... During the

16th century the clans were brought into direct contact with

the Crown, and in the latter part of it serious efforts were

made by the Legislature to establish an efficient control over

them. These gave rise to the Acts of 1587 and 1594; ... but

they were followed in a few years by an important Statute,

which had a powerful effect upon the position of the clans,

and led to another great change in the theory of their

descent. ... The chiefs of the clans thus found themselves

compelled to defend their rights upon grounds which could

compete with the claims of their eager opponents, and to

maintain an equality of rank and prestige with them in the

Heralds' Office, which must drive them to every device

necessary to effect their purpose; and they would not hesitate

to manufacture titles to the land when they did not exist, and

to put forward spurious pedigrees better calculated to

maintain their position when a native descent had lost its

value and was too weak to serve their purpose. From this

period MS. histories of the leading Highland families began to

be compiled, in which these pretensions were advanced and

spurious charters inserted. ... The form which these

pretentious genealogies took was that of making the eponymus

or male ancestor of the clan a Norwegian, Dane, or Norman, or

a cadet of some distinguished family, who succeeded to the

chiefship and to the territory of the clan by marriage with

the daughter and heiress of the last of the old Celtic line,

thus combining the advantage of a descent which could compete

with that of the great Norman families with a feudal

succession to their lands; and the new form of the clan

genealogy would have the greater tendency to assume this form

where the clan name was derived not from a personal name or

patronymic but from a personal epithet of its founder. ... The

conclusion, then, to which [an] analysis of the clan pedigrees

which have been popularly accepted at different times has

brought us, is that, so far as they profess to show the origin

of the different clans, they are entirely artificial and

untrustworthy, but that the older genealogies may be accepted

as showing the descent of the clan from its eponymus or

founder, and within reasonable limits for some generations

beyond him, while the later spurious pedigrees must be

rejected altogether. It may seem surprising that such spurious

pedigrees and fabulous origins should be so readily credited

by the Clan families as genuine traditions, and receive such

prompt acceptance as the true fount from which they sprung;

but we must recollect that the fabulous history of Hector

Boece was as rapidly and universally adopted as the genuine

annals of the national history, and became rooted in those

parts of the country to which its fictitious events related as

local traditions. When Hector Boece invested the obscure

usurper Grig with the name and attributes of a fictitious

king, Gregory the Great, and connected him with the royal line

of kings, the Clan Gregor at once recognised him as their

eponymous ancestor, and their descent from him is now

implicitly believed in by all the MacGregors. It is possible,

however, from these genealogies, and from other indications,

to distribute the clans in certain groups, as having

apparently a closer connection with each other, and these

groups we hold in the main to represent the great tribes into

which the Gaelic population was divided before they became

broken up into clans. The two great tribes which possessed the

greater part of the Highlands were the Gallgaidheal or Gael in

the west, who had been under the power of the Norwegians, and

the great tribe of the Moravians, or Men of Moray, in the

Central and Eastern Highlands. To the former belong all the

clans descended of the Lords of the Isles, the Campbells and

Macleods probably representing the older inhabitants of their

respective districts; to the latter belong in the main the

clans brought in the old Irish genealogies from the kings of

Dalriada of the tribe of Lorn, among whom the old Mormaers of

Moray appear. The group containing the Clan Andres or old

Rosses, the Mackenzies and Mathesons, belong to the tribe of

Ross, the Clan Donnachy to Athole, the Clan Lawren to

Stratherne, and the Clan Pharlane to Lennox, while the group

containing the MacNabs, Clan Gregor, and Mackinnons, appear to

have emerged from Glendochart, at least to be connected with

the old Columban monasteries. The Clans, properly so called,

were thus of native origin; the surnames partly of native and

partly of foreign descent."

W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, book 3, chapter 9 (volume 3).

{479}

CLARENDON, The Constitutions and the Assize of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

CLARIAN ORACLE, The.

See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

CLARK, George Rogers, and the conquest of the Northwest.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.

CLAUDIUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 41-54.

Claudius II., A. D. 268-270.

CLAVERHOUSE AND THE COVENANTERS.

See SCOTLAND: A. D.1679; 1681-1689, and 1689 (JULY).

CLAY, Henry,

The war of 1812.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1812.

Negotiation of the Treaty of Ghent.

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

The Tariff question.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1816-1824,

and 1832; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1828-1833.

The Missouri Compromise.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

In the Cabinet of President John Quincy Adams.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A.. D. 1825-1828.

Defeat in the Presidential election.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1844.

The Compromise Measures of 1850.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

CLAYBANKS AND CHARCOALS.

During the American civil war the Conservative and Radical

factions in Missouri were sometimes called Claybanks and

Charcoals.

J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay, Abraham Lincoln, volume 8, page 204.

CLAYTON-BULWER TREATY, The.

See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

CLEAR GRITS.

See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867.

CLEISTHENES, Constitution of,

See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.

CLEMENT II.,      Pope, A. D. 1046-1047.

Clement III.,  Pope, A. D. 1187-1191.

Clement IV.,   Pope, A. D. 1265-1268.

Clement V.,    Pope, A. D. 1305-1314..

Clement VI.,   Pope, A. D. 1342-1352.

Clement VII.,  Pope, A. D. 1378-1394 (Antipope at Avignon).

Clement VII.,  Pope, A. D. 1523-1534.

Clement VIII., Pope, A. D. 1591-1605.

Clement IX.,   Pope, A. D. 1667-1669.

Clement X.,    Pope, A. D. 1670-1676.

Clement XI.,   Pope, A. D. 1700-1721.

Clement XII.,  Pope, A. D. 1730-1740.

Clement XIII., Pope, A. D. 1758-1769.

Clement XIV.,  Pope, A. D. 1769-1774.

CLEOMENIC (KLEOMENIC) WAR, The.

See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

CLEOPATRA AND CÆSAR.

See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.

And Mark Antony.

See ROME: B. C. 31.

CLEOPATRA'S NEEDLES.

"The two obelisks known as Cleopatra's Needles were originally

set up by Thothmes III. at Heliopolis. Augustus transferred

them to Alexandria, where they remained until recently. At

present (July, 1880) one ornaments the Thames Embankment

[London] while the other is on its way to the United States of

America."

G. Rawlinson, History of Ancient Egypt, chapter 20, note.

The obelisk last mentioned now stands in Central Park, New

York, having been brought over and erected by Commander

Gorringe, at the expense of the late William H. Vanderbilt.

H. H. Gorringe, Egyptian Obelisks.

See, also, EGYPT: ABOUT B. C. 1700-1400.

CLEPHES, King of the Lombards, A. D. 573-586.

CLERGY, Benefit of.

See BENEFIT OF CLERGY.

CLERGY RESERVES.

See CANADA: A. D. 1837.

CLERMONT.

See GERGOVIA OF THE ARVERNI.

CLERMONT, The Council of.

Speech of Pope Urban.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1094.

CLERUCHI.

See KLERUCHS.

CLEVELAND, Grover:

First Presidential election and administration.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1884 to 1889.

Defeat in Presidential election.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1888.

Second Presidential election.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1892.

CLEVELAND:

The founding and naming of the City (1796).

See OHIO: A. D. 1786-1796.

CLICHY CLUB.--CLICHYANS, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (SEPTEMBER).

CLIENTES, Roman.

"To [the Roman] family or household united under the control

of a living master, and the clan which originated out of the

breaking up of such households, there further belonged the

dependents or 'listeners' (clientes, from 'cluere'). This term

denoted not the guests, that is, the members of similar

circles who were temporarily sojourning in another household

than their own, and still less the slaves who were looked upon

in law as the property of the household and not as members of

it, but those individuals who, while they were not free

burgesses of any commonwealth, yet lived within one in a

condition of protected freedom. The class included refugees

who had found a reception with a foreign protector, and those

slaves in respect to whom their master had for the time being

waived the exercise of his rights, and so conferred on them

practical freedom. This relation had not properly the

character of a relation 'de jure,' like the relation of a man

to his guest or to his slave: the client remained non-free,

although good faith and use and wont alleviated in his case

the condition of non-freedom. Hence the 'listeners' of the

household (clientes) together with the slaves strictly

so-called formed the 'body of servants' ('familia') dependent

on the will of the 'burgess' ('patronus,' like 'patricius')."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 1, chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

Fustel De Coulanges, The Ancient City,

book 4, chapter 1 and 6.

CLINTON, Dewitt, and the Erie Canal.

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

CLINTON, George, The first Governor of New York.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1777.

CLINTON, General Sir Henry,

and the war of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1775 (APRIL-MAY); 1776 (JUNE), (AUGUST);

1778 (JUNE); 1778-1779; 1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST);

1781 (JANUARY).

CLINTONIANS AND BUCKTAILS.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1819.

CLISSAU OR CLISSOW, Battle of (1702).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

CLIVE'S CONQUESTS AND RULE IN INDIA.

See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752, to 1757-1772.

{480}

CLOACA MAXIMA OF ROME, The.

"Even at the present day there stands unchanged the great

sewer, the 'cloaca maxima,' the object of which, it may be

observed, was not merely to carry away the refuse of the city,

but chiefly to drain the large lake which was formed by the

Tiber between the Capitoline, Aventine and Palatine, then

extended between the Palatine and Capitoline, and reached as a

swamp as far as the district between the Quirinal and Viminal.

This work, consisting of three semicircles of immense square

blocks, which, though without mortar, have not to this day

moved a knife's breadth from one another ... equalling the

pyramids in extent and massiveness, far surpasses them in the

difficulty of its execution. It is so gigantic, that the more

one examines it the more inconceivable it becomes how even a

large and powerful state could have executed it. ... Whether

the cloaca maxima was actually executed by Tarquinus Priscus

or by his son Superbus is a question about which the ancients

themselves are not agreed, and respecting which true

historical criticism cannot presume to decide. But this much

may be said, that the structure must have been completed

before the city encompassed the space of the seven hills and

formed a compact whole. ... But such a work cannot possibly

have been executed by the powers of a state such as Rome is

said to have been in those times."

B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on the History of Rome,

lectures 5 and 8.

CLODOMIR, King of the Franks, at Orleans, A. D. 511-524.

CLONARD, Monastery of.

A great monastery founded in Meath, Ireland, by St. Finnian,

in the sixth century, "which is said to have contained no

fewer than 3,000 monks and which became a great

training-school in the monastic life." The twelve principal

disciples of Finnian were called the "Twelve Apostles of

Ireland," St. Columba being the chief.

W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, book 2, chapter 2.

CLONTARF, Battle of.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1014.

CLONTARF MEETING, The.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1841-1848.

CLOSTER-SEVEN, Convention of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1757 (JULY-DECEMBER), and 1758.

CLOTHAIRE I., King of the Franks, A. D. 511-561.

Clothaire II., King of the Franks (Neustria), A. D. 584-628;

(Austrasia), 613--622; Burgundy, 613--628.

Clothaire III., King of the Franks (Neustria and Burgundy),

A. D. 660-670.

Clothaire IV., King of the Franks

(Austrasia), A. D. 717-719.

CLOVIS, King of the Franks, A. D. 481-511.

Clovis II., King of the Franks (Neustria), A. D. 638-654;

(Austrasia), 650-654; (Burgundy), 638-654.

Clovis III., King of the Franks (Neustria and Burgundy),

A. D. 691-695.

CLUBS, Ancient Greek.

See LESCHE, HETÆRIES, ERANI and THIASI.

CLUBS: The Beef Steak,

"In 1735 there was formed in the capital [London] the

celebrated Beef Steak Club, or 'Sublime Society of Beef

Steaks,' as its members always desired to be designated. The

origin of this club is singular, and was in this wise. Rich,

a celebrated harlequin, and patentee of Covent Garden Theatre

in the time of George II., while engaged during the daytime

in directing and controlling the arrangements of the stage

scenery was often visited by his friends, of whom he had a

very numerous circle. One day, while the Earl of Peterborough

was present, Rich felt the pangs of hunger so keenly that he

cooked a beef-steak and invited the earl to partake of it,

which he did, relishing it so greatly that he came again,

bringing some friends with him on purpose to taste the same

fare. In process of time the beef-steak dinner became an

institution. Some of the chief wits and greatest men of the

nation, to the number of 24, formed themselves into a

society, and took as their motto 'Steaks and Liberty.' Among

its early celebrities were Bubb Doddington, Aaron Hill, Dr.

Hoadley, Richard Glover, the two Colmans, Garrick and John

Beard. The number of the 'steaks' remained at its original

limit until 1785, when it was augmented by one, in order to

secure the admission of the Heir-Apparent."

W. C. Sydney, England and the English in the 18th Century,

chapter 6 (volume 1).

CLUBS: The Brothers'.

In 1711, a political club which took this name was founded in

London by Henry St. John, afterwards Lord Bolingbroke, to

counteract the "extravagance of the Kit Cat" and "the

drunkenness of the Beefsteak." "This society ... continued for

some time to restrain the outburst of those elements of

disunion with which the Harley ministry was so rife. To be a

member of this club was esteemed a distinguished honour. They

addressed each other as 'brother'; and we find their ladies in

their correspondence claiming to be enrolled as sisters. The

members of this club were the Dukes of Ormond, Shrewsbury,

Beaufort; the Earls of Oxford, Arran, Jersey, Orrery,

Bathurst; Lords Harley, Duplin, Masham; Sir Robert Raymond,

Sir William Windham, Colonel Hill, Colonel Desney, St. John,

Granville, Arbuthnot, Prior, Swift, and Friend."

G. W. Cooke, Memoirs of Bolingbroke,

volume 1, chapter 10.

CLUBS:

The Clichy.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (SEPTEMBER).

CLUBS:

The French Revolutionary.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1790.

CLUBS:

The Hampden.

See ENGLAND: A.. D. 1816-1820.

CLUBS:

Dr. Johnson's.

"During his literary career Dr. Johnson assisted in the

foundation of no fewer than three clubs, each of which was

fully deserving of the name. In 1749 he established a club at

a house in Ivy Lane, Paternoster Row, and only the year before

he died he drafted a code of rules for a club, of which the

members should hold their meetings, thrice in each week, at

the Essex Head in the Strand; an establishment which was then

kept by a former servant of his old friends the Thrales. Those

members who failed to put in an appearance at the club were

required to forfeit the sum of two pence. There is an

interesting account of one of the meetings of the Ivy Lane

Club, at which Johnson presided, in Sir John Hawkins's

biography of him. ... The next club with which Johnson became

acquainted was the most influential of them all, and was the

one which is now chiefly remembered in connection with his

name. It was, however, a plant of slow and gradual growth. The

first meeting of its members, who exulted in the designation

of 'The Club,' was held in 1763 at a hostelry called the

Turk's Head, situated in Gerard Street, Soho.

{481}

'The Club' retained that title until after the funeral of Garrick,

when it was always known as 'The Literary Club.' As its

numbers were small and limited, the admission to it was an

honour greatly coveted in political, legal, and literary

circles. 'The Club' originated with Sir Joshua Reynolds, then

President of the Royal Academy, who at first restricted its

numbers to nine, these being Reynolds himself, Samuel Johnson,

Edmund Burke, Dr. Christopher Nugent (an accomplished Roman

Catholic physician), Bennet Langton, Topham Beauclerk, Sir

John Hawkins, Oliver Goldsmith, and M. Chamier, Secretary in

the War Office. The members assembled every Monday evening

punctually at seven o'clock, and, having partaken of an

inexpensive supper, conversed on literary, scientific and

artistic topics till the clock indicated the hour of retiring.

The numbers of the Literary Club were subsequently augmented

by the enrolment of Garrick, Edward Gibbon, Lord Charlemont,

Sir William Jones, the eminent Oriental linguist, and James

Boswell, of biographical fame. Others were admitted from time

to time, until in 1791 it numbered 35. In December, 1772, the

day of meeting was altered to Friday, and the weekly suppers

were commuted to fortnightly dinners during the sitting of

parliament. Owing to the conversion of the original tavern

into a private house, the club moved, in 1783, first to

Prince's, in Sackville Street; next to Le Telier's in Dover

Street; then, in 1792, to Parsloe's in St. James's Street; and

lastly, in February, 1799, to the Thatched House Tavern in St.

James's Street, where it remained until long after 1848."

W. C. Sydney, England and the English in the 18th

Century, chapter 6 (volume 1).

CLUBS:

The King's Head.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1678-1679.

CLUBS:

The Kit Cat.

"The Kit Cat Club was instituted in 1699. Its most illustrious

members were Congreve, Prior, Sir John Vanbrugh, the Earl of

Orrery, and Lord Somers; but the members becoming more

numerous, the most violent party obtained the majority, and

the Earl and his friends were less regular in their

attendance. ... The Kit Cat took its name from a pastry-cook

[Christopher Katt], whose pies formed a regular dish at the

suppers of the club."

G. W. Cooke, Memoirs of Bolingbroke,

volume 1, chapter 10, foot-note.

ALSO IN:

J. Timbs, Clubs and Club Life in London, pages 47-53.

W. C. Sydney, England and the English in the 18th century,

chapter 6.

CLUBS:

The Mohocks.

See MOHOCKS.

CLUBS:

The October and the March.

"The October Club came first into importance in the latest

years of Anne, although it had existed since the last decade

of the 17th century. The stout Tory squires met together in

the 'Bell' Tavern, in narrow, dirty King Street, Westminster,

to drink October ale, under Dahl's portrait of Queen Anne, and

to trouble with their fierce uncompromising Jacobitism the

fluctuating purposes of Harley and the crafty counsels of St.

John. The genius of Swift tempered their hot zeal with the

cool air of his 'advice.' Then the wilder spirits seceded, and

formed the March Club, which retained all the angry Jacobitism

of the parent body, but lost all its importance."

J. McCarthy, History of the Four Georges, volume 1, chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

W. C. Sydney, England and the English in the 18th

century, chapter 6.

CLUBMEN.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-AUGUST).

CLUGNY, OR CLUNY, The Monastery of.

The famous monastery of Clugny, or Cluny, was founded A. D.

910, at Cluny, near Macon, in Burgundy, by the abbot Count

Berno, who had previously established and ruled the monastery

of Gigni, near Lyons. It was founded under the auspices and at

the expense of William, Count of Auvergne, commonly called

William the Pious. "In the disastrous times which followed the

death of Charles the Great and the failure of his scheme to

reorganize the Western world under a single head, the

discipline of the religious houses fell with everything else;

fell, not perhaps quite so soon, yet by the end of the ninth

century had fallen almost as low as it was possible to fall.

But here symptoms of a moral reaction showed themselves

earlier than elsewhere. The revival dates from 910, the year

of the foundation of the Monastery of Clugny in Burgundy,

which was destined to exercise an enormous influence on the

future of the Church. While matters at Rome were at their

worst, there were silently training there the men who should

inaugurate a new state of things [notably Hildebrand,

afterwards Pope Gregory VII.] Already, so one said at the

time, the whole house of the Church was filled with the sweet

savour of the ointment there poured out. It followed that

wherever in any religious house there were any aspirations

after a higher life, any longings for reformation, that house

affiliated itself to Clugny; thus beginning to constitute a

Congregation, that is a cluster of religious houses, scattered

it might be over all Christendom, but owning one rule,

acknowledging the superiority of one mother house, and

receiving its abbots and priors from thence. In the Clugnian

Congregation, for example, there were about two thousand

houses in the middle of the twelfth century--these mostly in

France; the Abbot, or Arch-Abbot, as he was called, of Clugny,

being a kind of Pope of Monasticism, and for a long time, the

Pope excepted, quite the most influential Church-ruler in

Christendom."

R. C, Trench, Lect's on Mediæval Church History,

chapter 8.

ALSO IN:

S. R. Maitland, The Dark Ages, chapter 18-26.

A. F. Villemain, Life of Gregory, VII. book 1.

S. R. Gardiner and J. B. Mullinger, Introduction to

the Study of English History, chapter 3, section 8.

E. F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the

Middle Ages, book 3, no. 4.

CLUNIAC MONKS.

See CLUGNY.

CLUSIUM, Battle of (B. C. 83).

See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

CLYPEUS, The.

The round iron shield of the Romans.

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

section 107.

CNOSSUS.

See CRETE.

CNUT.

See CANUTE.

CNYDUS, Battle of (B. C. 394).

See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

COAHUILTECAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: COAHUILTECAN FAMILY.

COAJIRO, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: COAJIRO.

COALITION MINISTRY OF FOX AND LORD NORTH.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1782-1783; and 1783-1787.

COALITIONS AGAINST NAPOLEON.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (JANUARY-APRIL);

{482}

COALITIONS AGAINST NAPOLEON:

GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813, and 1813 (MAY-AUGUST),

and FRANCE: A. D. 1814-1815.

COALITIONS AGAINST REVOLUTIONARY FRANCE.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER);

1798-1799 (AUGUST-APRIL).

COBBLER'S LEAGUE, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.

COBDEN, Richard, and the Free Trade movement.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND):

A. D. 1836-1839; 1842; 1845-1846;

and TARIFF LEGISLATION (FRANCE): A. D. 1853-1860.

COBDEN-CHEVALIER COMMERCIAL TREATY, The.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (FRANCE): A. D. 1853-1860.

COBURG, Origination of the Dukedom of.

See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553.

COCCIUM.

An important Roman town in Britain, the remains of which are

supposed to be found at Ribchester.

T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.

COCHIBO, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

COCHIQUIMA, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

COCO TRIBES.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

COCONOONS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MARIPOSAN FAMILY.

COCOSATES, The.

See AQUITAINE, THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

COD, Cape: A. D. 1602.

Named by Bartholomew Gosnold.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.

COD, Cape: A. D. 1605.

Called Cap Blanc by Champlain.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1603-1605.

COD, Cape: A. D. 1609.

Named New Holland by Hudson.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1609.

----------COD, Cape: End----------

CODE NAPOLEON, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1804.

CODES.

See LAWS, &c.

CODS, The.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1345-1354;

and 1482-1493.

CŒLE-SYRIA.

"Hollow Syria"--the long, broad, fertile and beautiful valley

which lies between the Libanus and Antilibanus ranges of

mountains, and is watered by the Orontes and the Leontes or

Littany rivers. "Few places in the world are more remarkable,

or have a more stirring history, than this wonderful vale."

G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Babylonia, chapter 1.

CŒNOBIUM.--CŒNOBITES.

"The word 'Cœnobium' is equivalent to 'monasterium' in the

later sense of that word. Cassian distinguishes the word thus.

'Monasterium,' he says, 'may be the dwelling of a single monk,

Cœnobium must be of several; the former word,' he adds,

'expressed only the place, the latter the manner of living.'"

I. G. Smith, Christian Monasticism, page 40.

ALSO IN:

J. Bingham, Antiquity of the Christian Church,

book 7, chapter 2, section 3.

COFAN, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

COGNOMEN, NOMEN, PRÆNOMEN.

See GENS, ROMAN.

COHORTS.

See LEGION, ROMAN.

COIMBRA: Early history.

See PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

COLBERT, The System of.

Colbertism.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION: A. D. 1664-1667 (FRANCE).

Also, FRANCE: A. D. 1661-1683.

COLCHESTER, Origin of.

When Cæsar first opened to the Romans some knowledge of

Britain, the site of modern Colchester was occupied by an

"oppidum," or fastness of the Trinobantes, which the Romans

called Camulodunum. A little later, Camulodunum acquired some

renown as the royal town of the Trinobantine king, or prince,

Cunobelin,--the Cymbeline of Shakespeare. It was after the

death of Cunobelin, and when his son Caractacus was king,

during the reign of the emperor Claudius, that the Romans

began their actual conquest of Britain. Claudius was present,

in person, when Camulodunum was taken, and he founded there

the first Roman colony in the island, calling it Claudiana

Victricensis. That name was too cumbrous to be preserved; but

the colonial character of the town caused it to be called

Colonia-ceaster, the Colonia fortress,--abbreviated, in time,

to Colne-ceaster, and, finally, to Colchester. The colony was

destroyed by the Iceni, at the time of their rising, under

Boadicea, but was reconstituted and grew into an important

Roman town.

C. L. Cutts, Colchester, ch, 1-6.

COLCHESTER: A. D. 1648.

The Roundhead siege and capture.

On the collapse of the Royalist rising of 1648, which produced

what is called the Second Civil War of the Puritan

revolutionary period, Colchester received the "wreck of the

insurrection," so far as London and the surrounding country

had lately been threatened by it. Troops of cavaliers, under

Sir Charles Lucas and Lord Capel, having collected in the

town, were surrounded and beleaguered there by Fairfax, and

held out against their besiegers from June until late in

August. "After two months of the most desperate resistance,

Colchester, conquered by famine and sedition, at last

surrendered (Aug. 27); and the next day a court-martial

condemned to death three of its bravest, defenders, Sir

Charles Lucas, Sir George Lisle, and Sir Bernard Gascoign, as

an example, it was said, to future rebels who might be tempted

to imitate them. In vain did the other prisoners, Lord Capel

at their head, entreat Fairfax to suspend the execution of the

sentence, or at least that they should all undergo it, since

all were alike guilty of the offence of these three. Fairfax,

excited by the long struggle, or rather intimidated by Ireton,

made no answer, and the condemned officers were ordered to be

shot on the spot." Gascoign, however, was reprieved at the

last moment.

F. P. Guizot, History of the English Revolution, book 8.

ALSO IN:

C. R. Markham, Life of the Great Lord Fairfax, chapter 26-27.

----------COLCHESTER: End----------

COLCHIANS, The.

"The Colchians appear to have been in part independent, in

part subject to Persia. Their true home was evidently that

tract of country [on the Euxine] about the river Phasis. ...

Here they first became known to the commercial Greeks, whose

early dealings in this quarter seem to have given rise to the

poetic legend of the Argonauts. The limits of Colchis varied

at different times, but the natural bounds were never greatly

departed from. They were the Euxine on the east, the Caucasus

on the north, the mountain range which forms the watershed

between the Phasis (Rion) and the Cyrus (Kur) on the west, and

the high ground between Batoum and Kars (the Moschian

mountains) on the south. ... The most interesting question

connected with the Colchians is that connected with their

nationality. They were a black race dwelling in the midst of

whites, and in a country which does not tend to make its

inhabitants dark complexioned. That they were comparatively

recent immigrants from a hotter climate seems therefore to be

certain. The notion entertained by Herodotus of their Egyptian

extraction appears to have been a conjecture of his own. ...

Perhaps the modern theory that the Colchians were immigrants

from India is entitled to some share of our attention. ... If

the true Colchi were a colony of blacks, they must have become

gradually absorbed in the white population proper to the

country."

G. Rawlinson, History of Herodotus,

book 7, appendix. 1.

See, also, ALARODIANS.

{483}

COLD HARBOR, First and second battles of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862

(JUNE-JULY: VIRGINIA),

and 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

COLDEN, Cadwallader, The lieutenant-governorship of.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1773-1774 to 1775 (APRIL-SEPTEMBER).

COLIGNY, Admiral de,

The religious wars in France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563 to 1572.

American Colonies.

See FLORIDA: A. D. 1562-1563, 1564-1565, and 1565.

COLLAS, The.

See PERU: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

COLLEGIA.

Numerous associations called "collegia" existed in ancient

Rome, having various purposes. Some were religious

associations (collegia templorum); some were organizations of

clerks or scribes; some were guilds of workmen; some appear to

have had a political character, although the political clubs

were more commonly called "sodalitates."

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 3, chapter 11.

COLLINE GATE, D'HERBOIS Battle of the (B. C. 83).

See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

COLLOT, and the French Revolutionary Committee of Public Safety.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER), to

1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

COLMAR, Cession to France.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

COLMAR, Battle of (1674).

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

COLOGNE: Origin.

See COLONIA AGRIPPINENSIS.

COLOGNE: The Electorate.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152.

COLOGNE: In the Hanseatic League.

See HANSA TOWNS.

----------COLOGNE: End----------

COLOMAN.

See KOLOMAN.

COLOMBEY-NOUILLY, OR BORNY, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870 (JULY-AUGUST).

COLOMBIA, United States of.

See COLOMBIAN STATES.

COLOMBIAN STATES, The.

This general title will be used, for convenience, to cover,

for considerable periods of their history, the territory now

divided between the republics of Venezuela, Ecuador, and the

United States of Colombia (formerly New Granada), the latter

embracing the Isthmus of Panama. The history of these

countries being for a long time substantially identical in the

main, and only distinguishable at intervals, it seems to be

difficult to do otherwise than hold it, somewhat arbitrarily,

under one heading, until the several currents of events part

company distinctly.

COLOMBIAN STATES:

The aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CHIBCHA.

COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.

The Spanish conquest of New Granada.

Creation of the new vice-royalty.

"For some time after the disastrous failure of the attempt of

Las Casas to found a colony on the Pearl coast of Cumaná, the

northern portion of Spanish South America, from the Orinoco

westwards, is almost lost to history. The powers working for

good had signally failed, and the powers of evil seemed to

have it almost all their own way. ... Lying behind these

extensive coasts to the westward in the interior, is the

region to which the Spaniards gave the name of the kingdom of

New Granada, the name being applied in consequence of a

resemblance which was detected between the plain around Santa

Fe de Bogotá and the royal Vega which adjoins the historical

Moorish capital. New Granada was a most extensive region,

comprising as it did the entire country from sea to sea in the

north, lying between 60° and 78° longitude, and from 6° to 15°

of latitude." The Spanish conquest of New Granada was achieved

in the main by Ximenes de Quesada, who invaded the country

from the north, although the governor of Quito, Benalcazar,

entered it likewise from the south. "Ximenes de Quesada came

to America about the year 1535, in the suite of the Governor

of Santa Marta, by whom he was selected to lead an expedition

against the Chibchas, who dwelt on the plain of Bogotá and

around the headwaters of the Magdalena. Setting out in April

1536 with 800 men, he succeeded in pushing his way through the

forest and across innumerable streams. He contrived to subsist

for eight months, during which he traversed 450 miles,

enduring meanwhile the very utmost exertions and privations

that human nature could support. ... When he had surmounted

the natural difficulties in his path, his remaining force

consisted of but 166 men, with 60 horses. On March 2d, 1537,

he resumed his advance; and, as usually happened, the mere

sight of his horsemen terrified the Indians into submission.

At Tunja, according to the Spanish historians, he was

treacherously attacked whilst resting in the palace of one of

the chiefs. ... In any case, the chief was taken, and, after

much slaughter, Ximenes found himself the absolute possessor

of immense riches, one golden lantern alone being valued at

6,000 ducats. From Tunja Ximenes marched upon the sacred city

of Iraca, where two Spanish soldiers accidentally set fire to

the great Temple of the Sun. The result was that, after a

conflagration which lasted several days, both the city and the

temple were utterly destroyed. ... On the 9th of August, 1538,

was founded the city of Bogotá. Ximenes was soon here joined

by Frederman, a subject of the Emperor Charles V., with 160

soldiers, with whom he had been engaged in conquering

Venezuela; and likewise by Benalcazar, the conqueror of Quito.

This latter warrior had crossed the continent in triumph at

the head of 150 Spaniards, together with a multitude of native

followers."

{484}

In the intrigues and jealous rivalries between the three which

followed, Ximenes de Quesada was pushed aside, at first, and

even fined and banished by the Emperor; but in the end he

triumphed and was appointed marshal of the kingdom of New

Granada. "On his return to Bogotá in 1551, he, to his credit,

exhibited an energy in protecting the people of the country

against their invaders, equal to that which he had displayed

in effecting their conquest. Ten years later he commanded a

force organized to repel an attack from the ruler of

Venezuela; shortly after which he was appointed Adelantado of

the Kingdom of New Granada. He devoted three years, and an

enormous amount of toil and money, to an absurd expedition in

quest of the fabled El Dorado [see EL DORADO]." Quesada died

of leprosy in 1572. Until 1718 the kingdom of New Granada

remained subject to the Viceroy of Peru. In that year the

Viceroyalty of Peru "was divided into two portions, the

northern region, from the frontiers of Mexico as far as to the

Orinoco, and on the Southern Sea from Veragua to Tumbez,

forming the Viceroyalty of New Granada, of which the capital

was Bogota. To this region, likewise, was assigned the inland

province of Quito. The Viceroyalty of New Granada, in fact,

comprised what now [1884] forms the Republic of Venezuela, the

United States of Columbia, and the Republic of Equador." In

1731 "it was deemed expedient to detach from the Viceroyalty

of New Granada the provinces of Venezuela, Maracaibo, Varinas,

Cumaná, and Spanish Guyana, and to form them into a separate

Captain-Generalship, the residence of the ruler being fixed at

Caracas in Venezuela."

R. G. Watson, Spanish and Portuguese South America,

volume 2, chapter 9.

COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

The struggle for independence and its achievement.

Miranda and Simon Bolivar.

The Earthquake in Venezuela.

The founding of the Republic of Colombia.

"The Colombian States occupy the first place in the history of

South American independence. ... The Colombian States were

first in the struggle because they were in many ways nearest

to Europe. It was through them that intercourse between the

Pacific coast and Europe was mainly carried on: Porto Bello

and Carthagena were thus the main inlets of European ideas.

Besides, there was here constant communication with the West

Indies; and government, population and wealth were less

centralised than in the more important viceroyalties of Mexico

and Peru. The Indians of New Granada had always been a

restless race, and the increase of taxation which was resorted

to for the defence of the coast in the war with Great Britain

(1777-1783) produced discontents among the whole population,

both red and white. ... The French Revolution, coming soon

afterwards, was another link in the chain of causes. ... In

Venezuela, which the industry of its inhabitants had raised

from a poor mission district to a thriving commercial

province, the progress of modern ideas was yet faster. ... The

conquest of Trinidad by England in 1797 gave a new turn to the

movement. ... It was from Trinidad that the first attempts

were made to excite the Spanish colonists to revolution.

Francis Miranda, by whom this was done, was a type of many

other men to whom is due the credit of leading the South

American peoples to independence. He was a native of Caraccas,

and when a young man had held a French commission in the

American War of Independence. On his return to Venezuela in

1783 he found the populace, as we have already mentioned, in

an excited state, and finding that he was suspected of designs

for liberating his own country, he went to Europe, and again

attached himself to the French service. ... Being proscribed

by the Directory, he turned to England, and ... when the war

[between England and Spain] broke out afresh in 1804, and

England sent out an expedition to invade Buenos Ayres, Miranda

believed that his opportunity was come. In 1806, by English

and American aid, he sailed from Trinidad and landed with 500

men on the coast of Venezuela. But the 'Colombian Army,' as

Miranda named it, met with a cool reception among the people.

His utter inability to meet the Spanish forces compelled him

to retreat to Trinidad, nor did he reappear on the continent

until after the revolution of 1810. The principal inhabitants

of Caraccas had been meditating the formation of a provisional

government, on the model of the juntas of Spain, ever since

the abdication of the king [see SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808]; but

it was not until 1810, when the final victory of Napoleon in

Spain appeared certain, that they made a decisive movement in

favour of independence. Spain, for the time at least, was now

blotted out of the list of nations. Acting, therefore, in the

name of Ferdinand VII., they deposed the Spanish colonial

officers, and elected a supreme junta or council. Similar

juntas were soon established in New Granada, at Santa Fe,

Quito, Carthagena, and the other chief towns of the

Viceroyalty ... and the fortune of the patriot party in new

Granada, from their close neighbourhood, was closely linked

with that of the Venezuelans. The Regency of Cadiz, grasping

for itself all the rights and powers of the Spanish nation,

determined to reduce the colonists to subjection. They

therefore declared the port of Caraccas in a state of

blockade, as the British government had done in the previous

generation with that of Boston; and, as in the case of Boston,

this resolution of the Regency amounted to a declaration of

war. ... A congress of all the provinces of Venezuela now met

at Caraccas, and published a declaration of independence on

the 5th of July, 1811, and those of Mexico and New Granada

soon followed. ... The powers of nature seemed to conspire

with the tyranny of Europe to destroy the young South American

Republic. On the 26th of March, 1812, Venezuela was visited by

a fearful earthquake, which destroyed the capital [Caraccas]

and several other towns, together with 20,000 people, and many

others perished of hunger and in other ways. This day was Holy

Thursday; and the superstitious people, prompted by their

priests, believed this awful visitation to be a judgment from

God for their revolt. The Spanish troops, under Monteverde,

now began a fresh attack on the disquieted Venezuelans.

Miranda, who on his return had been placed at the head of the

army, had in the meantime overrun New Granada, and laid the

foundation of the future United States of Colombia. But the

face of affairs was changed by the news of the earthquake.

Smitten with despair, his soldiers now deserted to the

royalists; he lost ground everywhere; the fortress of Puerto

Cavello, commanded by the great Bolivar, then a colonel in the

service of the Republic, was surrendered through treachery.

{485}

On the 25th of June Miranda himself capitulated, with all his

forces; and Venezuela fell once more into the hands of the

royalists. Miranda himself was arrested, in defiance of the

terms of the surrender, and perished in an European dungeon,

as Toussaint had perished a few years before. ... Monteverde

emptied the prisons of their occupants, and filled them with

the families of the principal citizens of the republic; and

Caraccas became the scene of a Reign of Terror. After

Miranda's capitulation, Bolivar had gone to New Granada, which

still maintained its independence, and entered into the

service of that republic. Bolivar now reappeared in a new

character, and earned for himself a reputation in the history

of the new world which up to a certain point ranks with that

of Washington. Simon Bolivar, like Miranda, was a native of

Caraccas. ... Like Miranda, he had to some extent learned

modern ideas by visiting the old world and the United States.

When the cruelties of Monteverde had made Venezuela ripe for a

new revolt, Bolivar reappeared on his native soil at the head

of a small body of troops from the adjacent republic. The

successes which he gained so incensed the royalists that they

refused quarter to their prisoners, and war to the death

('guerra a muerte') was proclaimed. All obstacles disappeared

before Bolivar's generalship, and on the 4th of August, 1813,

he publicly entered Caraccas, the fortress of Puerto Cavello

being now the only one in the possession of the royalists.

Bolivar was hailed with the title of the liberator of

Venezuela. He was willing to see the republic restored; but

the inhabitants very properly feared to trust at this time to

anything but a military government, and vested the supreme

power in him as dictator (1814). The event indeed proved the

necessity of a military government. The defeated royalists

raised fresh troops, many thousands of whom were negro slaves,

and overran the whole country; Bolivar was beaten at La

Puerta, and forced to take refuge a second time in New

Granada; and the capital fell again into the hands of the

royalists. ... The War of Independence had been undertaken

against the Regency; and had Ferdinand, on his restoration to

the throne in 1814, shown any signs of conciliation, he might

yet have recovered his American provinces. But the government

persisted in its course of absolute repression. ... New

Granada, where Bolivar was general in chief of the forces, was

the only part where the insurrection survived; and in 1815 a

fleet containing 10,000 men under General Morillo arrived off

Carthagena, its principal port. ... Carthagena was only

provisioned for a short time: and Bolivar, overpowered by

numbers, quitted the soil of the continent and went to the

West Indies to seek help to relieve Carthagena, and maintain

the contest for liberty." Obtaining assistance in Hayti, he

fitted out an expedition "which sailed in April from the port

of Aux Cayes. Bolivar landed near Cumana, in the eastern

extremity of Venezuela, and from this point he gradually

advanced westwards, gaining strength by slow degrees. In the

meantime, after a siege of 116 days, Carthagena surrendered;

5,000 of its inhabitants had perished of hunger. Both

provinces were now in Morillo's hands. Fancying himself

completely master of the country, he proceeded to wreak a

terrible vengeance on the Granadines. But at the news of

Bolivar's reappearance, though yet at a distance, the face of

affairs changed. ... His successes in the year 1817 were sure,

though slow: in 1818, after he had been joined by European

volunteers, they were brilliant. Bolivar beat the royalists in

one pitched battle after another [Sagamoso, July 1, 1819, and

Pantano de Bargas, July 25]: and at length a decisive victory

was won by his lieutenant, Santander, at Boyaca, in New

Granada, August 1, 1819. This battle, in which some hundreds

of British and French auxiliaries fought on the side of

liberty, completely freed the two countries from the yoke of

Spain."

E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, chapter 16.

ALSO IN:

C. S. Cochrane, Journal of a Residence in Colombia,

volume 1, chapters 6-8.

H. Brownell, North and South America Illustrated,

pages 316-334.

C. Cushing, Simon Bolivar

(N. Am. Review, January, 1829, and January, 1830).

H. L. V. D. Holstein, Memoirs of Bolivar, chapter 3-20.

Major Flintner, History of the Revolution of Caraccas.

COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830.

The glory and the fall of Bolivar.

Dissolution of the Colombian Federation.

Tyranny under the Liberator, and monarchical schemes.

Three days after the battle of Boyaca, Bolivar entered Bogota

in triumph. "A congress met in December and decided that

Venezuela and Nueva Granada should form one republic, to be

called Colombia. Morillo departed for Europe in 1820, and the

victory gained by Bolivar at Carabobo on June 24, 1821,

decided the fate of Colombia. In the following January General

Bolivar assembled an army at Popayan to drive the Spaniards

out of the province of Quito. His second in command, General

Sucre, led an advanced guard, which was reinforced by a

contingent of volunteers from Peru, under Santa Cruz. The

Spanish General Ramirez was entirely defeated in the battle of

Pichincha, and Quito was incorporated with the new republic of

Colombia."

C. R. Markham, Colonial History of South America

(Narrative and Critical History of America,

volume 8, chapter 5).

"The provinces of New Granada and Venezuela, together with the

Presidency of Quito, now sent delegates to the convention of

Cucuta, in 1821, and there decreed the union of the three

countries as a single state by the name of the Republic of

Colombia. The first Colombian federal constitution was

concocted by the united wisdom of the delegates; and the

result might easily have been foreseen. It was a farrago of

crude and heterogeneous ideas. Some of its features were

imitated from the American political system, some from the

English, some from the French. ... Bolivar of course became

President: and the Republic had need of him. The task of

liberation was not yet completed. Carthagena, and many other

strong places, remained in Spanish hands. Bolivar reduced

these one by one, and the second decisive victory of Carabobo,

in 1822, finally secured Colombian freedom. The English claim

the chief share in the battle of Carabobo: for the British

legion alone carried the main Spanish position, losing in the

feat two-thirds of its numbers. The war now fast drew to its

close. The republic was able to contest with the invaders the

dominion of the sea: General Padilla, on the 23rd of July,

1823, totally destroyed the Spanish fleet: and the Spanish

commander finally capitulated at Puerto Cavello in December.

{486}

All these hard-won successes were mainly owing to the bravery

and resolution of Bolivar. Bolivar deserves to the full the

reputation of an able and patriotic soldier. He was now set

free ... to render important services to the rest of South

America: and among the heroes of independence perhaps his name

will always stand first. But Bolivar the statesman was a man

very different from Bolivar the general. He was alternately

timid and arbitrary. He was indeed afraid to touch the

problems of statesmanship which awaited him: but instead of

leading the Colombian people through independence to liberty,

he stubbornly set his face against all measures of political

or social reform. His fall may be said to have begun with the

moment when his military triumphs were complete. The

disaffection to the constitution of the leading people in

Venezuela and Ecuador [the new name given to the old province

of Quito, indicating its position at the equator] in 1826 and

1827, was favoured by the Provincial governors, Paez and

Mosquera; and Bolivar, instead of resisting the disintegration

of the state, openly favoured the military dictatorships which

Paez and Mosquera established. This policy foreshadowed the

reign of absolutism in New Granada itself. Bolivar ... had now

become not only the constitutional head of the Colombian

federation, but also the military head of the Peruvian

republics [see PERU: A. D. 1820-1826, 1825-1826, and

1826-1876]: and there can be no doubt that he intended the

Colombian constitution to be reduced to the Peruvian model. As

a first step towards reuniting all the South American nations

under a military government, Paez, beyond reasonable doubt,

with Bolivar's connivance, proclaimed the independence of

Venezuela, April 30th, 1826. This practically broke up the

Colombian federation: and the destruction of the constitution,

so far as it regarded New Granada itself, soon followed.

Bolivar had already resorted to the usual devices of military

tyranny. The terrorism of Sbirri, arbitrary arrests, the

assumption of additional executive powers, and, finally, the

suppression of the vice-presidency, all pointed one way. ...

At length, after the practical secession of Venezuela and

Ecuador under their military rulers, Congress decreed a

summons for a Convention, which met at Ocaña in March, 1828.

... The liberals, who were bent on electoral reform and

decentralization, were paralyzed by the violent bearing of the

Bolivian leaders: and Bolivar quartered himself in the

neighbourhood, and threatened the Convention at the head of an

army of 3,000 veterans. He did not, however, resort to open

force. Instead of this, he ordered his party to recede from

the Convention: and this left the Convention without the means

of making a quorum. From this moment the designs of Bolivar

were unmistakable. The dissolution of the Convention, and the

appointment of Bolivar as Dictator, by a junta of notables,

followed as a matter of course; and by the 'Organic decree' of

August 1828, Bolivar assumed the absolute sovereignty of

Colombia. A reign of brute force now followed: but the triumph

of Bolivar was only ephemeral. ... The Federation was gone:

and it became a question of securing military rule in the

separate provinces. A portentous change now occurred in

Ecuador. The democratic party under Flores triumphed over the

Bolivians under Mosquera: and Paez assured his chief that no

help was to be expected from Venezuela. At the Convention of

Bogota, in 1830, though it was packed with Bolivar's nominees,

it became clear that the liberator's star had set at last. ...

This convention refused to vote him President. Bolivar now

withdrew from public life: and a few months later, December

17, 1830, he died broken-hearted at San Pedro, near Santa

Martha. Bolivar, though a patriot as regarded the struggle

with Spain, was in the end a traitor to his fellow citizens.

Recent discoveries leave little doubt that he intended to

found a monarchy on the ruins of the Spanish dominion. England

and France, both at this time strongly conservative powers,

were in favour of such a scheme; and a Prince of the House of

Bourbon had already been nominated to be Bolivar's successor."

E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, chapter 16.

"About one month before his death, General Bolivar, the

so-called 'Liberator' of South America, wrote a letter to the

late General Flores of Ecuador, in which the following

remarkable passages occur, which have never before been

published in the English language: 'I have been in power for

nearly 20 years, from which I have gathered only a few

definite results: 1. America, for us, is ungovernable. 2. He

who dedicates his services to a revolution, plows the sea. 3.

The only thing that can be done in America, is to emigrate. 4.

This country will inevitably fall into the hands of the

unbridled rabble, and little by little become a prey to petty

tyrants of all colors and races.'"

F. Hassaurek, Four Years among Spanish-Americans,

chapter 12.

ALSO IN:

J. M. Spence, The Land of Bolivar, volume 1, chapter 7.

E. B. Eastwick, Venezuela, chapter 11 (Battle of

Carabobo).

COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1821-1854.

Emancipation of slaves.

The abolition of slavery in the three republics of New

Granada, Venezuela and Ecuador was initiated in the Republic

of Colombia, while it embraced them all. "By a law of the 21st

of July, 1821, it was provided that the children of slaves,

born after its publication in the principal cities of the

republic, should be free. ... Certain revenues were

appropriated to the creation of an emancipation fund in each

district. ... Aside from a certain bungling looseness with

which almost all Spanish-American laws are drawn, it [the act

of 1821] contains some very sensible regulations, and served

to lay a solid foundation for the work of emancipation, since

completed by the three republics which then constituted

Colombia." In Ecuador the completion of emancipation was

reached in 1854.

F. Hassaurek, Four Years among Spanish-Americans,

pages 330-333.

COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826.

The Congress of Panama.

"The proposition for assembling this body emanated from

Bolivar, who, in 1823, as president of Colombia, invited the

governments of Mexico, Peru, Chile, and Buenos Ayres, to form

a confederacy of the Spanish-American states, by means of

plenipotentiaries to be convened, in the spirit of classic

analogy, in the isthmus of Panama. To this invitation the

governments of Peru and Mexico promptly acceded, Chile and

Buenos Ayres neglected or declined to be represented in the

assembly, for the reasons which we shall presently state.

{487}

This magnificent idea of a second Achæan League seized on the

imaginations of many speculative and of some practical men in

America and Europe, as destined to create a new era in the

political history of the world by originating a purer system

of public law, and almost realizing Bernardin de Saint

Pierre's league of the modern nations. In its original shape,

it was professedly a plan of a belligerent nature, having for

its main object to combine the revolutionized states against

the common enemy. But time was required for carrying it into

effect. Meanwhile the project, magnified by the course of

events, began to change its complexion. The United States were

invited to participate in the Congress, so as to form an

American policy, and a rallying point for American interests,

in opposition to those of Europe; and, after the discussions

which are so familiar to all, the government of the United

States accepted the invitation, and despatched its

representatives to Panama. ... In the interval, between the

proposal of the plan and its execution, Central America was

added to the family of American nations, and agreed to take

part in the Congress. At length, after many delays, this

modern Amphictyonic Council, consisting of plenipotentiaries

from Colombia, Central America, Peru and Mexico, assembled in

the city of Panama, June 22, 1826, and in a session of three

weeks concluded various treaties; one of perpetual union,

league, and confederation; others relating to the contingents

which the confederates should contribute for the common

defence; and another for the annual meeting of the Congress in

time of war. Having thus promptly despatched their private

affairs, the assembly adjourned to Tacubaya in Mexico, on

account of the insalubrious climate of Panama, before the

delegation of the United States had arrived; since when it has

justly acquired the epithet of 'introuvable,' and probably

never will reassemble in its original form. Is there not a

secret history of all this? Why did Chile and Buenos Ayres

refuse to participate in the Congress? Why has it now vanished

from the face of the earth? The answer given in South America

is, that Bolivar proposed the assembly as part of a grand

scheme of ambition,--ascribed to him by the republican party,

and not without some countenance from his own conduct,--for

establishing a military empire to embrace the whole of

Spanish-America, or at least an empire uniting Colombia and

the two Perus. To give the color of plausibility to the

projected assembly, the United States were invited to be

represented; and it is said Bolivar did not expect, nor very

graciously receive, their acceptance of the invitation."

C. Cushing, Bolivar and the Bolivian Constitution (N. A.

Review, January, 1830).

In the United States "no question, in its day, excited more

heat and intemperate discussion, or more feeling between a

President and Senate, than this proposed mission to the

Congress of American nations at Panama; and no heated question

ever cooled off and died out so suddenly and completely. ...

Though long since sunk into oblivion, and its name almost

forgotten, it was a master subject on the political theatre

during its day; and gave rise to questions of national and of

constitutional law, and of national policy, the importance of

which survive the occasion from which they sprung; and the

solution of which (as then solved), may be some guide to

future action, if similar questions again occur. Besides the

grave questions to which the subject gave rise, the subject

itself became one of unusual and painful excitement. It

agitated the people, made a violent debate in the two Houses

of Congress, inflamed the passions of parties and individuals,

raised a tempest before which Congress bent, made bad feeling

between the President [John Quincy Adams] and the Senate; and

led to the duel between Mr. Randolph and Mr. Clay. It was an

administration measure, and pressed by all the means known to

an administration. It was evidently relied upon as a means of

acting upon the people--as a popular movement which might have

the effect of turning the tide which was then running high

against Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay. ... Now, the chief benefit to

be derived from its retrospect--and that indeed is a real

one--is a view of the firmness with which was then maintained,

by a minority, the old policy of the United States, to avoid

entangling alliances and interference with the affairs of

other nations;--and the exposition of the Monroe doctrine,

from one so competent to give it as Mr. Adams."

T. H. Benton, Thirty Years' View, chapter 25 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

G. F. Tucker, The Monroe Doctrine, chapter 3.

C. Schurz, Life of Henry Clay, chapter 11 (volume 1).

International American Conference (of 1889): Reports and

Discussions, volume 4, History appendix.

COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1830-1886.

Revolutions and civil wars.

The New Confederation (1863) of the United States of Colombia.

The Republic of Colombia.

"New Granada was obliged in 1830 to recognize the disruption

of Colombia, which had long been an accomplished fact. From

this date the three states have a separate history, which is

very much of a piece, though Venezuela was for some years

preserved from the intestine commotions which have from the

beginning distracted New Granada and Ecuador. ... Mosquera,

who had won the election which decided the fate of Bolivar did

not long occupy the presidency. ... Mosquera was soon driven

out by General Urdanete, who was now at the head of the

conservative or Bolivian party. But after the death of their

leader, this party suffered a natural relapse, and Urdanete

was overthrown early in 1831. The history of New Granada may

be said really to commence with the presidency of Bolivar's

old rival and companion in arms, Santander, who was elected

under the constitution of 1832. ... His presidency ... was a

comparatively bright episode: and with its termination in 1836

begins the dark and troubled period which the Granadines

emphatically designate by the name of the 'Twelve Years.' The

scanty measure of liberalism which Santander had dealt out to

the people was now withdrawn. Marquez, his successor, was a

sceptic in politics and a man of infirm will. ... Now began

the ascendancy of clericalism, of absolutist oligarchy, and of

government by the gallows. This same system continued under

President Herran, who was elected in 1841; and then appeared

on the scene, as his chief minister, the famous Dr. Ospina,"

who brought back the Jesuits and curtailed the constitution.

Liberalism again gained ground, electing General Lopez to the

presidency in 1849 find once more expelling the Jesuits. In

April 1854 a radical revolution overturned the constitution

and President Obando was declared dictator. The conservatives

rallied, however, and regained possession of the government

before the close of the year.

{488}

In 1857 Ospina entered on the presidency and civil war soon

raged throughout the country. "After a hundred fights the

revolution triumphed in July, 1861. ... Mosquera, who was now

in possession of the field, was a true pupil of Bolivar's, and

he thought the time had come for reviving Bolivar's plans. ...

In 1863 Mosquera's new Federal Constitution was proclaimed.

Henceforth each State [of the eight federal States into which

the 44 provinces of New Granada were divided] became

practically independent under its own President; and to mark

the change the title of the nation was altered. At first it

was called the Granadine Confederation: but it afterwards took

the name of Colombia [the United States of Colombia], which

had formerly been the title of the larger Confederation under

Bolivar. Among the most important facts in recent Colombian

history is the independence of the State of Panama, which has

become of great importance through the construction of the

railway connecting the port of Colon, or Aspinwall, as it was

named by the Americans, on the Atlantic, with that of Panama

on the Pacific. This rail way was opened in 1855; and in the

same year Panama declared itself a sovereign state. The State

of Panama, after many years of conservative domination, has

now perhaps the most democratic government in the world. The

President is elected for two years only, and is incapable of

re-election. Panama has had many revolutions of its own; nor

has the new Federal Constitution solved all the difficulties

of the Granadine government. In 1867 Mosquera was obliged to

have recourse to a coup d'état, and declared himself dictator,

but he was soon afterwards arrested; a conservative revolution

took place; Mosquera was banished; and Gutierrez became

President. The liberals, however, came back the next year,

under Ponce. Since 1874 [the date of writing being 1879],

General Perez has been President of Colombia."

E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, chapter 16.

"The federal Constitution of 1863 was clearly formed on the

model of the Constitution of the United States of America. It

remained in force until 1886, when it was superseded by a law

which gave the State a centralized organization and named it

the 'Republic of Colombia.'"

Constitution of the Republic of Colombia, with

Historical Introduction by B. Moses (Supplement to Annals

of American Academy of Political and Social Science,

January, 1893).

COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1885-1891.

The Revolution of 1885.

The constitution of 1886.

The presidency of Dr. Nuñez.

"Cartagena is virtually the centre of political power in

Colombia, for it is the residence of President Nuñez, a

dictator without the name. Before the revolution of 1885,

during which Colon was burned and the Panama Railway protected

by American marines, the States enjoyed a large measure of

home rule. The insurgents who were defeated in that struggle

were Radicals and advanced Liberals. They were making a stand

against centralized government, and they were overthrown. When

the followers of Dr. Nuñez were victorious, they transformed

the constitutional system of the country. ... Dr. Nuñez, who

had entered public life as a Radical agitator, swung

completely around the circle. As the leader of the National

party he became the ally of Clericalism, and the defender of

ecclesiastical privilege. Being a man of unrivalled capacity

for directing public affairs and enforcing party discipline,

he has established a highly centralized military government

without incurring unpopularity by remaining constantly in

sight and openly exercising authority. ... Strong government

has not been without its advantages; but the system can hardly

be considered either republican or democratic. ... Of all the

travesties of popular government which have been witnessed in

Spanish America, the political play enacted in Bogotá and

Cartagena is the most grotesque. Dr. Nuñez is known as the

titular President of the Republic. His practice is to go to

the capital at the beginning of the presidential term, and

when he has taken the oath of office to remain there a few

weeks until all matters of policy and discipline are arranged

among his followers. He then retires to his country-seat in

Cartagena, leaving the vice-President to bear the burdens of

state."

I. N. Ford, Tropical America, chapter 12.

COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1892.

Re-election of President Nuñez.

In 1892, Dr. Rafael Nuñez was elected President for a fourth

term, the term of office being six years.

Statesman's Year-book, 1893.

----------COLOMBIAN STATES: End----------

COLONI.

See DEDITITIUS.

COLONIA AGRIPPINENSIS.

Agrippina, the daughter of Germanicus and the mother of Nero,

founded on the Rhine the Colonia Agrippinensis (modern

Cologne)--probably the only colony of Roman veterans ever

established under female auspices. The site had been

previously occupied by a village of the Ubii. "It is curious

that this abnormal colony has, alone, of all its kindred

foundations, retained to the present day the name of Colonia."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 50.

COLONIA, URUGUAY.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

COLONIZATION SOCIETY, The American.

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

COLONNA, The.

See Roman: 13TH-14TH CENTURIES,

and A. D. 1347-1354;

also PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348.

COLONUS, The.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: GERMANY.

COLORADO: A. D. 1803-1848.

Acquisition of the eastern part in the Louisiana Purchase and

the western part from Mexico.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803; and MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

COLORADO: A. D. 1806-1876.

Early explorations.

Gold discoveries.

Territorial and state organization.

The first American explorer to penetrate to the mountains of

Colorado was Lieutenant Zebulon Pike, sent out with a small

party by General Wilkinson, in 1806. He approached within 15

miles of the Rocky Mountain Peak which bears his name. A more

extensive official exploration of the country was made in 1819

by Major Stephen H. Long, whose report upon the whole region

drained by the Missouri, Arkansas and Platte rivers and their

tributaries was unfavorable and discouraging. Fremont's

explorations, which touched Colorado, were made in 1843-44.

"The only persons encountered in the Rocky mountains by

Frémont at this time were the few remaining traders and their

former employees, now their colonists, who lived with their

Mexican and Indian wives and half-breed children in a

primitive manner of life, usually under the protection of some

defensive structure called a fort.

{489}

The first American families in Colorado were a part of the

Mormon battalion of 1846, who, with their wives and children,

resided at Pueblo from September to the spring and summer of

the following year, when they joined the Mormon emigration to

Salt Lake. ... Measures were taken early in March, 1847, to

select locations for two United States forts between the

Missouri and the Rocky mountains, the sites selected being

those now occupied by Kearney City and Fort Laramie. ... Up to

1853 Colorado's scant population still lived in or near some

defensive establishment, and had been decreasing rather than

increasing for the past decade, owing to the hostility of the

Indians." In 1858 the first organized searching or prospecting

for gold in the region was begun by a party of Cherokee

Indians and whites. Other parties soon followed; the search

succeeded; and the Pike's Peak mining region was speedily

swarming with eager adventurers. In the fall of 1858 two rival

towns were laid out on the opposite sides of Cherry Creek.

They were named respectively Auraria and Denver. The struggle

for existence between them was bitter, but brief. Auraria

succumbed and Denver survived, to become the metropolis of the

Mountains. The first attempt at political organization was

made at the Auraria settlement, in November, 1858, and took

the form of a provisional territorial organization, under the

name of the Territory of Jefferson; but the provisional

government did not succeed in establishing its authority,

opposed as it was by conflicting claims to territorial

jurisdiction on the part of Utah, New Mexico, Kansas,

Nebraska, and Dakota. At length, on the 28th of February,

1861, an act of Congress became law, by which the proposed new

territory was duly created, but not bearing the name of

Jefferson. "The name of Colorado was given to it at the

suggestion of the man selected for its first governor. ...

'Some,' says Gilpin, 'wanted it called Jefferson, some

Arcadia. ... I said the people have to a great extent named

the States after the great rivers of the country ... and the

great feature of that country is the great Colorado river.'"

Remaining in the territorial condition until July 1876,

Colorado was then admitted to the Union as a state.

H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,

volume 20: Colorado, chapter 2-6.

----------COLORADO: End----------

COLOSSEUM, OR COLISEUM, The.

"The Flavian Amphitheatre, or Colosseum, was built by

Vespasian and Titus in the lowest part of the valley between

the Cælean and Esquiline Hills, which was then occupied by a

large artificial pool for naval fights ('Naumachia'). ... The

exact date of the commencement of the Colosseum is doubtful,

but it was opened for use in A. D. 80. ... As built by the

Flavian Emperors the upper galleries ('mœniani') were of wood,

and these, as in the case of the Circus Maximus, at many times

caught fire from lightning and other causes, and did much

damage to the stone-work of the building."

J. H. Middleton, Ancient Rome in 1885, chapter 10.

ALSO IN:

J. H. Parker. Archaeology of Rome, part 7.

R Burn, Rome and the Campagna, chapter 9, part 2.

See, also, ROME: A. D. 70-96.

COLOSSUS OF RHODES.

See RHODES.

COLUMBAN CHURCH, The.

The church, or the organization of Christianity, in Scotland,

which resulted from the labors of the Irish missionary,

Columba, in the sixth century, and which spread from the great

monastery that he founded on the little island of Iona, or Ia,

or Hii, near the greater island of Mull. The church of

Columba, "not only for a time embraced within its fold the

whole of Scotland north of the Firths of Forth and Clyde, and

was for a century and a half the national church of Scotland,

but was destined to give to the Angles of Northumbria the same

form of Christianity for a period of thirty years." It

represented some differences from the Roman church which two

centuries of isolation had produced in the Irish church, from

which it sprang.

W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, book 2, chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

Count de Montalembert,

The Monks of the West, book 9 (volume 3).

G. F. Maclear, Conversion of the West: The Celts,

chapter 7-10.

See CHRISTIANITY: 5TH-9TH CENTURIES, and 597-800.

COLUMBIA, The District of.

See WASHINGTON (CITY): A. D. 1791.

COLUMBIA, The District of: A. D. 1850.

Abolition of slave-trade in.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

COLUMBIA, The District of: A. D. 1867.

Extension of suffrage to the Negroes.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1867 (JANUARY).

----------COLUMBIA, The District of: End----------

COLUMBIA, S. C., The burning of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865

(FEBRUARY-MARCH: THE CAROLINAS).

COLUMBIA, Tennessee., Engagement at.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (NOVEMBER: TENNESSEE).

COLUMBIAN EXPOSITION, The World's.

See CHICAGO: A. D. 1892-1893.

also  C. D. Arnold, Author H. D. Higinbotham,

Official Views Of The World's Columbian Exposition,

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22847

COLUMBIAN ORDER, The.

See TAMMANY SOCIETY.

COLUMBUS, Voyages of.

See AMERICA: A. D.1484-1492; 1492; 1493-1496; 1498-1505.

COMANA.

Comana, an ancient city of Cappadocia, on the river Sarus

(Sihoon) was the seat of a priesthood, in the temple of Enyo,

or Bellona, so venerated, so wealthy and so powerful that the

chief priest of Comana counted among the great Asiatic

dignitaries in the time of Cæsar.

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Rep., 'volume 5, chapter 22.

COMANCHES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

SNOSHONEAN FAMILY, and KIOWAN FAMILY,

and APACHE GROUP.

COMANS, The.

See KIPCHAKS; PATCHINAKS; COSSACKS,

and HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

COMBAT, Judicial.

See WAGER OF BATTLE.

COMES LITTORIS SAXONICI.

See SAXON SHORE, COUNT OF.

COMES PALATII.

See PALATINE COUNTS.

COMITATUS.--COMITES.--GESITHS.--THEGNS.

Comitatus is the name given by Tacitus to a body of warlike

companions among the ancient Germans "who attached themselves

in the closest manner to the chieftain of their choice. They

were in many cases the sons of the nobles who were ambitious

of renown or of a perfect education in arms. The princeps

provided for them horses, arms, and such rough equipment as

they wanted. These and plentiful entertainment were accepted

instead of wages. In time of war the comites fought for their

chief, at once his defenders and the rivals of his prowess.

... In the times of forced and unwelcome rest they were

thoroughly idle; they cared neither for farming nor for

hunting, but spent the time in feasting and in sleep. ...

{490}

Like the Frank king, the Anglo-Saxon king seems to have

entered on the full possession of what had been the right of

the elective principes [to nominate and maintain a comitatus,

to which he could give territory and political power]: but the

very principle of the comitatus had undergone a change from

what it was in the time of Tacitus, when it reappears in our

historians, and it seems to have had in England a peculiar

development and a bearing of special importance on the

constitution. In Tacitus the comites are the personal

following of the princeps; they live in his house, are

maintained by his gifts, fight for him in the field. If there

is little difference between companions and servants, it is

because civilization has not yet introduced voluntary

helplessness. ... Now the king, the perpetual princeps and

representative of the race, conveys to his personal following

public dignity and importance. His gesiths and thegns are

among the great and wise men of the land. The right of having

such dependents is not restricted to him, but the gesith of

the ealdorman or bishop is simply a retainer, a pupil or a

ward: the free household servants of the ceorl are in a

certain sense his gesiths also. But the gesiths of the king

are his guard and private council; they may be endowed by him

from the folkland and admitted by him to the witenagemot. ...

The Danish huscarls of Canute are a late reproduction of what

the familia of the Northumbrian kings must have been in the

eighth century. ... The development of the comitatus into a

territorial nobility seems to be a feature peculiar to English

history. ... The Lombard gasind, and the Bavarian sindman were

originally the same thing as the Anglo-Saxon gesith. But they

sank into the general mass of vassalage as it grew up in the

ninth and tenth centuries. ... Closely connected with the

gesith is the thegn; so closely that it is scarcely possible

to see the difference except in the nature of the employment.

The thegn seems to be primarily the warrior gesith; in this

idea Alfred uses the word as translating the 'miles' of Bede.

He is probably the gesith who has a particular military duty

in his master's service: But he also appears as a landowner.

The ceorl who has acquired five hides of land, and a special

appointment in the king's hall, with other judicial rights,

becomes thegn-worthy. ... And from this point, the time of

Athelstan, the gesith is lost sight of, except very

occasionally; the more important members of the class having

become thegns, and the lesser sort sinking into the ranks of

mere servants to the king. The class of thegns now widens; on

the one hand the name is given to all who possess the proper

quantity of land, whether or no they stand in the old relation

to the king; on the other the remains of the old nobility

place themselves in the king's service. The name of thegn

covers the whole class which after the Conquest appears under

the name of knights, with the same qualification in land and

nearly the same obligations. It also carried so much of

nobility as is implied in hereditary privilege. The thegn-born

are contrasted with the ceorl-born; and are perhaps much the

same as the gesithcund. ... Under the name of thegn are

included however various grades of dignity. The class of

king's thegns is distinguished from that of the medial thegns,

and from a residuum that falls in rank below the latter. ...

The very name, like that of the gesith, has different senses

in different ages and kingdoms; but the original idea of

military service runs through all the meanings of thegn, as

that of personal association is traceable in all the

applications of gesith."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,

chapter 2, section 14 and chapter 6, section 63-65.

ALSO IN:

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders,

book 4, chapter 7.

See, also, COUNT AND DUKE.

COMITIA CENTURIATA.

"Under the original constitution of Rome, the patricians alone

... enjoyed political rights in the state, but at the same

time they were forced to bear the whole burden of political

duties. In these last were included, for example, the tilling

of the king's fields, the construction of public works and

buildings; ... citizens alone, also, were liable to service in

the army. ... The political burdens, especially those

connected with the army, grew heavier, naturally, as the power

of Rome increased, and it was seen to be an injustice that one

part of the people, and that, too, the smaller part, should

alone feel their weight. This led to the first important

modification of the Roman constitution, which was made even

before the close of the regal period. According to tradition,

its author was the king Servius Tullius, and its general

object was to make all men who held land in the state liable

to military service. It thus conferred no political rights on

the plebeians, but assigned to them their share of political

duties. ... According to tradition, all the freeholders in the

city between the ages of 17 and 60, with some exceptions, were

divided, without distinction as to birth, into five classes

('classis,' 'a summoning,' 'calo') for service in the infantry

according to the size of their estates. Those who were

excepted served as horsemen. These were selected from among

the very richest men in the state. ... Of the five classes of

infantry, the first contained the richest men. ... The members

of the first class were required to come to the battle array

in complete armor, while less was demanded of the other four.

Each class was subdivided into centuries or bodies of a

hundred men each, for convenience in arranging the army. There

were in all 193 centuries. ... This absolute number and this

apportionment were continued, as the population increased and

the distribution of wealth altered, until the name century

came to have a purely conventional meaning, even if it had any

other in the beginning. Henceforth a careful census was taken

every fourth year, and all freeholders were made subject to

the 'tributum.' The arrangement of the people thus described

was primarily made simply for military purposes. ...

Gradually, however, this organization came to have political

significance, until finally these men, got together for what

is the chief political duty in a primitive state, enjoyed what

political privileges there were. ... In the end, this

'exercitus' of Servius Tullius formed another popular

assembly, the Comitia Centuriata, which supplanted the comitia

curiata entirely, except in matters connected with the

religion of the family and very soon of purely formal

significance. This organization, therefore, became of the

highest civil importance, and was continued for civil purposes

long after the army was marshalled on quite another plan."

A. Tighe, Development of the Roman Const., chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 6, chapter 1

W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 4.

{491}

COMITIA CURIATA.

"In the beginning, any member of any one of the clans which

were included in the three original Roman tribes, was a Roman

citizen. So, too, were his children born in lawful wedlock,

and those who were adopted by him according to the forms of

law. Illegitimate children, on the other hand, were excluded

from the number of citizens. These earliest Romans called

themselves patricians (patricii, children of their fathers'),

for some reason about which we cannot be sure. Perhaps it was

in order to distinguish themselves from their illegitimate

kinsmen and from such other people as lived about, having no

pretense of blood connection with them, and who were,

therefore, incapable of contracting lawful marriages,

according to the patrician's view of this religious ceremony.

The patricians ... were grouped together in families, clans

and tribes, partly on the basis of blood relationship, but

chiefly on the basis of common religious worship. Besides

these groups, there was still another in the state, the curia,

or 'ward,' which stood between the clan and the tribe. In the

earliest times, tradition said, ten families formed a clan,

ten clans a curia and ten curiæ a tribe. These numbers, if

they ever had any historical existence, could not have

sustained themselves for any length of time in the case of the

clans and families, for such organisms of necessity would

increase and decrease quite irregularly. About the nature of

the curia we have practically no direct information. The

organization had become a mere name at an early period in the

city's history. Whether the members of a curia thought of

themselves as having closer kinship with one another than with

members of other curiæ is not clear. We know, however, that

the curiæ were definite political sub-divisions of the city,

perhaps like modern wards, and that each curia had a common

religious worship for its members' participation. Thus much,

at any rate, is significant, because it has to do with the

form of Rome's primitive popular assembly. When the king

wanted to harangue the people ('populus,' cf. 'populor,' 'to

devastate') he called them to a 'contio' (compounded of 'co'

and 'venio'). But if he wanted to propose to them action which

implied a change in the organic law of the state, he summoned

them to a comitia (compounded of 'con' and 'eo'). To this the

name comitia curiata was given, because its members voted by

curiæ. Each curia had one vote, the character of which was

determined by a majority of its members, and a majority of the

curiæ decided the matter for the comitia."

A. Tighe, Development of the Roman Const., chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 1, chapter 5.

F. De Coulanges, The Ancient City,

book 3, ch.. 1, and book 4 chapter 1.

See, also, COMITIA CENTURIATA, and CONTIONES.

COMITIA TRIBUTA, The.

See ROME: B. C. 472-471.

COMMAGENE, Kingdom of.

A district of northern Syria, between Cilicia and the

Euphrates, which acquired independence during the disorders

which broke up the empire of the Seleucidæ, and was a separate

kingdom during the last century B. C. It was afterwards made a

Roman province. Its capital was Samosata.

COMMENDATION.

See BENEFICIUM

COMMERCIUM.

See MUNICIPIUM.

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC SAFETY,

The French Revolutionary.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-JUNE),

and (JUNE-OCTOBER).

COMMITTEE ON THE CONDUCT OF THE WAR, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861-1862 (DECEMBER-MATCH: VIRGINIA).

COMMODUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 180-192.

COMMON LAW, English.

"The municipal law of England, or the rule of civil conduct

prescribed to the inhabitants of this kingdom, may with

sufficient propriety be divided into two kinds; the 'lex non

scripta,' the unwritten or common law; and the 'lex scripta,'

the written or statute law. The 'lex non scripta,' or

unwritten law, includes not only general customs, or the

common law properly so called, but also the particular customs

of certain parts of the kingdom; and likewise those particular

laws that are by custom observed only in certain courts and

jurisdictions. When I call these parts of our law 'leges non

scriptre,' I would not be understood as if all those laws were

at present merely oral, or communicated from the former ages

to the present solely by word of mouth. ... But, with us at

present, the monuments and evidences of our legal customs are

contained in the records of the several courts of justice, in

books of reports and judicial decisions, and in the treatises

of learned sages of the profession, preserved and handed down

to us from the times of highest antiquity. However, I

therefore style these parts of our law 'leges non scriptre,'

because their original institution and authority are not set

down in writing, as Acts of Parliament are, but they receive

their binding power, and the force of laws, by long and

immemorial usage, and by their universal reception throughout

the kingdom."

Sir W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England.

introduction, section 3.

ALSO IN:

H. S. Maine, Ancient Law, chapter 1.

J. N. Pomeroy, Introduction to Municipal Law,

sections. 37-42.

COMMON LOT, OR COMMON LIFE, Brethren of the.

See BRETHREN OF THE COMMON LOT.

"COMMON SENSE" (Paine's Pamphlet),

The influence of.

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

COMMONS, The.

See ESTATES, THE THREE.

COMMONS, House of.

See PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH,

and KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE.

COMMONWEALTH OF ENGLAND, Establishment of the.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).

COMMUNE, The.

The commonalty; the commons. In feudal usage, the term

signified, as defined by Littré, the body of the bourgeois or

burghers of a town who had received a charter which gave them

rights of self-government. "In France the communal

constitution was during this period (12th century) encouraged,

although not very heartily, by Lewis VI., who saw in it one

means of fettering the action of the barons and bishops and

securing to himself the support of a strong portion of his

people. In some cases the commune of France is, like the

guild, a voluntary association, but its objects are from the

first more distinctly political. In some parts of the kingdom

the towns had risen against their lords in the latter half of

the eleventh century, and had retained the fruits of their

hard-won victories.

{492}

In others, they possessed, in the

remaining fragments of the Karolingian constitution, some

organisation that formed a basis for new liberties. The great

number of charters granted in the twelfth century shows that

the policy of encouraging the third estate was in full sway in

the royal councils, and the king by ready recognition of the

popular rights gained the affections of the people to an

extent which has few parallels in French history. The French

charters are in both style and substance very different from

the English. The liberties which are bestowed are for the most

part the same, exemption from arbitrary taxation, the right to

local jurisdiction, the privilege of enfranchising the villein

who has been for a year and a day received within the walls,

and the power of electing the officers. But whilst all the

English charters contain a confirmation of free and good

customs, the French are filled with an enumeration of bad

ones. ... The English have an ancient local constitution the

members of which are the recipients of the new grant, and

guilds of at least sufficient antiquity to render their

confirmation typical of the freedom now guaranteed; French

communia is a new body which, by the action of a sworn

confederacy, has wrung from its oppressors a deliverance from

hereditary bondage. ... The commune lacks too the ancient

element of festive religious or mercantile association which

is so conspicuous in the history of the guild. The idea of the

latter is English, that of the former is French or Gallic. Yet

notwithstanding these differences, the substantial identity of

the privileges secured by these charters seems to prove the

existence of much international sympathy. The ancient

liberties of the English were not unintelligible to the

townsmen of Normandy; the rising freedom of the German cities

roused a corresponding ambition in the towns of Flanders; and

the struggles of the Italian municipalities awoke the energies

of the cities of Provence. All took different ways to win the

same liberties. ... The German Hansa may have been derived

from England; the communa of London was certainly derived from

France. ... The communa of London, and of those other English

towns which in the twelfth century aimed at such a

constitution, was the old English guild in a new French garb:

it was the ancient association, but directed to the attainment

of municipal rather than mercantile privileges."

William Stubbs, Constitutional  History of England,

chapter 11.

"Oppression and insurrection were not the sole origin of the

communes. ... Two causes, quite distinct from feudal

oppression, viz., Roman traditions and Christian sentiments,

had their share in the formation of the communes and in the

beneficial results thereof. The Roman municipal regimen, which

is described in M. Guizot's 'Essais sur l'Histoire de France'

(1st Essay, pages 1-44), [also in 'History of Civilization,' volume

2, lecture 2] did not every where perish with the Empire; it

kept its footing in a great number of towns, especially in

those of Southern Gaul."

F. P. Guizot, Popular History of France, chapter 19.

ALSO IN:

Sir J. Stephen, Lectures on the History of France, lecture 5.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1070-1125;

also, CURIA, MUNICIPAL,

and GUILDS OF FLANDERS.

COMMUNE, The Flemish.

See GUILDS OF FLANDERS.

COMMUNE OF PARIS,

The Revolutionary, of 1792.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (AUGUST).

The rebellion of the.

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

----------COMMUNE OF PARIS: End----------

COMMUNE, The Russian.

See MIR.

COMMUNE, The Swiss.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

COMMUNEROS, The.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

COMNENIAN DYNASTY.

The dynasty of Byzantine emperors founded, A. D. 1081, by

Alexius Comnenos, and consisting of Alexius I., John II.,

Manuel 1., Alexius II., and Andronicus I., who was murdered A.

D. 1185.

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1081.

COMPAGNACCI, The.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

COMPASS, Introduction of the Mariner's.

"It is perhaps impossible to ascertain the epoch when the

polarity of the magnet was first known in Europe. The common

opinion which ascribes its discovery to a citizen of Amalfi in

the 14th century, is undoubtedly erroneous. Guiot de Provins,

a French poet who lived about the year 1200, or, at the

latest, under St. Louis, describes it in the most unequivocal

language. James de Vitry, a bishop in Palestine, before the

middle of the 13th century, and Guido Guinizzelli, an Italian

poet of the same time, are equally explicit. The French, as

well as Italians, claim the discovery as their own; but

whether it were due to either of these nations, or rather

learned from their intercourse with the Saracens, is not

easily to be ascertained. ... It is a singular circumstance,

and only to be explained by the obstinacy with which men are

apt to reject improvements, that the magnetic needle was not

generally adopted in navigation till very long after the

discovery of its properties, and even after their peculiar

importance had been perceived. The writers of the 13th

century, who mention the polarity of the needle, mention also

its use in navigation; yet Capmany has found no distinct proof

of its employment till 1403, and does not believe that it was

frequently on board Mediterranean ships at the latter part of

the preceding age."

H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 9, part 2, with note.

"Both Chaucer, the English, and Barbour, the Scottish, poet,

allude familiarly to the compass in the latter part of the

14th century."

G. L. Craik, History of British Commerce, volume 1, page 138.

"We have no certain information of the directive tendency of

the natural magnet being known earlier than the middle or end

of the 11th century (in Europe, of course). ... That it was

known at this date and its practical value recognized, is

shown by a passage from an Icelandic historian, quoted by

Hanstien in his treatise of Terrestrial Magnetism. In this

extract an expedition from Norway to Iceland in the year 868

is described; and it is stated that three ravens were taken as

guides, for, adds the historian, 'in those times seamen had no

loadstone in the northern countries.' This history was written

about the year A. D. 1068, and the allusion I have quoted

obviously shows that the author was aware of natural magnets

having been employed as a compass. At the same time it fixes a

limit of the discovery in northern countries. We find no

mention of artificial magnets being so employed till about a

century later."

Sir W. Thompson, quoted by R. F. Burton in Ultima Thule,

volume 1, page 312.

{493}

COMPIEGNE: Capture of the Maid of Orleans (1430).

See FRANCE. A. D. 1429-1431.

COMPOUND HOUSEHOLDER, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

COMPROMISE, The Crittenden.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER).

COMPROMISE, The Flemish, of 1565.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566.

COMPROMISE, The Missouri.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

COMPROMISE MEASURES OF 1850, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.

COMPROMISE TARIFF OF 1833, The.

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

COMPURGATION.

Among the Teutonic and other peoples, in early times, one

accused of a crime might clear himself by his own oath,

supported by the oaths of certain compurgators, who bore

witness to his trustworthiness.

See WAGER OF LAW.

COMSTOCK LODE, Discovery of the.

See NEVADA: A. D. 1848-1864.

COMUM, Battle of (B. C. 196).

See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

CONCIONES, The Roman.

See CONTIONES, THE.

CONCON, Battle of (1891).

See CHILE: A. D. 1885-1891.

CONCORD.

Beginning of the War of the American Revolution.

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

CONCORDAT OF BOLOGNA, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1515-1518.

CONCORDAT OF NAPOLEON, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1804.

CONCORDAT OF 1813, The.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1808-1814.

CONDÉ, The first Prince Louis de, and the French wars of religion.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563, and 1563-1570.

CONDÉ, The Second Prince Louis de (called The Great).

Campaigns in the Thirty Years War, and the war with Spain.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643; 1643;

GERMANY: A. D. 1640-1645; 1643-1644.

In the wars of the Fronde.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1647-1648; 1649; 1650-1651; 1651-1653.

Campaigns against France in the service of Spain.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656, and 1655-1658.

Last campaigns.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1672-1674 and 1674-1678.

CONDÉ, The House of.

See BOURBON, THE HOUSE OF,

CONDÉ: A. D. 1793.-Siege and capture by the Austrians.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER).

CONDÉ: A. D. 1794.

Recovery by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

----------CONDÉ: End----------

CONDORE, OR KONDUR, Battle of (1758).

See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.

CONDOTTIERE.

In the general meaning of the word, a conductor or leader;

applied specially, in Italian history, to the professional

military leaders of the 13th and 14th centuries, who made a

business of war very much as a modern contractor makes a

business of railroad construction, and who were open to

engagement, with the troops at their command, by any prince,

or any free city whose offers were satisfactory.

CONDRUSI, The.

See BELGÆ.

CONESTOGAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SUSQUEHANNAS.

CONFEDERACY OF DELOS, OR THE DELIAN.

See GREECE: B. C. 478-477,

and ATHENS: B. C. 466-454, and after.

CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA.

Constitution and organization of the government.

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

CONFEDERATION, Articles of (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1781.

CONFEDERATION, Australian.

See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1885-1892.

CONFEDERATION, The Germanic,

of 1814.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.

Of 1870.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1870 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER).

CONFEDERATION, The North German.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1866.

CONFEDERATION, The Swiss.

See SWITZERLAND.

CONFEDERATION OF THE BRITISH AMERICAN PROVINCES.

See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

CONFEDERATION OF THE RHINE, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806; 1806 (JANUARY-AUGUST);

and 1813 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER);

also, FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

CONFESSION OF AUGSBURG.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.

CONFLANS, Treaty of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1461-1468.

CONFUCIANISM.

See CHINA: THE RELIGIONS.

CONGO FREE STATE, The Founding of the.

"Since Leopold II.'s accession to the throne [of Belgium], his

great object has been to secure colonial possessions to

Belgium for her excess of population and production. To this

end he founded, in October, 1876, with the aid of eminent

African explorers, the International African Association. Its

object was to form committees in several countries, with a

view to the collection of funds, and to the establishment of a

chain of stations across Africa, passing by Lake Tanganyika,

to assist future explorers. Accordingly committees were

formed, whose presidents were as follows: in England, the

Prince of Wales; in Germany the Crown Prince; in Italy the

King's brother; in France, M. de Lesseps; and in Belgium, King

Leopold. Sums of money were subscribed, and stations were

opened from Bagomoyo (just south of Zanzibar) to Lake

Tanganyika; but when toward the close of 1877, Stanley

reappeared on the Atlantic coast and revealed the immense

length of the marvelous Congo River, King Leopold at once

turned his attention in that direction. That he might not put

himself forward prematurely, he acted under cover of an

association and a committee of exploration, which were in

reality formed and entirely supported by the King's energy and

by the large sums of money that he lavished upon them. Through

this association King Leopold maintained Stanley for five

years on the Congo. During this time a road was made from the

coast to Stanley Pool, where the navigable portion of the

Upper Congo commences; and thus was formed the basis of the

future empire. During this period Stanley signed no less than

four thousand treaties or concessions of territory, on which

upward of two thousand chiefs had placed their marks in sign

of adhesion.

{494}

At a cost of many months of transportation, necessitating the

employment of thousands of porters, light steamers were placed

on the upper river which was explored as far as Stanley Falls.

Its numerous tributaries also were followed up as far as the

rapids that interrupt their courses. Many young Belgian

officers and other adventurous explorers established

themselves on the banks of the Congo and the adjoining river,

the Kouiliou, and founded a series of stations, each occupied

by one or two Europeans and by a few soldiers from Zanzibar.

In this way the country was insensibly taken possession of in

the most pacific manner, without a struggle and with no

bloodshed whatever; for the natives, who are of a very gentle

disposition, offered no resistance. The Senate of the United

States, which was called upon, in 1884, to give an opinion on

the rights of the African Association, made a careful

examination of the matter, and recognized the legality of the

claims and title deeds submitted to them. A little later, in

order to mark the formation of a state, the Congo Association

adopted as its flag a gold star on a blue ground. A French

lawyer. M. Deloume, in a very well-written pamphlet entitled

'Le Droit des Gens dans l'Afrique Equatoriale,' has proved

that this proceeding was not only legitimate, but necessary.

The embryo state, however, lacked one essential thing, namely,

recognition by the civilized powers. It existed only as a

private association, or, as a hostile publicist expressed it,

as 'a state in shares, indulging in pretensions of

sovereignty.' Great difficulties stood in the way of realizing

this essential condition. Disputes, on the one hand with

France and on the other with Portugal, appeared inevitable.

... King Leopold did not lose heart. In 1882 he obtained from

the French government an assurance that, while maintaining its

rights to the north of Stanley Pool, it would give support to

the International Association of the Congo. With Portugal it

seemed very difficult to come to an understanding. ... Prince

Bismarck took part in the matter, and in the German Parliament

praised highly the work of the African Association. In April,

1884, he proposed to France to come to an understanding, and

to settle all difficulties by general agreement. From this

proposition sprang the famous Berlin conference, the

remarkable decisions of which we shall mention later. At the

same time, before the conference opened, Germany signed an

agreement with the International Association of the Congo, in

which she agreed to recognize its flag as that of a state, in

exchange for an assurance that her trade should be free, and

that German subjects should enjoy all the privileges of the

most favored nations. Similar agreements were entered upon

with nearly all the other countries of the globe. The

delegates of the Association were accepted at the conference

on the same footing as those of the different states that were

represented there, and on February 26, the day on which the

act was signed, Bismarck expressed himself as follows: 'The

new State of the Congo is destined to be one of the chief

safe-guards of the work we have in view, and I sincerely trust

that its development will fulfill the noble aspirations of its

august founder.' Thus the Congo International Association,

hitherto only a private enterprise, seemed now to be

recognized as a sovereign state, without having, however, as

yet assumed the title. But where were the limits of its

territory. ... Thanks to the interference of France, after

prolonged negotiations an understanding was arrived at on

February 15, 1885, by which both parties were satisfied. They

agreed that Portugal should take possession of the southern

bank of the Congo, up to its junction with the little stream

Uango, above Nokki, and also of the district of Kabinda

forming a wedge that extends into the French territory on the

Atlantic Ocean. The International Congo Association--for such

was still its title--was to have access to the sea by a strip

of land extending from Manyanga (west of Leopoldville) to the

ocean, north of Banana, and comprising in addition to this

port, Boma and the important station of Vivi. These treaties

granted the association 931,285 square miles of territory,

that is to say, a domain eighty times the size of Belgium,

with more than 7,500 miles of navigable rivers. The limits

fixed were, on the west, the Kuango, an important tributary of

the Congo; on the south, the sources of the Zambesi; on the

east, the Lakes Bangweolo, Moero, and Tanganyika, and a line

passing through Lake Albert Edward to the river Ouelle; on the

north, a line following the fourth degree of latitude to the

Mobangi River on the French frontier. The whole forms one

eleventh part of the African continent. The association became

transformed into a state in August 1885, when King Leopold,

with the authorization of the Belgian Chambers, notified the

powers that he should assume the title of Sovereign of the

Independent State of the Congo, the union of which with

Belgium was to be exclusively personal. The Congo is,

therefore, not a Belgian colony, but nevertheless the Belgian

Chambers have recently given valuable assistance to the King's

work; first, in taking, on July 26, 1889, 10,000,000 francs'

worth of shares in the railway which is to connect the seaport

of Matadi with the riverport of Leopoldville, on Stanley Pool,

and secondly by granting a loan of 25,000,000 francs to the

Independent State on August 4, 1890. The King, in a will laid

before Parliament, bequeaths all his African possessions to

the Belgian nation, authorizing the country to take possession

of them after a lapse of ten years."

E. de Laveleye, The Division of Africa

(The Forum, January, 1891).

ALSO IN:

H. M. Stanley, The Congo, and the Founding of its Free

State.

CONGREGATION OF THE ORATORY, The.

"Philip of Neri, a young Florentine of good birth (1515-1595;

canonised 1622) ... in 1548 instituted at Rome the Society of

the Holy Trinity, to minister to the wants of the pilgrims at

Rome. But the operations of his mission gradually extended

till they embraced the spiritual welfare of the Roman

population at large, and the reformation of the Roman clergy

in particular. No figure is more serene and more sympathetic

to us in the history of the Catholic reaction than that of

this latter-day 'apostle of Rome.' From his association, which

followed the rule of St. Augustine, sprang in 1575 the

Congregation of the Oratory at Rome, famous as the seminary of

much that is most admirable in the labours of the Catholic

clergy."

A. W. Ward, The Counter-Reformation, page 30.

{495}

"In the year 1766, there were above a hundred Congregations of

the Oratory of S. Philip in Europe and the East Indies; but

since the revolutions of the last seventy years many of these

have ceased to exist, while, on the contrary, within the last

twelve years two have been established in England."

Mrs. Hope, Life of S. Philip Neri, chapter 24.

ALSO IN:

H. L. S. Lear, Priestly Life in France, chapter 4.

CONGREGATIONALISM.

See INDEPENDENTS.

CONGRESS, Colonial, at Albany.

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

CONGRESS, Continental,

The First.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (SEPTEMBER),

and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER).

The Second.

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

CONGRESS, The First American.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

CONGRESS, The Pan-American.

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

CONGRESS, The Stamp Act.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765.

CONGRESS OF AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, The.

See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS AND TREATY.

CONGRESS OF BERLIN.

See TURKS: A. D. 1878.

CONGRESS OF PANAMA.

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1826.

CONGRESS OF PARIS.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856,

and DECLARATION OF PARIS.

CONGRESS OF RASTADT, The.

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

CONGRESS OF VERONA, The.

See VERONA, THE CONGRESS OF.

CONGRESS OF VIENNA.

See VIENNA, CONGRESS OF.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

"The Constitution created Congress and conferred upon it

powers of legislation for national purposes, but made no

provision as to the method by which these powers should be

exercised. In consequence Congress has itself developed a

method of transacting its business by means of committees. The

Federal Legislature consists of two Houses--the Senate, or

Upper and less numerous branch, and the House of

Representatives, or the Lower and more numerous popular

branch. The Senate is composed of two members from each State

elected by the State legislatures for a term of six years, one

third of whom retire every two years. The presiding officer is

the Vice-President. Early in each session the Senate chooses a

President pro tempore, so as to provide for any absence of the

Vice-President, whether caused by death, sickness, or for

other reasons. The House of Representatives is at present

[1891] composed of 332 members and four delegates from the

Territories. These delegates, however, have no vote, though

they may speak. The House is presided over by a Speaker,

elected at the beginning of each [Congress]. A quorum for

business is, in either House, a majority. Congress meets every

year in the beginning of December. Each Congress lasts two

years and holds two sessions--a long and a short session. The

long session lasts from December to midsummer [or until the

two Houses agree upon an adjournment]. The short session lasts

from December, when Congress meets again, until the 4th of

March. The term of office then expires for all the members of

the House and for one-third of the Senators. The long session

ends in even years (1880 and 1882, etc.), and the short

session in odd years (1881 and 1883). Extra sessions may be

called by the President for urgent business. In the early part

of the November preceding the end of the short session of

Congress occurs the election of Representatives. Congressmen

then elected do not take their seats until thirteen months

later, that is, at the reassembling of Congress in December of

the year following, unless an extra session is called. The

Senate frequently holds secret, or, as they are called,

executive sessions, for the consideration of treaties and

nominations of the President, in which the House of

Representatives has no voice. It is then said to sit with

closed doors. An immense amount of business must necessarily

be transacted by a Congress that legislates for nearly

63,000,000 of people. ... Lack of time, of course, prevents a

consideration of each bill separately by the whole

legislature. To provide a means by which each subject may

receive investigation and consideration, a plan is used by

which the members of both branches of Congress are divided

into committees. Each committee busies itself with a certain

class of business, and bills when introduced are referred to

this or that committee for consideration, according to the

subjects to which the bills relate. ... The Senate is now

divided between 50 and 60 committees, but the number varies

from session to session. ... The House of Representatives is

organized into 60 committees [appointed by the Speaker],

ranging, in their number of members, from thirteen down. ...

The Committee of Ways and Means, which regulates customs

duties and excise taxes, is by far the most important. ...

Congress ordinarily assembles at noon and remains in session

until 4 or 5 P. M., though towards the end of the term it

frequently remains in session until late in the night. ...

There is still one feature of Congressional government which

needs explanation, and that is the caucus. A caucus is the

meeting of the members of one party in private, for the

discussion of the attitude and line of policy which members of

that party are to take on questions which are expected to

arise in the legislative halls. Thus, in Senate caucus, is

decided who shall be members of the various committees. In

these meetings is frequently discussed whether or not the

whole party shall vote for or against this or that important

bill, and thus its fate is decided before it has even come up

for debate in Congress."

W. W. and W. F. Willoughby, Government and

Administration of the U. S. (Johns Hopkins University

Studies, series ix., numbers 1-2), chapter 9.

ALSO IN:

W. Wilson, Congressional Government, chapter 2-4.

J. Bryce, The American Commonwealth,

part 1, chapter 10-21 (volume l).

A. L. Dawes, How we are Governed, chapter 2.

The Federalist, numbers. 51-65.

J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitutional  of the

United States, book 3, chapters 8-31 (volumes 2-3).

CONI.

Sieges (1744 and 1799).

See ITALY: A. D. 1744;

and FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).

CONIBO, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

CONNAUGHT, Transplantation of the Irish people into.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1653.

{496}

CONNECTICUT: The River and the Name.

"The first discoveries made of this part of New England were

of its principal river and the fine meadows lying upon its

bank. Whether the Dutch at New Netherlands, or the people of

New Plymouth, were the first discoverers of the river is not

certain. Both the English and the Dutch claimed to be the

first discoverers, and both purchased and made a settlement of

the lands upon it nearly at the same time. ... From this fine

river, which the Indians call Quonehtacut, or Connecticut, (in

English the long river) the colony originally took its name."

B. Trumbull, History of Connecticut, chapter 2.

According to Dutch accounts, the river was entered by Adriaen

Block, ascended to latitude 41° 48', and named Fresh River, in

1614.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

CONNECTICUT: The Aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1631.

The grant to Lord Say and Sele, and others.

In 1631, the Earl of Warwick granted to Lord Say and Sele,

Lord Brooke, Sir Richard Saltonstall, and others, "the

territory between Narragansett River and southwest towards New

York for 120 miles and west to the Pacific Ocean, or,

according to the words of President Clap of Yale College,

'from Point Judith to New York, and from thence a west line to

the South Sea, and if we take Narragansett River in its whole

length the tract will extend as far north as Worcester. It

comprehends the whole of the colony of Connecticut and more.

This was called the old patent of Connecticut, and had been

granted the previous year, 1630, by the Council of Plymouth

[or Council for New England] to the Earl of Warwick. Yet

before the English had planted settlements in Connecticut the

Dutch had purchased of the Pequots land where Hartford now

stands and erected a small trading fort called 'The House of

Good Hope.'"

C. W. Bowen, Boundary Disputes of Connecticut, page 15.

In 1635, four years after the Connecticut grant, said to have

been derived originally from the Council for New England, in

1630, had been transferred by the Earl of Warwick to Lord Say

and Seal and others, the Council made an attempt, in

connivance with the English court, to nullify all its grants,

to regain possession of the territory of New England and to

parcel it out by lot among its own members. In this attempted

parcelling, which proved ineffectual, Connecticut fell to the

lot of the Earl of Carlisle, the Duke of Lennox, and the Duke

of Hamilton. Modern investigation seems to have found the

alleged grant from the Council of Plymouth, or Council for New

England, to the Earl of Warwick, in 1630, to be mythical. "No

one has ever seen it, or has heard of anyone who claims to

have seen it. It is not mentioned even in the grant from

Warwick to the Say and Sele patentees in 1631. ... The deed is

a mere quit-claim, which warrants nothing and does not even

assert title to the soil transferred. ... Why the Warwick

transaction took this peculiar shape, why Warwick transferred,

without showing title, a territory which the original owners

granted anew to other patentees in 1635, are questions which

are beyond conjecture."

A. Johnston, Connecticut, chapter 2.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.

The pioneer settlements.

"In October, 1634, some men of Plymouth, led by William

Holmes, sailed up the Connecticut river, and, after bandying

threats with a party of Dutch who had built a rude fort on the

site of Hartford, passed on and fortified themselves on the

site of Windsor. Next year Governor Van Twiller sent a company

of seventy men to drive away these intruders, but after

reconnoitering the situation the Dutchmen thought it best not

to make an attack. Their little stronghold at Hartford

remained unmolested by the English, and, in order to secure

the communication between this advanced outpost and New

Amsterdam, Van Twiller decided to build another fort at the

mouth of the river, but this time the English were beforehand.

Rumours of Dutch designs may have reached the ears of Lord Say

and Sele and Lord Brooke--'fanatic Brooke,' as Scott calls him

in 'Marmion'--who had obtained from the Council for New

England a grant of territory on the shores of the Sound. These

noblemen chose as their agent the younger John Winthrop, son

of the Massachusetts governor, and this new-comer arrived upon

the scene just in time to drive away Van Twiller's vessel and

build an English fort which in honour of his two patrons he

called 'Say-Brooke.' Had it not been for seeds of discontent

already sown in Massachusetts, the English hold upon the

Connecticut valley might perhaps have been for a few years

confined to these two military outposts at Windsor and

Saybrooke. But there were people in Massachusetts who did not

look with favour upon the aristocratic and theocratic features

of its polity. The provision that none but church-members

should vote or hold office was by no means unanimously

approved. ... Cotton declared that democracy was no fit

government either for church or for commonwealth, and the

majority of the ministers agreed with him. Chief among those

who did not was the learned and eloquent Thomas Hooker, pastor

of the church at Newtown. ... There were many in Newtown who

took Hooker's view of the matter; and there, as also in

Watertown and Dorchester, which in 1633 took the initiative in

framing town governments with selectmen, a strong disposition

was shown to evade the restrictions upon the suffrage. While

such things were talked about, in the summer of 1633, the

adventurous John Oldham was making his way through the forest

and over the mountains into the Connecticut valley, and when

he returned to the coast his glowing accounts set some people

to thinking. Two years afterward, a few pioneers from

Dorchester pushed through the wilderness as far as the

Plymouth men's fort at Windsor, while a party from Watertown

went farther and came to a halt upon the site of Wethersfield.

A larger party, bringing cattle and such goods as they could

carry, set out in the autumn and succeeded in reaching

Windsor. ... In the next June, 1636, the Newtown congregation,

a hundred or more in number, led by their sturdy pastor, and

bringing with them 160 head of cattle, made the pilgrimage to

the Connecticut valley. Women and children took part in this

pleasant summer journey; Mrs. Hooker, the pastor's wife, being

too ill to walk, was carried on a litter. Thus, in the

memorable year in which our great university was born, did

Cambridge become, in the true Greek sense of a much-abused

word, the metropolis or 'mother town' of Hartford. The

migration at once became strong in numbers.

{497}

During the past twelvemonth a score of ships had brought from

England to Massachusetts more than 3,000 souls, and so great

an accession made further movement easy. Hooker's pilgrims

were soon followed by the Dorchester and Watertown

congregations, and by the next May 800 people were living in

Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield. As we read of these

movements, not of individuals, but of organic communities,

united in allegiance to a church and its pastor, and fervid

with the instinct of self-government, we seem to see Greek

history renewed, but with centuries of added political

training. For one year a board of commissioners from

Massachusetts governed the new towns, but at the end of that

time the towns chose representatives and held a General Court

at Hartford, and thus the separate existence of Connecticut

was begun. As for Springfield, which was settled about the

same time by a party from Roxbury, it remained for some years

doubtful to which state it belonged."

J. Fiske, The Beginnings of New England., chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

J. G. Palfrey, History of New England, volume 1, chapter 11.

G. L. Walker, History of the First Church in Hartford,

chapter 4-5.

M. A. Green, Springfield, 1636-1886, chapter 1.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1636-1639.

The constitutional evolution.

"It must be noted that [the] Newtown, Watertown, and

Dorchester migrations had not been altogether a simple

transfer of individual settlers from one colony to another. In

each of these migrations a part of the people was left behind,

so that the Massachusetts towns did not cease to exist. And

yet each of them brought its Massachusetts magistrates, its

ministers (except Watertown), and all the political and

ecclesiastical machinery of the town; and at least one of them

(Dorchester) had hardly changed its structure since its

members first organized in 1630 at Dorchester in England. The

first settlement of Connecticut was thus the migration of

three distinct and individual town organizations out of the

jurisdiction of Massachusetts and into absolute freedom. It

was the Massachusetts town system set loose in the wilderness.

At first the three towns retained even their Massachusetts

names; and it was not until the eighth court meeting, February

21 1636 (7), that it was decided that the plantacon [c tilde]

nowe called Newtowne slalbe called & named by the name of

Harteforde Towne, likewise the plantacon [c tilde] nowe called

'Watertowne shalbe called & named Wythersfeild,' and the

plantacon [c tilde] called Dorchester shalbe called Windsor.'

On the same day the boundaries between the three towns were

'agreed' upon, and thus the germ of the future State was the

agreement and union of the three towns. Accordingly, the

subsequent court meeting at Hartford, May 1, 1637, for the

first time took the name of the 'Genrall Corte,' and was

composed, in addition to the town magistrates who had

previously held it, of 'comittees' of three from each town. So

simply and naturally did the migrated town system evolve, in

this binal assembly, the seminal principle of the Senate and

House of Representatives of the future State of Connecticut.

The Assembly further showed its consciousness of separate

existence by declaring 'an offensive warr ag' the Pequoitt,'

assigning the proportions of its miniature army and supplies

to each town, and appointing a commander. ... So complete are

the features of State-hood, that we may fairly assign May 1,

1637, as the proper birthday of Connecticut. No king, no

Congress, presided over the birth: its seed was in the towns.

January 14, 1638 (9), the little Commonwealth formed the first

American Constitution at Hartford. So far as its provisions

are concerned, the King, the Parliament, the Plymouth Council,

the Warwick grant, the Say and Sele grant, might as well have

been non-existent: not one of them is mentioned. ... This

constitution was not only the earliest but the longest in

continuance of American documents of the kind, unless we

except the Rhode Island charter. It was not essentially

altered by the charter of 1662, which was practically a royal

confirmation of it; and it was not until 1818 that the

charter, that is the constitution of 1639, was superseded by

the present constitution. Connecticut was as absolutely a

state in 1639 as in 1776."

A. Johnston, The Genesis of a New England State

(Johns Hopkins University Studies, number 11).

The following is the text of those "Fundamental Orders"

adopted by the people dwelling on Connecticut River, January

14, 1638 (9), which formed the first of written constitutions:

"FORASMUCH as it hath pleased the Allmighty God by the wise

disposition of his diuyne pruidence so to Order and dispose of

things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor,

Harteford and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in

and vppon the River of Conectecotte and the Lands thereunto

adioyueing; And well knowing where a people are gathered

togather the word of God requires that to mayntayne the peace

and vnion of such a people there should be an orderly and

decent Gouerment established according to God, to order and

dispose of the affayres of the people at all seasons as

occation shall require; doe therefore assotiate and conioyne

our selues to be as one Publike State or ComonweIth; and doe,

for our selues and our Successors and such as shall be

adioyned to vs att any tyme hereafter, enter into Combination

and Confederation togather, to mayntayne and prsearue the

liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus wch we now

prfesse, as also the disciplyne of the Churches, wch according

to the truth of the said gospell is now practised amongst vs;

As also in or Ciuell Affaires to be guided and gouerned

according to such Lawes, Rules, Orders and decrees as shall be

made, ordered & decreed, as followeth:--1. It is Ordered,

sentenced and decreed, that there shall be yerely two generall

Assemblies or Courts, the one the second thursday in Aprill,

the other the second thursday in September following; the

first shall be called the Courte of Election, wherein shall be

yerely Chosen fro tyme to tyme soe many Magestrats and other

publike Officers as shall be found requisitte: Whereof one to

be chosen Gouernour for the yeare ensueing and vntill another

be chosen, and noe other Magestrate to be chosen for more than

one yeare; pruided allwayes there be sixe chosen besids the

Gouernour; wch being chosen and sworne according to an Oath

recorded for that purpose shall haue power to administer

iustice according to the Lawes here established, and for want

thereof according to the rule of the word of God; wch choise

shall be made by all that are admitted freemen and haue taken

the Oath of Fidellity, and doe cohabitte wthin this

Jurisdiction, (hauing beene admitted Inhabitants by the maior

prt of the Towne wherein they liue,) or the mayor prte of such

as shall be then prsent.

{498}

2. It is Ordered, sentenced and decreed, that the Election of

the aforesaid Magestrats shall be on this manner: euery prson

prsent and quallified for choyse shall bring in (to the prsons

deputed to receaue the) one single papr wth the name of him

written in yt whom he desires to haue Gouernour, and he that

hath the greatest nuber of papers shall be Gouernor for that

yeare. And the rest of the Magestrats or publike Officers to

be chosen in this manner: The Secretary for the tyme being

shall first read the names of all that are to be put to choise

and then shall seuerally nominate them distinctly, and euery

one that would haue the prson nominated to be chosen shall

bring in one single paper written vppon, and he that would not

haue him chosen shall bring in a blanke: and euery one that

hath more written papers then blanks shall be a Magistrat for

that yeare; wth papers shall be receaued and told by one or

more that shall be then chosen by the court and sworne to be

faythfull therein: but in case there should not be sixe chosen

as aforesaid, besids the Gouernor, out of those wch are

nominated, then he or they wch haue the most written paprs

shall be a Magestrate or Magestrats for the ensueing yeare, to

make up the foresaid nuber. 3. It is Ordered, sentenced and

decreed, that the Secretary shall not nominate any prson, nor

shall any prson be chosen newly into the Magestraey wch was

not prpownded in some Generall Courte before, to be nominated

the next Election; and to that end yt shall be lawfull for ech

of the Townes aforesaid by their deputyes to nominate any two

who they conceaue fitte to be put to election; and the Courte

may ad so many more as they, iudge requisitt. 4. It is

Ordered, sentenced and decreed that noe prson be chosen

Gouernor aboue once in two yeares, and that the Gouernor be

always a meber of some approved congregation, and formerly of

the Magestracy wthin this Jurisdiction; and all the Magestrats

Freemen of this Comonwelth: and that no Magestrate or other

publike officer shall execute any prte of his or their Office

before they are seuerally sworne, wch shall be done in the

face of the Courte if they be prsent, and in case of absence

by some deputed for that purpose. 5. It is Ordered, senteneed

and decreed, that to the aforesaid Courte of Election the

seurall Townes shall send their deputyes, and when the

Elections are ended they may prceed in any publike searuice as

at other Courts. Also the other Generall Courte in Septemher

shall be for makeing of lawes, and any other publike occation,

wch conserns the good of the Comonwelth. 6. It is Ordered,

sentenced and decreed, that the Gournor shall, ether by

himselfe or by the secretary, send out sumons to the

Constables of eur Towne for the cauleing of these two standing

Courts, on month at lest before their seu'all tymes: And also

if the Gournor and the gretest prte of the Magestmts see cause

vppon any spetiall occation to call a generall Courte, they

may giue order to the secretary soe to doe wthin fowerteene

dayes warneing; and if vrgent necessity so require, vppon a

shorter notice, giueing sufficient grownds for yt to the

deputyes when they meete, or els be questioned for the same;

And if the Gournor and Mayor prte of Magestrats shall ether

neglect or refuse to call the two Generall standing Courts or

ether of the, as also at other tymes when the occutions of the

Comonwelth require, the Freemen thereof, or the Mayor prte of

them, shall petition to them soe to doe: if then yt be ether

denyed or neglected the said Freemen or the Mayor prte of them

shall haue power to giue order to the Constables of the

seuerall Townes to doe the same, and so may meete togather,

and chuse to themselues a Moderator, and may prceed to do any

Acte of power, wch any other Generall Courte may. 7. It is

Ordered, sentenced and decreed that after there are warrants

giuen out for any of the suid Generall Courts, the Constable

or Constables of ech Towne shall forthwth give notice

distinctly, to the inhabitants of the same, in some Pubhke

Assembly or by goeing or sending fro howse to howse, that at a

place and tyme by him or them lymited and sett, they meet and

assemble the selues togather to elect and chuse certen

deputyes to be att the Generall Courte then following to

agitate the afayres of the comonwelth; wch said Deputyes shall

be choseu by all that are admitted Inhabitants in the seurall

Townes and haue taken the oath of fidellity; pruided that non

be chosen a Deputy for any Generall Courte wch is not a

Freeman of this Comonwelth. The foresaid deputyes shall be

chosen in manner following; euery prson that is prsent and

quallified as before exprssed, shall bring thr names of such,

written in seurrall papers, as they desire to haue chosen for

that Imployment, and these 3 or 4, more or lesse, being the

nuber agreed on to be chosen for that tyme, that haue greatest

nuber of papers written for the shall be deputyes for that

Courte; whose names shall be endorsed on the backe side of the

warrant and returned into the Courte, wth the Constable or

Constables hand vnto the same. 8. It is Ordered, sentenced and

decreed, that Wyndsor, Hartford and Wethersfield shall haue

power, ech Towne, to send fower of their freemen as deputyes

to euery Generall Courte; and whatsoeuer other Townes shall be

hereafter added to this Jurisdiction, they shall send so many

deputyes as the Courte shall judge meete, a reasonable

prportion to the nuber of Freemen that are in the said Townes

being to be attended therein; wch deputyes shall have the

power of the whole Towne to giue their voats and alowance to

all such lawes and orders as may be for the publike good, and

unto wch the said Townes are to be bownd. 9. It is ordered and

decreed, that the deputyes thus chosen shall haue power and

liberty to appoynt a tyme and a place of meeting togather

before any Generall Courte to aduise and consult of all such

things as may concerne the good of the publike, as also to

examine their owne Elections, whether according to the order,

and if they or the gretest prte of them find any election to

be illegall they may seclud such for prsent fro their meeting,

and returne the same and their resons to the Courte; and if yt

proue true, the Courte may fyne the prty or prtyes so

intruding and the Towne, if they see cause, and giue out a

warrant to goe to a newe election in a legall way, either in

prte or in whole. Also the said deputyes shall haue power to

fyne any that shall be disorderly at their meetings, or for

not coming in due tyme or place according to appoyntment; and

they may returne the said fynes into the Courte if yt be

refused to be paid, and the tresurer to take notice of yt, and

to estreete or levy the same as he doth other fynes.

{499}

10. It is Ordered, sentenceJ and decreed, that euery Generall

Courte, except such as through neglecte of the Gou'nor and the

greatest prte of Magestrats the Freemen themselves doe call,

shall consist of the Gouernor, or some one chosen to moderate

the Court, and 4 other Magestruts at lest, wth the mayor prte

of the deputyes of the seuerall Townes legally chosen; and in

case the Freemen or mayor prte of the, through neglect or

refusall of the Gouernor and mayor prte of the magestrats,

shall call a Courte, yt shall consist of the mayor prte of

Freemen that are prsent or their deputyes, wty a Moderator

chosen by the: In wch said Generall Courts shall consist the

supreme power of the Comonwelth, and they only shall haue

power to make laws or repeale the, to graunt leuyes, to admitt

of Freemen, dispose of lands vndisposed of, to seuerall Townes

or prsons, and also shall haue power to call ether Courte or

Magestrate or any other prson whatsoeuer into question for any

misdemeanour, and may for just causes displace or deale

otherwise according to the nature of the offence; and also may

deale in any other matter that concerns the good of this comon

welth, excepte election of Magestrats, wch shall be done by

the whole boddy of Freemen. In wch Courte the Gouernour or

Moderator shall haue power to order the Courte to giue liberty

of spech, and silence vncensonable and disorderly speakeings,

to put all things to voate, and in case the voate be equall to

haue the casting voice. But non of these Courts shall be

adiorned or dissolued wthout the consent of the maior prte of

the Court. 11. It is ordered, sentenced and decreed, that when

any Gemerall Courte vppon the occations of the Comonwelth haue

agreed vppon any sume or somes of mony to be leuyed vppon the

seuerall Townes wthin this Jurisdiction, that a Comittee be

chosen to sett out and appoynt wt shall be the prportion of

euery Towne to pay of the said leuy, prvided the Comittees be

made vp of an equall nuber out of each Towne. 14th January,

1638, the 11 Orders abouesaid are voted."

Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, volume 1.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1637.

The Pequot War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1638.

The planting of New Haven Colony.

"In the height of the Hutchinson controversy [see

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636-1638], John Davenport, an eminent

nonconformist minister from London, had arrived at Boston, and

with him a wealthy company, led by two merchants, Theophilus

Eaton and Edward Hopkins. Alarmed at the new opinions and

religious agitations of which Massachusetts was the seat,

notwithstanding very advantageous offers of settlement there,

they preferred to establish a separate community of their own,

to be forever free from the innovations of error and

licentiousness. Eaton and others sent to explore the coast

west of the Connecticut, selected a place for settlement near

the head of a spacious bay at Quinapiack [or Quinnipiack], or,

as the Dutch called it, Red Hill, where they built a hut and

spent the winter. They were joined in the spring [April, 1638]

by the rest of their company, and Davenport preached his first

sermon under the shade of a spreading oak. Presently they

entered into what they called a 'plantation covenant,' and a

communication being opened with the Indians, who were but few

in that neighborhood, the lands of Quinapiack were purchased,

except a small reservation on the east side of the bay, the

Indians receiving a few presents and a promise of protection.

A tract north of the bay, ten miles in one direction and

thirteen in the other, was purchased for ten coats; and the

colonists proceeded to lay out in squares the ground-plan of a

spacious city, to which they presently gave the name of New

Haven."

R. Hildreth, History of the U. S., volume 1, chapter 9.

"They formed their political association by what they called a

'plantation covenant,' 'to distinguish it from a church

covenant, which could not at that time be made.' In this

compact they resolved, 'that, as in matters that concern the

gathering and ordering of a church, so likewise in all public

offices which concern civil order, as choice of magistrates

and officers, making and repealing of laws; dividing

allotments of inheritance, and all things of like nature,'

they would 'be ordered by the rules which the Scriptures hold

forth.' It had no external sanction, and comprehended no

acknowledgment of the government of England. The company

consisted mostly of Londoners, who at home had been engaged in

trade. In proportion to their numbers, they were the richest

of all the plantations. Like the settlers on Narragansett Bay,

they had no other title to their lands than that which they

obtained by purchase from the Indians."

J. G. Palfrey, History of New England, volume 1, chapter 13.

ALSO IN:

C. H. Levermore, The Republic of New Haven, chapter 1.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1639.

The Fundamental Agreement of New Haven.

"In June, 1639, the whole body of settlers [at Quinnipiack, or

New Haven] came together to frame a constitution. A tradition,

seemingly well founded, says that the meeting was held in a large

barn. According to the same account, the purpose for which

they had met and the principles on which they ought to proceed

were set forth by Davenport in a sermon. 'Wisdom hath builded

her house, she hath hewn out seven pillars,' was the text.

There is an obvious connection between this and the subsequent

choice of seven of the chief men to lay the foundation of the

constitution. ... Davenport set forth the general system on

which the constitution ought to be framed. The two main

principles which he laid down were, that Scripture is a

perfect and sufficient rule for the conduct of civil affairs,

and that church-membership must be a condition of citizenship.

In this the colonists were but imitating the example of

Massachusetts. ... After the sermon, five resolutions

[followed by a sixth, constituting together what was called

the 'fundamental agreement' of New Haven Colony], formally

introducing Davenport's proposals, were carried. If a church

already existed, it was not considered fit to form a basis for

the state. Accordingly a fresh one was framed by a curiously

complicated process. As a first step, twelve men were elected.

These twelve were instructed, after a due interval for

consideration, to choose seven out of their own number, who

should serve as a nucleus for the church. At the same time an

oath was taken by the settlers, which may be looked on as a

sort of preliminary and provisional test of citizenship,

pledging them to accept the principles laid down by Davenport.

Sixty-three of the inhabitants took the oath, and their

example was soon followed by fifty more. By October, four

months after the original meeting, the seven formally

established the new commonwealth. They granted the rights of a

freeman to all who joined them, and who were recognized

members either of the church at New Haven or of any other

approved church. The freemen thus chosen entered into an

agreement to the same effect as the oath already taken. They

then elected a Governor and four Magistrates, or, as they were

for the present called, a Magistrate and four Deputies. ...

The functions of the Governor and Magistrates were not

defined. Indeed, but one formal resolution was passed as to

the constitution of the colony, namely, 'that the Word of God

shall be the only rule attended unto in ordering the affairs

of government.'"

J. A. Doyle, The English in America: The Puritan Colonies,

volume 1, chapter 6.

{500}

"Of all the New England colonies, New Haven was most purely a

government by compact, by social contract. ... The free

planters ... signed each their names to their voluntary

compact, and ordered that 'all planters hereafter received in

this plantation should submit to the said foundamentall

agreement, and testifie the same by subscribing their names.'

It is believed that this is the sole instance of the formation

of an independent civil government by a general compact

wherein all the parties to the agreement were legally required

to be actual signers thereof. When this event occurred, John

Locke was in his seventh year, and Rousseau was a century

away."

C. H. Levermore, The Republic of New Haven, page 23.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1640-1655.

The attempted New Haven colonization on the Delaware.

Fresh quarrels with the Dutch.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1643.

The confederation of the colonies.

The progress and state of New Haven and the River Colony.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1643.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1650.

Settlement of boundaries with the Dutch of New Netherland.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1650.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1656-1661.

The persecution of Quakers.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1660-1663.

The beginning of boundary conflicts with Rhode Island.

See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1660-1663.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1660-1664.

The protection of the regicides at New Haven.

"Against the colony of New Haven the king had a special

grudge. Two of the regicide judges, who had sat in the

tribunal which condemned his father, escaped to New England in

1660 and were well received there. They were gentlemen of high

position. Edward Whalley was a cousin of Cromwell and Hampden.

... The other regicide, William Goffe, as a major-general in

Cromwell's army, had won such distinction that there were some

who pointed to him as the proper person to succeed the Lord

Protector on the death of the latter. He had married Whalley's

daughter. Soon after the arrival of these gentlemen, a royal

order for their arrest was sent to Boston. ... The king's

detectives hotly pursued them through the woodland paths of

New England, and they would soon have been taken but for the

aid they got from the people. Many are the stories of their

hairbreadth escapes. Sometimes they took refuge in a cave on a

mountain near New Haven, sometimes they hid in friendly

cellars; and once, being hard put to it, they skulked under a

wooden bridge, while their pursuers on horseback galloped by

overhead. After lurking about New Haven and Milford for two or

three years, on hearing of the expected arrival of Colonel

Nichols and his commission [the royal commission appointed to

take possession of the American grant lately made by the king

to his brother, the Duke of York], they sought a more secluded

hiding place near Hadley, a village lately settled far up the

Connecticut river, within the jurisdiction of Massachusetts.

Here the avengers lost the trail, the pursuit was abandoned,

and the weary regicides were presently forgotten. The people

of New Haven had been especially zealous in shielding the

fugitives. ... The colony, moreover, did not officially

recognize the restoration of Charles II. to the throne until

that event had been commonly known in New England for more

than a year. For these reasons, the wrath of the king was

specially roused against New Haven."

J. Fiske, The Beginnings of New England,

pages 192-194.

ALSO IN:

G. H. Hollister, History of Connecticut, volume 1, chapter 11.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1662-1664.

The Royal Charter and annexation of New Haven to the River Colony.

"The Restoration in England left the New Haven colony under a

cloud in the favor of the new government: it had been tardy

and ungracious in its proclamation of Charles II.; it had been

especially remiss in searching for the regicide colonels,

Goffe and Whalley; and any application for a charter would

have come from New Haven with a very ill grace. Connecticut

was under no such disabilities; and it had in its Governor,

John Winthrop [the younger, son of the first governor of

Massachusetts], a man well calculated to win favor with the

new King. ... In March, 1660, the General Court solemnly

declared its loyalty to Charles II., sent the Governor to

England to offer a loyal address to the King and ask him for a

charter, and laid aside £500 for his expenses. Winthrop was

successful, and the charter was granted April 20, 1662. The

acquisition of the charter raised the Connecticut leaders to

the seventh heaven of satisfaction. And well it might, for it

was a grant of privileges with hardly a limitation.

Practically the King had given Winthrop 'carte blanche,' and

allowed him to frame the charter to suit himself. It

incorporated the freemen of Connecticut as a 'body corporate

and pollitique,' by the name of 'The Governor and Company of

the English Collony of Conecticut in New England in America.'

... The people were to have all the liberties and immunities

of free and natural subjects of the King, as if born within

the realm. It granted to the Governor and Company all that

part of New England south of the Massachusetts line and west

of the 'Norroganatt River commonly called Norroganatt Bay' to

the South Sea, with the 'Islands thereunto adioyneinge.' ...

It is difficult to see more than two points in which it [the

charter] altered the constitution adopted by the towns in

1639. There were now to be two deputies from each town; and

the boundaries of the Commonwealth now embraced the rival

colony of New Haven. ... New Haven did not submit without a

struggle, for not only her pride of separate existence but the

supremacy of her ecclesiastical system was at stake. For three

years a succession of diplomatic notes passed between the

General Court of Connecticut and 'our honored friends of New

Haven, Milford, Branford, and Guilford.' ...

{501}

In October, 1664, the Connecticut General Court appointed the

New Haven magistrates commissioners for their towns, 'with

magistraticall powers,' established the New Haven local

officers in their places for the time, and declared oblivion

for any past resistance to the laws. In December, Milford

having already submitted, the remnant of the New Haven General

Court, representing New Haven, Guilford, and Branford, held

its last meeting and voted to submit, 'with a salvo jure of

our former rights and claims, as a people who have not yet

been heard in point of plea.' The next year the laws of New

Haven were laid aside forever, and her towns sent deputies to

the General Court at Hartford. ... In 1701 the General Court

... voted that its annual October session should thereafter be

held at New Haven. This provision of a double capital was

incorporated into the constitution of 1818, and continued

until in 1873 Hartford was made sole capital."

A. Johnston, The Genesis of a New England State,

pages 25-28.

ALSO IN:

B. Trumbull, History of Connecticut, volume 1, chapter 12.

Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, 1665-78.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1664.

Royal grant to the Duke of York, in conflict with the charter.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1666.

The New Haven migration to Newark, N. J.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1664-1667.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1674-1675.

Long Island and the western half of the colony granted to the

Duke of York.

In 1674, after the momentary recovery of New York by the

Dutch, and its re-surrender to the English, "the king issued a

new patent for the province, in which he not only included

Long Island, but the territory up to the Connecticut River,

which had been assigned to Connecticut by the royal

commissioners. The assignment of Long Island was regretted,

but not resisted; and the island which is the natural sea-wall

of Connecticut passed, by royal decree, to a province whose

only natural claim to it was that it barely touched it at one

corner. The revival of the duke's claim to a part of the

mainland was a different matter, and every preparation was

made for resistance. In July, 1675, just as King Philip's war

had broken out in Plymouth, hasty word was sent from the

authorities at Hartford to Captain Thomas Bull at Saybrook

that Governor Andros of New York was on his way through the

Sound for the purpose, as he avowed, of aiding the people

against the Indians. Of the two evils, Connecticut rather

preferred the Indians. Bull was instructed to inform Andros,

if he should call at Saybrook, that the colony had taken all

precautions against the Indians, and to direct him to the

actual scene of conflict, but not to permit the landing of any

armed soldiers. 'And you are to keep the king's colors

standing there, under his majesty's lieutenant, the governor

of Connecticut; and if any other colors be set up there, you

are not to suffer them to stand. ... But you are in his

majesty's name required to avoid striking the first blow; but

if they begin, then you are to defend yourselves, and do your

best to secure his majesty's interest and the peace of the

whole colony of Connecticut in our possession.' Andros came

and landed at Saybrook, but confined his proceedings to

reading the duke's patent against the protest of Bull and the

Connecticut representatives."

A. Johnston, Connecticut, chapter 12.

Report of Regents of the University on the Boundaries of

the State of New York, page 21.

ALSO IN:

C. W. Bowen, The Boundary Disputes of Connecticut,

pages 70-72.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1674-1678.

King Philip's War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.

The hostile king and the hidden charter.

Sir Edmund Andros in possession of the government.

"During the latter years of the reign of Charles II. the king

had become so reckless of his pledges and his faith that he

did not scruple to set the dangerous example of violating the

charters that had been granted by the crown. Owing to the

friendship that the king entertained for Winthrop, we have

seen that Connecticut was favored by him to a degree even

after the death of that great man. But no sooner had Charles

demised and the sceptre passed into the hands of his bigoted

brother, King James II., than Connecticut was called upon to

contend against her sovereign for liberties that had been

affirmed to her by the most solemn muniments known to the law

of England. The accession of James II. took place on the 6th

day of February 1685, and such was his haste to violate the

honor of the crown that, early in the summer of 1685, a quo

warranto was issued against the governor and company of

Connecticut, citing them to appear before the king, within

eight days of St. Martin's, to show by what right and tenor

they exercised certain powers and privileges." This was

quickly followed by two other writs, conveyed to Hartford by

Edward Randolph, the implacable enemy of the colonies. "The

day of appearance named in them was passed long before the

writs were served." Mr. Whiting was sent to England as the

agent of the colony, to exert such influences as might be

brought to bear against the plainly hostile and unscrupulous

intentions of the king; but his errand was fruitless. "On the

28th of December another writ of quo warranto was served upon

the governor and company of the colony. This writ bore date

the 23d of October, and required the defendants to appear

before the king' within eight days of the purification of the

Blessed Virgin.' ... Of course, the day named was not known to

the English law, and was therefore no day at all in legal

contemplation." Already, the other New England colonies had

been brought under a provisional general government, by

commissioners, of whom Joseph Dudley was named president.

President Dudley "addressed a letter to the governor and

council, advising them to resign the charter into the king's

hands. Should they do so, he undertook to use his influence in

behalf of the colony. They did not deem it advisable to comply

with the request. Indeed they had hardly time to do so before

the old commission was broken up, and a new one granted,

superseding Dudley and naming Sir Edmund Andros governor of

New England. Sir Edmund arrived in Boston on the 19th of

December, 1686, and the next day he published his commission

and took the government into his hands. Scarcely had he

established himself, when he sent a letter to the governor and

company of Connecticut, acquainting them with his appointment,

and informing them that he was commissioned by the king to

receive their charter if they would give it up to him."

G. H. Hollister, History of Connecticut,

volume 1, chapter 14.

{502}

On receipt of the communication from Andros, "the General

Court was at once convened, and by its direction a letter was

addressed to the English Secretary of State, earnestly

pleading for the preservation of the privileges that had been

granted to them. For the first time they admitted the

possibility that their petition might be denied, and in that

case requested to be united to Massachusetts. This was

construed by Sir Edmund as a virtual surrender; but as the

days went by he saw that he had mistaken the spirit and

purpose of the colony. Andros finally decided to go in person

to Connecticut. He arrived at Hartford the last day of

October, attended by a retinue of 60 officers and soldiers.

The Assembly, then in session, received him with every outward

mark of respect. After this formal exchange of courtesies, Sir

Edmund publicly demanded the charter, and declared the

colonial government dissolved. Tradition relates that Governor

Treat, in calm but earnest words, remonstrated against this

action. ... The debate was continued until the shadows of the

early autumnal evening had fallen. After candles were lighted,

the governor and his council seemed to yield; and the box

supposed to contain the charter was brought into the room, and

placed upon the table. Suddenly the lights were extinguished.

Quiet reigned in the room, and in the dense crowd outside the

building. The candles were soon relighted; but the charter had

disappeared, and after the most diligent search could not be

found. The common tradition has been, that it was taken under

cover of the darkness by Captain Joseph Wadsworth, and hidden

by him in the hollow trunk of a venerable and noble oak tree

standing near the entrance-gate of Governor Wyllys's mansion.

The charter taken by Captain Wadsworth was probably the

duplicate, and remained safely in his possession for several

years. There is reason to believe that, some time before the

coming of Andros to Hartford, the original charter had been

carefully secreted, and the tradition of later times makes it

probable that, while the duplicate charter that was taken from

the table was hidden elsewhere, the original charter found a

safe resting place in the heart of the tree that will always

be remembered as The Charter Oak. This tree is said to have

been preserved by the early settlers at the request of the

Indians. 'It has been the guide of our ancestors for

centuries,' they said, 'as to the time of planting our corn.

When the leaves are the size of a mouse's ears, then is the

time to put it in the ground.' The record of the Court briefly

states that Andros, having been conducted to the governor's

seat by the governor himself, declared that he had been

commissioned by his Majesty to take on him the government of

Connecticut. The commission having been read, he said that it

was his Majesty's pleasure to make the late governor and

Captain John Allyn members of his council. The secretary

handed their common seal to Sir Edmund, and afterwards wrote

these words inclosing the record: 'His Excellency, Sir Edmund

Andros, Knight, Captain-General and Governor of his Majesty's

Territory and Dominion in New England, by order from his

Majesty, King of England, Scotland and Ireland, the 31st of

October, 1687, took into his hands the government of this

colony of Connecticut, it being by his Majesty annexed to the

Massachusetts and other colonies under his Excellency's

government. Finis.' Andros soon disclosed a hand of steel

beneath the velvet glove of plausible words and fair

promises."

E. B. Sanford, History of Connecticut, chapter 16.

ALSO IN:

J. G. Palfrey, History of New England,

book 3, chapter 13 (volume 3).

See, also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686,

and MASSACHUSETTS: 1671-1686.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1689-1697.

King William's War.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1689-1690; and 1692-1697.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1689-1701.

The reinstatement of the charter government.

"April, 1689, came at last. The people of Boston, at the first

news of the English Revolution, clapped Andros into custody.

May 9, the old Connecticut authorities quietly resumed their

functions, and called the assembly together for the following

month. William and Mary were proclaimed with great fervor. Not

a word was said about the disappearance or reappearance of the

charter; but the charter government was put into full effect

again, as if Andros had never interrupted it. An address was

sent to the king, asking that the charter be no further

interfered with; but operations under it went on as before. No

decided action was taken by the home government for some

years, except that its appointment of the New York governor,

Fletcher, to the command of the Connecticut militia, implied a

decision that the Connecticut charter had been superseded.

Late in 1693, Fitz John Winthrop was sent to England as agent

to obtain a confirmation of the charter. He secured an

emphatic legal opinion from Attorney General Somers, backed by

those of Treby and Ward, that the charter was entirely valid,

Treby's concurrent opinion taking this shape: 'I am of the

same opinion, and, as this matter is stated, there is no

ground of doubt.' The basis of the opinion was that the

charter had been granted under the great seal; that it had not

been surrendered under the common seal of the colony, nor had

any judgment of record been entered against it; that its

operation had merely been interfered with by overpowering

force; that the charter therefore remained valid; and that the

peaceable submission of the colony to Andros was merely an

illegal suspension of lawful authority. In other words, the

passive attitude of the colonial government had disarmed

Andros so far as to stop the legal proceedings necessary to

forfeit the charter, and their prompt action, at the critical

moment, secured all that could be secured under the

circumstances. William was willing enough to retain all

possible fruit of James's tyranny, as he showed by enforcing

the forfeiture of the Massachusetts charter; but the law in

this case was too plain, and he ratified the lawyers' opinion

in April, 1694. The charter had escaped its enemies at last,

and its escape is a monument of one of the advantages of a

real democracy. ... Democracy had done more for Connecticut

than class influence had done for Massachusetts."

A. Johnston, Connecticut, chapter 12.

{503}

"The decisions which established the rights of Connecticut

included Rhode Island. These two commonwealths were the

portion of the British empire distinguished above all others

by the largest liberty. Each was a nearly perfect democracy

under the shelter of a monarchy. ... The crown, by reserving

to itself the right of appeal, had still a method of

interfering in the internal affairs of the two republics. Both

of them were included among the colonies in which the lords of

trade advised a complete restoration of the prerogatives of

the crown. Both were named in the bill which, in April, 1701,

was introduced into parliament for the abrogation of all

American charters. The journals of the house of lords relate

that Connecticut was publicly heard against the measure, and

contended that its liberties were held by contract in return

for services that had been performed; that the taking away of

so many charters would destroy all confidence in royal

promises, and would afford a precedent dangerous to all the

chartered corporations of England. Yet the bill was read a

second time, and its principle, as applied to colonies, was

advocated by the mercantile interest and by 'great men' in

England. The impending war with the French postponed the

purpose till the accession of the house of Hanover."

G. Bancroft, History of the U. S. (Author's

last revision), part 3, chapter 3 (volume 2).

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1690.

The first Colonial Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1702-1711.

Queen Anne's War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;

and CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1711-1713.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1744-1748.

King George's War and the taking of Louisbourg.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1753-1799.

Western territorial claims.

Settlements in the Wyoming Valley.

Conflicts with the Penn colonists.

See PENNSYLVANIA; A. D. 1753-1799.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1754.

The Colonial Congress at Albany, and Franklin's plan of union.

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

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1755-1760.

The French and Indian War, and conquest of Canada.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1750-1753; 1755; 1756;

1756-1757; 1758; 1759; 1760;

NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755; 1755;

Ohio (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754; 1754; 1755;

CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1760-1765.

The question of taxation by Parliament.

The Sugar Act.

The Stamp Act.

The Stamp Act Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1765.

The revolt against the Stamp Act.

"The English government understood very well that the colonies

were earnestly opposed to the Stamp Act, but they had no

thought of the storm of wrath and resistance which it would

arouse. It was a surprise to many of the leaders of public

affairs in America. ... Governor Fitch and Jared Ingersoll,

with other prominent citizens who had done all in their power

to oppose the scheme of taxation ... counselled submission.

They mistook the feeling of the people. ... The clergy were

still the leaders of public opinion, and they were united in

denunciation of the great wrong. Societies were organized

under the name of the Sons of Liberty, the secret purpose of

which was to resist the Stamp Act by violent measures if

necessary. ... Mr. Ingersoll, who had done all in his power to

oppose the bill, after its passage decided to accept the

position of stamp agent for Connecticut. Franklin urged him to

take the place, and no one doubted his motives in accepting

it. The people of Connecticut, however, were not pleased with

this action. ... He was visited by a crowd of citizens, who

inquired impatiently if he would resign." Ingersoll put them

off with evasive replies for some time; but finally there was

a gathering of a thousand men on horseback, from Norwich, New

London, Windham, Lebanon and other towns, each armed with a

heavy peeled club, who surrounded the obstinate stamp agent at

Wethersfield and made him understand that they were in deadly

earnest. "'The cause is not worth dying for,' said the

intrepid man, who would never have flinched had he not felt

that, after all, this band of earnest men were in the right. A

formal resignation was given him to sign. ... After he had

signed his name, the crowd cried out, 'Swear to it!' He begged

to be excused from taking an oath. 'Then shout Liberty and

Property,' said the now good-natured company. To this he had

no objection, and waved his hat enthusiastically as he

repeated the words. Having given three cheers, the now

hilarious party dined together." Ingersoll was then escorted

to Hartford, where he read his resignation publicly at the

court-house.

E. B. Sanford, History of Connecticut, chapter 29.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1766.

The repeal of the Stamp Act.

The Declaratory Act.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1766-1768.

The Townshend duties.

The Circular Letter of Massachusetts.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, and 1767-1768.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1768-1770.

The quartering of troops in Boston.

The "Massacre" and the removal of the troops.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1768, and 1770.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1769-1784.

The ending of slavery.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1769-1785.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1770-1773.

Repeal of the Townshend duties except on tea.

Committees of Correspondence instituted.

The tea ships and the Boston Tea-party.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770, and 1772-1773;

and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1774.

The Boston Port Bill.

The Massachusetts Act.

The Quebec Act.

The First Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1775.

The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.

Lexington.

Concord.

New England in arms and Boston beleaguered.

Ticonderoga.

Bunker Hill.

The Second Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1776.

Assumes to be a "free, sovereign and independent State."

"In May, 1776, the people had been formally released from

their allegiance to the crown; and in October the general

assembly passed an act assuming the functions of a State. The

important section of the act was the first, as follows: 'That

the ancient form of civil government, contained in the charter

from Charles the Second, King of England, and adopted by the

people of this State, shall be and remain the civil

Constitution of this State, under the sole authority of the

people thereof, independent of any king or prince whatever.

And that this Republic is, and shall forever be and remain, a

free, sovereign and independent State, by the name of the

State of Connecticut.' The form of the act speaks what was

doubtless always the belief of the people, that their charter

derived its validity, not from the will of the crown, but from

the assent of the people. And the curious language of the last

sentence, in which 'this Republic' declares itself to be 'a

free, sovereign, and independent State,' may serve to indicate

something of the appearance which state sovereignty doubtless

presented to the Americans of 1776-89."

A. Johnston, Connecticut, chapter 16.

See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

{504}

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1776-1783.

The war and the victory.

Independence achieved.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 to 1783.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1778.

The massacre at the Wyoming settlement.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JULY).

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1779.

Tryon's marauding expeditions.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1786.

Partial cession of western territorial claims to the United States.

The Western Reserve in Ohio.

See

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786;

PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1753-1799;

and OHIO: A. D. 1786-1796.

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1788.

Ratification of the Federal Constitution.

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

CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1814.

The Hartford Convention.

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

----------CONNECTICUT: End----------

CONNECTICUT TRACT, The.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

CONNUBIUM.

See MUNICIPIUM.

CONON, Pope, A. D. 686-687.

CONOYS.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

CONRAD I.,

King of the East Franks (Germany),

(the first of the Saxon line), A. D. 911-919.

Conrad II., King of the Romans (King of Germany), A. D. 1024-1039;

King of Italy, 1026-1039; King of Burgundy, 1032-1039;

Emperor, 1027-1039.

Conrad III., King of Germany (the first of the Swabian or

Hohenstauffen dynasty), 1137-1152.

Conrad IV., King of Germany, 1250-1254.

CONSCRIPT FATHERS.

The Roman senators were so called,--"Patres Conscripti." The

origin of the designation has been much discussed, and the

explanation which has found most acceptance is this: that

when, at the organization of the Republic, there was a new

creation of senators, to fill the ranks, the new senators were

called "conscripti" ("added to the roll") while the older ones

were called "patres" ("fathers"), as before. Then the whole

senate was addressed as "Patres et Conscripti," which lapsed

finally into "Patres-Conscripti."

H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 1, chapter 4.

CONSCRIPTION, The first French.

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

CONSCRIPTION IN THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (MARCH).

CONSERVATIVE PARTY, The English.

The name "Conservative," to replace that of Tory (see ENGLAND:

A. D. 1680 for the origin of the latter) as a party

designation, was first introduced in 1831, by Mr. John Wilson

Croker, in an article in the Quarterly Review. "It crept

slowly into general favour, although some few there were who

always held out against it, encouraged by the example of the

late leader of the party, Lord Beaconsfield, who was not at

all likely to extend a welcome to anything which came with Mr.

Croker's mark upon it."

L. J. Jennings, The Croker Papers, volume 2, page 198.

CONSILIO DI CREDENZA.

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

CONSISTORY, The Papal.

See CURIA, PAPAL.

CONSISTORY COURTS OF THE BISHOPS.

"The duties of the officials of these courts resembled in

theory the duties of the censors under the Roman Republic. In

the middle ages, a lofty effort had been made to overpass the

common limitations of government, to introduce punishment for

sins as well as crimes, and to visit with temporal penalties

the breach of the moral law. ... The administration of such a

discipline fell as a matter of course, to the clergy. ... Thus

arose throughout Europe a system of spiritual surveillance

over the habits and conduct of every man, extending from the

cottage to the castle, taking note of all wrong dealing, of

all oppression of man by man, of all licentiousness and

profligacy, and representing upon earth, in the principles by

which it was guided, the laws of the great tribunal of

Almighty God. Such was the origin of the church courts,

perhaps the greatest institutions yet devised by man. But to

aim at these high ideals is as perilous as it is noble; and

weapons which may be safely trusted in the hands of saints

become fatal implements of mischief when saints have ceased to

wield them. ... The Consistory Courts had continued into the

sixteenth century with unrestricted jurisdiction, although

they had been for generations merely perennially flowing

fountains, feeding the ecclesiastical exchequer. The moral

conduct of every English man and woman remained subject to

them. ... But between the original design and the degenerate

counterfeit there was this vital difference,--that the

censures were no longer spiritual. They were commuted in

various gradations for pecuniary fines, and each offence

against morality was rated at its specific money value in the

Episcopal tables. Suspension and excommunication remained as

ultimate penalties; but they were resorted to only to compel

unwilling culprits to accept the alternative. The

misdemeanours of which the courts took cognizance were

'offences against chastity,' 'heresy,' or 'matter sounding

thereunto,' 'witchcraft,' 'drunkenness,' 'scandal,'

'defamation,' 'impatient words,' 'broken promises,' 'untruth,'

'absence from church,' 'speaking evil of saints,' 'non-payment

of offerings,' and other delinquencies incapable of legal

definition."

J. A. Froude. History of England, chapter 3.

CONSPIRACY BILL, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1858-1859.

CONSTABLE, The.

"The name is derived from the 'comes stabuli' of the Byzantine

court, and appears in the west as early as the days of Gregory

of Tours. The duties of the constables of France ... and those

of the constables of Naples ... are not exactly parallel with

[those of] the constables of England. In Naples the constable

kept the King's sword, commanded the army, appointed the

quarters, disciplined the troops and distributed the

sentinels; the marshals and all other officers being his

subordinates. The French office was nearly the same. In

England, however, the marshal was not subordinate to the

constable. Probably the English marshals fulfilled the duties

which had been in Normandy discharged by the constables. The

marshal is more distinctly an officer of the court, the

constable one of the castle or army. ... The constable ...

exercised the office of quartermaster-general of the court and

army and succeeded to the duties of the Anglo-Saxon staller."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,

chapter 11, section 122, and note.

{505}

CONSTABLE OF FRANCE.

"No other dignity in the world has been held by such a

succession of great soldiers as the office of Constable of

France. The Constable was originally a mere officer of the

stables, but his power had increased by the suppression of the

office of Grand Seneschal, and by the time of Philip Augustus

he exercised control over all the military forces of the

crown. He was the general in chief of the army and the highest

military authority in the kingdom. The constables had for four

centuries been leaders in the wars of France, and they had

experienced strange and varied fortunes. The office had been

bestowed on the son of Simon de Montfort, and he for this

honor had granted to the king of France his rights over those

vast domains which had been given his father for his pious

conquests. [See ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229.] It had been

bestowed on Raoul de Nesle, who fell at Courtrai, where the

French nobility suffered its first defeat from Flemish boors;

on Bertrand de Guesclin, the last of the great warriors, whose

deeds were sung with those of the paladins of Charlemagne; on

Clisson, the victor of Roosebeck [or Rosebecque]; on Armagnac,

whose name has a bloody preeminence among the leaders of the

fierce soldiery who ravaged France during the English wars; on

Buchan, whose Scotch valor and fidelity gained him this great

trust among a foreign people; on Richemont, the companion of

Joan Darc; on Saint Pol, the ally of Charles the Bold, the

betrayer and the victim of Louis XI.; on the Duke of Bourbon,

who won the battle of Pavia against his sovereign, and led his

soldiers to that sack of Rome which made the ravages of

Genseric and Alaric seem mild; on Anne of Montmorenci, a

prominent actor in every great event in France from the battle

of Pavia against Charles V. to that of St. Denis against

Coligni; on his son, the companion of Henry IV. in his youth,

and his trusted adviser in his age. ... The sword borne by

such men had been bestowed [1621] on Luines, the hero of an

assassination, who could not drill a company of infantry; it

was now [1622] given to the hero of many battles [the Duke of

Lesdeguières], and the great office was to expire in the hands

of a great soldier."

J. B. Perkins, France under Mazarin, volume 1, page 94.

CONSTANCE, The Council of.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1414-1418.

CONSTANCE, Peace of (1183).

See ITALY: A. D. 1174-1183.

CONSTANS I.,

Roman Emperor, A. D. 337-350.

Constans II., Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 641-668.

CONSTANTINA, The taking of (1837).

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

CONSTANTINE, Pope, A. D. 708-715.

Constantine I. (called The Great), Roman Emperor, A. D. 306-337.

The Conversion.

See ROME: A. D. 323.

The Forged Donation of.

See PAPACY: A. D. 774 (?).

Constantine II., Roman Emperor, A. D. 337-340.

Constantine III., Roman Emperor in the East, A. D. 641.

Constantine IV. (called Pogonatus),

Roman Emperor in the East, A. D. 668-685.

Constantine V. (called Copronymus),

Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 741-775.

Constantine VI., Emperor in the East

(Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 780-797.

Constantine VII. (called Porphyrogenitus),

Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 911-950.

Constantine VIII. (colleague of Constantine VII.),

Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 944.

Constantine IX., Emperor in the East

(Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 963-1028.

Constantine X., Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek),

A. D. 1042-1054.

Constantine XI., Emperor in the East

(Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1059-1067.

Constantine XII., nominal Greek Emperor in the East,

about A. D. 1071..

Constantine XIII. (Polæologus), Greek Emperor

of Constantinople, A. D. 1448-1453.

Constantine the Usurper.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 330.

Transformation of Byzantium.

"Constantine had for some time contemplated the erection of a

new capital. The experience of nearly half a century had

confirmed the sagacity of Diocletian's selection of a site on

the confines of Europe and Asia [Nicomedia] as the whereabouts

in which the political centre of gravity of the Empire rested.

At one time Constantine thought of adopting the site of

ancient Troy, and is said to have actually commenced building

a new city there. ... More prosaic reasons ultimately

prevailed. The practical genius of Constantine recognized in

the town of Byzantium, on the European side of the border line

between the two continents, the site best adapted for his new

capital. All subsequent ages have applauded his discernment,

for experience has endorsed the wisdom of the choice. By land,

with its Asian suburb of Chrysopolis [modern Scutari], it

practically spanned the narrow strait and joined Europe and

Asia: by sea, it was open on one side to Spain, Italy, Greece,

Africa, Egypt, Syria; on the other to the Euxine, and so by

the Danube it had easy access to the whole of that important

frontier between the Empire and the barbarians; and round all

the northern coasts of the sea it took the barbarians in

flank. ... The city was solemnly dedicated with religious

ceremonies on the 11th of May, 330, and the occasion was

celebrated, after the Roman fashion, by a great festival,

largesses and games in the hippodrome, which lasted forty

days. The Emperor gave to the city institutions modelled after

those of the ancient Rome."

E. L. Cutts, Constantine the Great, chapter 29.

"The new walls of Constantine stretched from the port to the

Propontis ... at the distance of fifteen stadia from the

ancient fortification, and, with the city of Byzantium, they

enclosed five of the seven hills which, to the eyes of those

who approach Constantinople, appear to rise above each other

in beautiful order. About a century after the death of the

founder, the new buildings ... already covered the narrow

ridge of the sixth and the broad summit of the seventh hill.

... The buildings of the new city were executed by such

artificers as the reign of Constantine could afford; but they

were decorated by the hands of the most celebrated masters of

the age of Pericles and Alexander. ... By his commands the

cities of Greece and Asia were despoiled of their most

valuable ornaments."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 17.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

{506}

"The new city was an exact copy of old Rome. ... It was

inhabited by senators from Rome. Wealthy individuals from the

provinces were likewise compelled to keep up houses at

Constantinople, pensions were conferred upon them, and a right

to a certain amount of provisions from the public stores was

annexed to these dwellings. Eighty thousand loaves of bread

were distributed daily to the inhabitants of Constantinople.

... The tribute of grain from Egypt was appropriated to supply

Constantinople, and that of Africa was left for the

consumption of Rome."

G. Finlay, Greece under the Romans, chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

J. B. Bury, History of the later Roman Empire,

book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1).

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 363-518.

The Eastern Court from Valens to Anastatius.

Tumults at the capital.

See ROME: A. D. 363-379 to 400-518.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 378.

Threatened by the Goths.

See GOTHS: A. D. 379-382.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 400.

Popular rising against the Gothic soldiery.

Their expulsion from the city.

See ROME: A. D. 400-518.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 511-512.

Tumults concerning the Trisagion.

During the reign of Anastatius, at Constantinople, the fierce

controversy which had raged for many years throughout the

empire, between the Monophysites (who maintained that the

divine and the human natures in Christ were one), and the

'adherents of the Council of Chalcedon (which declared that

Christ possessed two natures in one person), was embittered at

the imperial capital by opposition between the emperor, who

favored the Monophysites, and the patriarch who was strict in

Chalcedonian orthodoxy. In 511, and again in 512, it gave rise

to two alarming riots at Constantinople. On the first

occasion, a Monophysite or Eutychian party "burst into the

Chapel of the Archangel in the Imperial Palace and dared to

chant the Te Deum with the addition of the forbidden words,

the war-cry of many an Eutychian mob, 'Who wast crucified for

us.' The Trisagion, as it was called, the thrice-repeated cry

to the Holy One, which Isaiah in his vision heard uttered by

the seraphim, became, by the addition of these words, as

emphatic a statement as the Monophysite party could desire of

their favourite tenet that God, not man, breathed out his soul

unto death outside the gates of Jerusalem. ... On the next

Sunday the Monophysites sang the verse which was their war-cry

in the great Basilica itself." The riot which ensued was

quieted with difficulty by the patriarch, to whom the emperor

humbled himself. But in the next year, on a fast-day (Nov. 6)

the Monophysites gave a similar challenge, singing the

Trisagion with the prohibited words added, and "again psalmody

gave place to blows; men wounded and dying lay upon the floor

of the church. ... The orthodox mob streamed from all parts

into the great forum. There they swarmed and swayed to and fro

all that day and all that night, shouting forth, not the

greatness of the Ephesian Diana, but 'Holy, Holy, Holy,'

without the words' 'Who wast crucified.' They hewed down the

monks,--a minority of their class,--who were on the side of

the imperial creed, and burned their monasteries with fire."

After two days of riot, the aged emperor humbled himself to

the mob, in the great Circus, offered to abdicate the throne

and made peace by promises to respect the decrees of

Chalcedon.

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 4, chapter 10.

See, also, NESTORIAN AND MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSY.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 532.

The Sedition of Nika.

See CIRCUS, FACTIONS OF THE ROMAN.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 542.

The Plague.

See PLAGUE: A. D. 542-594.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 553.

General Council.

See THREE CHAPTERS, THE DISPUTE OF THE.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 626.

Attacked by the Avars and Persians.

See ROME: A. D. 565-628.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 668-675.

First siege by the Saracens.

"Forty-six years after the flight of Mahomet from Mecca his

disciples appeared in arms under the walls of Constantinople.

They were animated by a genuine or fictitious saying of the

prophet, that, to the first army which besieged the city of

the Cæsars, their sins were forgiven. ... No sooner had the

Caliph Moawiyah [the first of the Ommiade caliphs, seated at

Damascus,] suppressed his rivals and established his throne,

than he aspired to expiate the guilt of civil blood by the

success of this holy expedition; his preparations by sea and

land were adequate to the importance of the object; his

standard was entrusted to Sophian, a veteran warrior. ... The

Greeks had little to hope, nor had their enemies any reasons

of fear, from the courage and vigilance of the reigning

Emperor, who disgraced the name of Constantine, and imitated

only the inglorious years of his grandfather Heraclius.

Without delay or opposition, the naval forces of the Saracens

passed through the unguarded channel of the Hellespont, which

even now, under the feeble and disorderly government of the

Turks, is maintained as the natural bulwark of the capital.

The Arabian fleet cast anchor and the troops were disembarked

near the palace of Hebdomon, seven miles from the city. During

many days, from the dawn of light to the evening, the line of

assault was extended from the golden gate to the Eastern

promontory. ... But the besiegers had formed an insufficient

estimate of the strength and resources of Constantinople. The

solid and lofty walls were guarded by numbers and discipline;

the spirit of the Romans was rekindled by the last danger of

their religion and empire; the fugitives from the conquered

provinces more successfully renewed the defence of Damascus

and Alexandria; and the Saracens were dismayed by the strange

and prodigious effects of artificial fire. This firm and

effectual resistance diverted their arms to the more easy

attempts of plundering the European and Asiatic coasts of the

Propontis; and, after keeping the sea from the month of April

to that of September, on the approach of winter they retreated

four score miles from the capital, to the isle of Cyzicus, in

which they had established their magazine of spoil and

provisions. So patient was their perseverance, or so languid

were their operations, that they repeated in the six following

summers the same attack and retreat, with a gradual abatement

of hope and vigour, till the mischances of shipwreck and

disease, of the sword and of fire, compelled them to

relinquish the fruitless enterprise. They might bewail the

loss, or commemorate the martyrdom, of 30,000 Moslems who fell

in the siege of Constantinople. ... The event of the siege

revived, both in the East and West, the reputation of the

Roman arms, and cast a momentary shade over the glories of the

Saracens. ... A peace, or truce of thirty years was ratified

between the two Empires; and the stipulation of an annual

tribute, fifty horses of a noble breed, fifty slaves, and

3,000 pieces of gold, degraded the majesty of the commander of

the faithful."

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

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

{507}

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 680.

General Council.

See MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 717-718.

The second siege by the Saracens.

"When Leo [the Isaurian] was raised to the [Byzantine] throne

[A. D. 717], the empire was threatened with immediate ruin.

Six emperors had been dethroned within the space of twenty-one

years. ... The Bulgarians and Sclavonians wasted Europe up to

the walls of Constantinople; the Saracens ravaged the whole of

Asia Minor to the shores of the Bosphorus. ... The Caliph

Suleiman, who had seen one private adventurer succeed the

other in quick succession on the imperial throne, deemed the

moment favourable for the final conquest of the Christians;

and, reinforcing his brother's army [in Asia Minor], he

ordered him to lay siege to Constantinople. The Saracen empire

had now reached its greatest extent. From the banks of the

Sihun and the Indus to the shores of the Atlantic in

Mauretania and Spain, the order of Suleiman was implicitly

obeyed. ... The army Moslemah led against Constantinople was

the best-appointed that had ever attacked the Christians: it

consisted of 80,000 warriors. The Caliph announced his

intention of taking the field in person with additional

forces, should the capital of the Christians offer a

protracted resistance to the arms of Islam. The whole

expedition is said to have employed 180,000 men. ... Moslemah,

after capturing Pergamus, marched to Abydos, where he was

joined by the Saracen fleet. He then transported his army

across the Hellespont, and marching along the shore of the

Propontis, invested Leo in his capital both by land and sea.

The strong walls of Constantinople, the engines of defence

with which Roman and Greek art had covered the ramparts, and

the skill of the Byzantine engineers, rendered every attempt

to carry the place by assault hopeless, so that the Saracens

were compelled to trust to the effect of a strict blockade for

gaining possession of the city. ... The besiegers encamped

before Constantinople on the 15th August 717. The Caliph

Suleiman died before he was able to send any reinforcements to

his brother. The winter proved unusually severe." Great

numbers of the warriors from the south were destroyed by the

inclemency of a climate to which they had not become inured;

many more died of famine in the Moslem camp, while the

besieged city was plentifully supplied. The whole undertaking

was disastrous from its beginning to its close, and, exactly

one year from the pitching of his camp under the Byzantine

walls, "on the 15th of August 718, Moslemah raised the siege,

after ruining one of the finest armies the Saracens ever

assembled. ... Few military details concerning Leo's defence

of Constantinople have been preserved, but there can be no

doubt that it was one of the most brilliant exploits of a

warlike age. ... The vanity of Gallic writers has magnified

the success of Charles Martel over a plundering expedition of

the Spanish Arabs into a marvellous victory, and attributed

the deliverance of Europe from the Saracen yoke to the valour

of the Franks. A veil has been thrown over the talents and

courage of Leo, a soldier of fortune, just seated on the

imperial throne, who defeated the long-planned schemes of

conquest of the Caliphs Welid and Suleiman. It is unfortunate

that we have no Isaurian literature. ... The war was languidly

carried on for some years and the Saracens were gradually

expelled from most of their conquests beyond Mount Tauris."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine

Empire from 716 to 1057, chapter 1.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 747.

The Great Plague.

See PLAGUE: A. D. 744-748.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 754.

The Iconoclastic Council.

See ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 865.

First attack by the Russians.

"In the year 865, a nation hitherto unknown made its first

appearance in the history of the world, where it was destined

to act no unimportant part. Its entrance into the political

system of the European nations was marked by an attempt to

take Constantinople, a project which it has often revived. ...

In the year 862, Rurik, a Scandinavian or Varangian chief,

arrived at Novgorod, and laid the first foundation of the

state which has grown into the Russian empire. The Russian

people, under Varangian domination, rapidly increased in

power, and reduced many of their neighbours to submission. ...

From what particular circumstance the Russians were led to

make their daring attack on Constantinople is not known. The

Emperor Michael [III.] had taken the command of an army to act

against the Saracens, and Oryphas, admiral of the fleet, acted

as governor of the capital during his absence. Before the

Emperor had commenced his military operations, a fleet of 200

Russian vessels of small size, taking advantage of a

favourable wind, suddenly passed through the Bosphorus, and

anchored at the mouth of the Black River in the Propontis,

about 18 miles from Constantinople. This Russian expedition

had already plundered the shores of the Black Sea, and from

its station within the Bosphorus it ravaged the country about

Constantinople, and plundered the Prince's Islands, pillaging

the monasteries and slaying the monks as well as the other

inhabitants. The Emperor, informed by Oryphas of the attack on

his capital hastened to its defence. ... It required no great

exertions on the part of the imperial officers to equip a

force sufficient to attack and put to flight these invaders;

but the horrid cruelty of the barbarians, and the wild daring

of their Varangian leaders, made a profound impression on the

people of Constantinople."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire,

book 1, chapter 3, section 3.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 907-1043.

Repeated attacks by the Russians.

Notwithstanding an active and increasing commercial

intercourse between the Greeks and the Russians,

Constantinople was exposed, during the tenth century and part

of the eleventh, to repeated attacks from the masterful

Varangians and their subjects. In the year 907, a fleet of

2,000 Russian vessels or boats swarmed into the Bosphorus, and

laid waste the shores in the neighborhood of Constantinople.

"It is not improbable that the expedition was undertaken to

obtain indemnity for some commercial losses sustained by

imperial negligence, monopoly or oppression. The subjects of

the emperor were murdered, and the Russians amused themselves

with torturing their captives in the most barbarous manner.

{508}

At length Leo [VI.] purchased their retreat by the payment of a

large sum of money. ... These hostilities were terminated by a

commercial treaty in 912." There was peace under this treaty

until 941, when a third attack on Constantinople was led by

Igor, the son of Rurik. But it ended most disastrously for the

Russians and Igor escaped with only a few boats. The result

was another important treaty, negotiated in 945. In 970 the

Byzantine Empire was more seriously threatened by an attempt

on the part of the Russians to subdue the kingdom of Bulgaria;

which would have brought them into the same dangerous

neighborhood to Constantinople that the Russia of our own day

has labored so hard to reach. But the able soldier John

Zimisces happened to occupy the Byzantine throne; the Russian

invasion of Bulgaria was repelled and Bulgaria, itself, was

reannexed to the Empire, which pushed its boundaries to the

Danube, once more. For more than half a century,

Constantinople was undisturbed by the covetous ambition of her

Russian fellow Christians. Then they invaded the Bosphorus

again with a formidable armament; but the expedition was

wholly disastrous and they retreated with a loss of 15,000

men. "Three years elapsed before peace was re-established; but

a treaty was then concluded and the trade at Constantinople

placed on the old footing. From this period the alliance of

the Russians with the Byzantine Empire was long uninterrupted;

and as the Greeks became more deeply imbued with

ecclesiastical prejudices, and more hostile to the Latin

nations, the Eastern Church became, in their eyes, the symbol

of their nationality, and the bigoted attachment of the

Russians to the same religious formalities obtained for them

from the Byzantine Greeks the appellation of the most

Christian nation."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire,

from 716 to 1057, book 2, chapter 3, section 2.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1081.

Sacked by the rebel army of Alexius Comnenus.

Alexius Comnenus, the emperor who occupied the Byzantine

throne at the time of the First Crusade, and who became

historically prominent in that connection, acquired his crown

by a successful rebellion. He was collaterally of the family

of Isaac Comnenus, (Isaac I.) who had reigned briefly in

1057-1059,--he, too, having been, in his imperial office, the

product of a revolution. But the interval of twenty-two years

had seen four emperors come and go--two to the grave and two

into monastic seclusion. It was the last of these--Nicephorus

III. (Botaneites) that Alexius displaced, with the support of

an army which he had previously commanded. One of the gates of

the capital was betrayed to him by a German mercenary, and he

gained the city almost without a blow. "The old Emperor

consented to resign his crown and retire into a monastery.

Alexius entered the imperial palace, and the rebel army

commenced plundering every quarter of the city. Natives and

mercenaries vied with one another in license and rapine. No

class of society was sacred from their lust and avarice, and

the inmates of monasteries, churches, and palaces were alike

plundered and insulted. This sack of Constantinople by the

Sclavonians, Bulgarians, and Greeks in the service of the

families of Comnenus, Ducas, and Paleologos, who crept

treacherously into the city, was a fit prologue to its

sufferings when it was stormed by the Crusaders in 1204. From

this disgraceful conquest of Constantinople by Alexius

Comnenus, we must date the decay of its wealth and civic

supremacy, both as a capital and a commercial city. ... The

power which was thus established in rapine terminated about a

century later in a bloody vengeance inflicted by an infuriated

populace on the last Emperor of the Comnenian family,

Andronicus I. Constantinople was taken on the 1st of April,

1081, and Alexius was crowned in St. Sophia's next day."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek

Empires, from 716 to 1453, book 3, chapter 1.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1204.

Conquest and brutal sack by Crusaders and Venetians.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203;

and BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1203-1204.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1204-1261.

The Latin Empire and its fall.

Recovery by the Greeks.

See ROMANIA, THE EMPIRE OF,

and BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261.

Great privileges conceded to the Genoese.

Pera and its citadel Galata given up to them.

See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261-1453.

The restored Greek Empire.

On the 25th of July, A. D. 1261. Constantinople was surprised

and the last Latin emperor expelled by the fortunate arms of

Michael Palæologus, the Greek usurper at Nicæa. (See GREEK

EMPIRE OF NICÆA.) Twenty days later Michael made his triumphal

entry into the ancient capital. "But after the first transport

of devotion and pride, he sighed at the dreary prospect of

solitude and ruin. The palace was defiled with smoke and dirt

and the gross intemperance of the Franks; whole streets had

been consumed by fire, or were decayed by the injuries of

time; the sacred and profane edifices were stripped of their

ornaments; and, as if they were conscious of their approaching

exile, the industry of the Latins had been confined to the

work of pillage and destruction. Trade had expired under the

pressure of anarchy and distress, and the numbers of

inhabitants had decreased with the opulence of the city. It

was the first care of the Greek monarch to reinstate the

nobles in the palaces of their fathers. ... He repeopled

Constantinople by a liberal invitation to the provinces, and

the brave 'volunteers' were seated in the capital which had

been recovered by their arms. Instead of banishing the

factories of the Pisans, Venetians, and Genoese, the prudent

conqueror 'accepted their oaths of allegiance, encouraged

their industry, confirmed their privileges and allowed them to

live under the jurisdiction of their proper magistrates. Of

these nations the Pisans and Venetians preserved their

respective quarters in the city; but the services and power of

the Genoese [who had assisted in the reconquest of

Constantinople] deserved at the same time the gratitude and

the jealousy of the Greeks. Their independent colony was first

planted at the seaport town of Heraclea in Thrace. They were

speedily recalled, and settled in the exclusive possession of

the suburb of Galata, an advantageous post, in which they

revived the commerce and insulted the majesty of the Byzantine

Empire. The recovery of Constantinople was celebrated as the

era of a new Empire."

{509}

The new empire thus established in the ancient Roman capital

of the east made some show of vigor at first. Michael

Palæologus "wrested from the Franks several of the noblest

islands of the Archipelago--Lesbos, Chios, and Rhodes. His

brother Constantine was sent to command in Malvasia and

Sparta; and the Eastern side of the Morea, from Argos and

Napoli to Cape Tænarus, was repossessed by the Greeks. ... But

in the prosecution of these Western conquests the countries

beyond the Hellespont were left naked to the Turks; and their

depredations verified the prophecy of a dying senator, that

the recovery of Constantinople would be the ruin of Asia." Not

only was Asia Minor abandoned to the new race of Turkish

conquerors--the Ottomans--but those most aggressive of the

proselytes of Islam were invited in the next generation to

cross the Bosphorus, and to enter Thrace as partisans in a

Greek civil war. Their footing in Europe once gained, they

devoured the distracted and feeble empire piece by piece,

until little remained to it beyond the capital itself. Long

before the latter fell, the empire was a shadow and a name. In

the very suburbs of Constantinople, the Genoese podesta, at

Pera or Galata, had more power than the Greek Emperor; and the

rival Italian traders, of Genoa, Venice and Pisa, fought their

battles under the eyes of the Byzantines with indifference,

almost, to the will or wishes, the opposition or the help of

the latter. "The weight of the Roman Empire was scarcely felt

in the balance of these opulent and powerful republics. ...

The Roman Empire (I smile in transcribing the name) might soon

have sunk into a province of Genoa, if the ambition of the

republic had not been checked by the ruin of her freedom and

naval power. A long contest of 130 years was determined by the

triumph of Venice. ... Yet the spirit of commerce survived

that of conquest; and the colony of Pera still awed the

capital and navigated the Euxine, till it was involved by the

Turks in the final servitude of Constantinople itself."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 62-63.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

ALSO IN:

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and

Greek Empires, book 4, chapter 2.

See, also,

TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1240-1326; 1326-1359;

1360-1389; 1389-1403, &c.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.

War with the Genoese.

Alliance with Venice and Aragon.

John Cantacuzenos, who usurped the throne in 1347, "had not

reigned a year before he was involved in hostilities with the

Genoese colony of Galata, which had always contained many warm

partisans of the house of Paleologos [displaced by

Cantacuzenos]. This factory had grown into a flourishing town,

and commanded a large portion of the Golden Horn. During the

civil war, the Genoese capitalists had supplied the regency

with money, and they now formed almost every branch of the

revenue which the imperial government derived from the port.

... The financial measures of the new emperor reduced their

profits. ... The increased industry of the Greeks, and the

jealousy of the Genoese, led to open hostilities. The

colonists of Galata commenced the war in a treacherous manner,

without any authority from the republic of Genoa (1348). With

a fleet of only eight large and some small galleys they

attacked Constantinople while Cantacuzenos was absent from the

capital, and burned several buildings and the greater part of

the fleet he was then constructing. The Empress Irene, who

administered the government in the absence of her husband,

behaved with great prudence and courage and repulsed a bold

attack of the Genoese. Cantacuzenos hastened to the capital,

where he spent the winter in repairing the loss his fleet had

sustained. As soon as it was ready for action, he engaged the

Genoese in the port, where he hoped that their naval skill

would be of no avail, and where the numerical superiority of

his ships would insure him a victory. He expected, moreover,

to gain possession of Galata itself by an attack on the land

side while the Genoese were occupied at sea. The cowardly

conduct of the Greeks, both by sea and land, rendered his

plans abortive. The greater part of his ships were taken, and

his army retreated without making a serious attack.

Fortunately for Cantacuzenos, the colonists of Galata received

an order from the Senate of Genoa to conclude peace. ... Their

victory enabled them to obtain favourable terms, and to keep

possession of some land they had seized, and on which they

soon completed the construction of a new citadel. The friendly

disposition manifested by the government of Genoa induced

Cantacuzenos to send ambassadors to the Senate to demand the

restoration of the island of Chios, which had been conquered

by a band of Genoese exiles in 1346. A treaty was concluded,

by which the Genoese were to restore the island to the Emperor

of Constantinople in ten years. ... But this treaty was never

carried into execution, for the exiles at Chios set both the

republic of Genoa and the Greek Empire at defiance, and

retained their conquest." The peace with Genoa was of short

duration. Cantacuzenos was bent upon expelling the Genoese

from Galata, and as they were now involved in the war with the

Venetians which is known as the war of Caffa he hoped to

accomplish his purpose by joining the latter. "The Genoese had

drawn into their hands the greater part of the commerce of the

Black Sea. The town of Tana or Azof was then a place of great

commercial importance, as many of the productions of India and

China found their way to western Europe from its warehouses.

The Genoese, in consequence of a quarrel with the Tartars, had

been compelled to suspend their intercourse with Tana, and the

Venetians, availing themselves of the opportunity, had

extended their trade and increased their profits. The envy of

the Genoese led them to obstruct the Venetian trade and

capture Venetian ships, until at length the disputes of the

two republics broke out in open war in 1348. In the year 1351,

Cantacuzenos entered into an alliance with Venice, and joined

his forces to those of the Venetians, who had also concluded

an alliance with Peter the Ceremonious, king of Aragon.

Nicholas Pisani, one of the ablest admirals of the age,

appeared before Constantinople with the Venetian fleet; but

his ships had suffered severely from a storm, and his

principal object was attained when he had convoyed the

merchantmen of Venice safely into the Black Sea. Cantacuzenos,

however, had no object but to take Galata; and, expecting to

receive important aid from Pisani, he attacked the Genoese

colony by sea and land. His assault was defeated in

consequence of the weakness of the Greeks and the lukewarmness

of the Venetians.

{510}

Pisani retired to Negropont, to effect a junction with the

Catalan fleet; and Pagano Doria, who had pursued him with a

superior force, in returning to Galata to pass the winter,

stormed the town of Heracleia on the Sea of Marmora, where

Cantacuzenos had collected large magazines of provisions, and

carried off a rich booty, with many wealthy Greeks, who were

compelled to ransom themselves by paying large sums to these

captors. Cantacuzenos was now besieged in Constantinople, ...

The Genoese, unable to make any impression on the city,

indemnified themselves by ravaging the Greek territory on the

Black Sea. ... Early in the year 1352, Pisani returned to

Constantinople with the Catalan fleet, under Ponzio da

Santapace, and a great battle was fought between the allies

and the Genoese, in full view of Constantinople and Galata.

The scene of the combat was off the island of Prote, and it

received the name of Vrachophagos from some sunken rocks, of

which the Genoese availed themselves in their manœuvres. The

honour of a doubtful and bloody day rested with the Genoese.

... Pisani soon quitted the neighbourhood of Constantinople,

and Cantacuzenos, having nothing more to hope from the

Venetian alliance ... concluded a peace with the republic of

Genoa. In this war he had exposed the weakness of the Greek

empire, and the decline of the maritime force of Greece, to

all the states of Europe. The treaty confirmed all the

previous privileges and encroachments of the colony of Galata

and other Genoese establishments in the Empire."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,

716-1453, book 4, chapter 2, section 4.

The retirement of the Greeks from the contest did not check

the war between Genoa and Venice and the other allies of the

latter, which was continued until 1355. The Genoese were

defeated, August 29, 1353, by the Venetians and Catalans, in a

great battle fought near Lojera, on the northern coast of

Sardinia, losing 41 galleys and 4,500 or 5,000 men. They

obtained their revenge the next year, on the 4th of November,

when Paganino Doria surprised the Venetian admiral, Pisani, at

Portolongo, opposite the island of Sapienzu, as he was

preparing to go into winter-quarters. "The Venetians sustained

not so much a defeat as a total discomfiture; 450 were killed;

an enormous number of prisoners, loosely calculated at 6,000,

and a highly valuable booty in prizes and stores, were taken."

In June, 1355, the war was ended by a treaty which excluded

Venice from all Black Sea ports except Caffa.

W. C. Hazlitt, History of the Venetian

Republic, chapter 18-19 (volume 3).

ALSO IN:

F. A. Parker, The Fleets of the World, pages 88-94.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1453.

Conquest by the Turks.

Mahomet II., son of Amurath II. came to the Ottoman throne, at

the age of twenty-one, in 1451. "The conquest of

Constantinople was the first object on which his thoughts were

fixed at the opening of his reign. The resolution with which

he had formed this purpose expressed itself in his stern reply

to the ambassadors of the Emperor, offering him tribute if he

would renounce the project of building a fort on the European

shore of the Bosporus, which, at the distance of only five

miles from the capital, would give him the command of the

Black Sea. He ordered the envoys to retire, and threatened to

flay alive any who should dare to bring him a similar message

again. The fort was finished in three months and garrisoned

with 400 janizaries; a tribute was exacted of all vessels that

passed, and war was formally declared by the Sultan.

Constantine [Constantine Palæologus, the last Greek Emperor]

made the best preparations in his power for defence; but he

could muster only 600 Greek soldiers." In order to secure aid

from the Pope and the Italians, Constantine united himself

with the Roman Church. A few hundred troops were then sent to

his assistance; but, at the most, he had only succeeded in

manning the many miles of the city wall with 9,000 men, when,

in April, 1453, the Sultan invested it. The Turkish army was

said to number 250,000 men, and 420 vessels were counted in

the accompanying fleet. A summons to surrender was answered

with indignant refusal by Constantine, "who had calmly

resolved not to survive the fall of the city," and the final

assault of the furious Turks was made on the 29th of May,

1453. The heroic Emperor was slain among the last defenders of

the gate of St. Romanos, and the janizaries rode over his dead

body as they charged into the streets of the fallen Roman

capital. "The despairing people--senators, priests, monks,

nuns, husbands, wives and children--sought safety in the

church of St. Sophia. A prophecy had been circulated that here

the Turks would be arrested by an angel from heaven, with a

drawn sword; and hither the miserable multitude crowded, in

the expectation of supernatural help. The conquerors followed,

sword in hand, slaughtering those whom they encountered in the

street. They broke down the doors of the church with axes,

and, rushing in, committed every act of atrocity that a

frantic thirst for blood and the inflamed passions of demons

could suggest. All the unhappy victims were divided as slaves

among the soldiers, without regard to blood or rank, and

hurried off to the camp; and the mighty cathedral, so long the

glory of the Christian world, soon presented only traces of

the orgies of hell. The other quarters of the city were

plundered by other divisions of the army. ... About noon the

Sultan made his triumphal entry by the gate of St. Romanos,

passing by the body of the Emperor, which lay concealed among

the slain. Entering the church, he ordered a moolah to ascend

the bema and announce to the Mussulmans that St. Sophia was

now a mosque, consecrated to the prayers of the true

believers. He ordered the body of the Emperor to be sought,

his head to be exposed to the people, and afterwards to be

sent as a trophy, to be seen by the Greeks, in the principal

cities of the Ottoman Empire. For three days the city was

given up to the indescribable horrors of pillage and the

license of the Mussulman soldiery. Forty thousand perished

during the sack of the city and fifty thousand were reduced to

slavery."

C. C. Felton, Greece, Ancient and Modern:

Fourth course, lecture 6.

ALSO IN:

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and

Greek Empires from 716 to 1453, book 4, chapter 2.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 68.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1453-1481.

The city repopulated and rebuilt.

Creation of the Turkish Stamboul.

{511}

"It was necessary for Mohammed II. to repeople Constantinople,

in order to render it the capital of the Ottoman Empire. The

installation of an orthodox Patriarch calmed the minds of the

Greeks, and many who had emigrated before the siege gradually

returned, and were allowed to claim a portion of their

property. But the slow increase of population, caused by a

sense of security and the hope of gain, did not satisfy the

Sultan, who was determined to see his capital one of the

greatest cities of the East, and who knew that it had formerly

exceeded Damascus, Bagdad and Cairo, in wealth, extent and

population. From most of his subsequent conquests Mohammed

compelled the wealthiest of the inhabitants to emigrate to

Constantinople, where he granted them plots of land to build

their houses. ... Turks, Greeks, Servians, Bulgarians,

Albanians, and Lazes, followed one another in quick

succession, and long before the end of his reign

Constantinople was crowded by a numerous and active

population, and presented a more flourishing aspect than it

had done during the preceding century. The embellishment of

his capital was also the object of the Sultan's attention. ...

Mosques, minarets, fountains and tombs, the great objects of

architectural magnificence among the Mussulmans, were

constructed in every quarter of the city. ... The picturesque

beauty of the Stamboul of the present day owes most of its

artificial features to the Othoman conquest, and wears a

Turkish aspect. The Constantinople of the Byzantine Empire

disappeared with the last relics of the Greek Empire. The

traveller who now desires to view the vestiges of a Byzantine

capital, and examine the last relics of Byzantine

architecture, must continue his travels eastward to

Trebizond."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,

from 716 to 1453, book 4, chapter 2, section 7.

CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1807.

Threatened by a British fleet.

See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.

----------CONSTANTINOPLE: End----------

CONSTANTINOPLE, Conference of (1877).

See TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877.

CONSTANTIUS I., Roman Emperor, A. D. 305-306.

Constantius II., A. D. 337-361.

CONSTITUTION, The battles of the frigate.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813, and 1814.

CONSTITUTION OF ARAGON AND CASTILE (the old monarchy).

See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

----------CONSTITUTION OF ARAGON AND CASTILE: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.

The subjoined text of the Constitution of the Argentine

Republic is a translation "from the official edition of 1868,"

taken from R. Napp's work on "The Argentine Republic,"

prepared for the Central Argentine Commission on the Centenary

Exhibition at Philadelphia, 1876. According to the "Statesman's

Year-Book" of 1893, there have been no modifications since

1860:

Part I.

Article I.

The Argentine Nation adopts the federal-republican, and

representative form of Government, as established by the

present Constitution.

Article 2.

The Federal Government shall maintain the Apostolic Roman

Catholic Faith.

Article 3.

The authorities of the Federal Government shall reside in the

city which a special law of Congress may declare the capital

of the Republic, subsequently to the cession by one or more of

the Provincial Legislatures, of the territory about to be

federalized.

Article 4.

The Federal Government shall administer the expenses of the

Nation out of the revenue in the National Treasury, derived

from import and export duties; from the sale and lease of the

public lands; from postage; and from such other taxes as the

General Congress may equitably and proportionably lay upon the

people; as also, from such loans and credits as may be decreed

by it in times of national necessity, or for enterprises of

national utility.

Article 5.

Each Province shall make a Constitution for itself, according

to the republican representative system, and the principles,

declarations and guarantees of this Constitution; and which

shall provide for (secure) Municipal Government, primary

education and the administration of justice. Under these

conditions the Federal Government shall guarantee to each

Province the exercise and enjoyment of its institutions.

Article 6.

The Federal Government shall intervene in the Provinces to

guarantee the republican form of Government, or to repel

foreign invasion, and also, on application of their

constituted authorities, should they have been deposed by

sedition or by invasion from another Province, for the purpose

of sustaining or re-establishing them.

Article 7.

Full faith shall be given in each Province to the pubic acts,

and judicial proceedings of every other Province; and Congress

may by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts

and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Article 8.

The citizens of each Province shall be entitled to all the

rights, privileges and immunities, inherent to the citizens of

all the several Provinces. The reciprocal extradition of

criminals between all the Provinces, is obligatory.

Article 9.

Throughout the territory of the Nation, no other than the

National Custom-Houses shall be allowed, and they shall be

regulated by the tariffs sanctioned by Congress.

Article 10.

The circulation of all goods produced or manufactured in the

Republic, is free within its borders, as also, that of all

species of merchandise which may be dispatched by the

Custom-Houses of entry.

Article 11.

Such articles of native or foreign production, as well as

cattle of every kind, which pass from one Province to another,

shall be free from all transit-duties, and also the vehicles,

vessels or animals, which transport them; and no tax, let it

be what it may, can be henceforward imposed upon them on

account of such transit.

Article 12.

Vessels bound from one Province to another, shall not be

compelled to enter, anchor, or pay transit-duties; nor in any

case can preferences be granted to one port over another, by

any commercial laws or regulations.

Article 13.

New Provinces may be admitted into the Nation; but no Province

shall be erected within the territory of any other Province,

or Provinces, nor any Province be formed by the junction of

various Provinces, without the consent of the legislatures of

the Provinces concerned, as well as of Congress.

{512}

Article 14.

All the inhabitants of the Nation shall enjoy the following

rights, according to the laws which regulate their exercise:

viz.. to labor and to practice all lawful industry; to trade

and navigate; to petition the authorities; to enter, remain

in, travel over and leave, Argentine territory; to publish

their ideas in the public-press without previous censure; to

enjoy and dispose of their property; to associate for useful

purposes; to profess freely their religion; to teach and to

learn.

Article 15.

In the Argentine Nation there are no slaves; the few which now

exist shall be free from the date of the adoption of this

Constitution, and a special law shall regulate the indemnity

acknowledged as due by this declaration. All contracts for the

purchase and sale of persons is a crime, for which those who

make them, as well as the notary or functionary which

authorizes them, shall be responsible, and the slaves who in

any manner whatever may be introduced, shall be free from the

sole fact that they tread the territory of the Republic.

Article 16.

The Argentine Nation does not admit the prerogatives of blood

nor of birth; in it, there are no personal privileges or

titles of nobility. All its inhabitants are equal in presence

of the law, and admissible to office without other condition

than that of fitness. Equality is the basis of taxation as

well as of public-posts.

Article 17.

Property is inviolable, and no inhabitant of the Nation can be

deprived of it, save by virtue of a sentence based on law. The

expropriation for public utility must be authorized by law and

previously indemnified. Congress alone shall impose the

contributions mentioned in Article 4. No personal service

shall be exacted save by virtue of law, or of a sentence

founded on law. Every author or inventor is the exclusive

proprietor of his work, invention or discovery, for the term

which the law accords to him. The confiscation of property is

henceforward and forever, stricken from the Argentine

penal-code. No armed body can make requisitions, nor exact

assistance of any kind.

Article 18.

No inhabitant of the Nation shall suffer punishment without a

previous judgment founded on a law passed previously to the

cause of judgment, nor be judged by special commissions, or

withdrawn from the Judges designated by law before the opening

of the cause. No one shall be obliged to testify against

himself; nor be arrested, save by virtue of a written order

from a competent authority. The defense at law both of the

person and his rights, is inviolable. The domicil, private

papers and epistolary correspondence, are inviolable; and a

law shall determine in what cases, and under what imputations,

a search-warrant can proceed against and occupy them. Capital

punishment for political causes, as well as every species of

torture and whippings, are abolished for ever. The prisons of

the Nation shall be healthy and clean, for the security, and

not for the punishment, of the criminals detained in them, and

every measure which under pretext of precaution may mortify

them more than such security requires, shall render

responsible the Judge who authorizes it.

Article 19.

Those private actions of men that in nowise offend public

order and morality, or injure a third party, belong alone to

God, and are beyond the authority of the magistrates. No

inhabitant of the Nation shall be compelled to do what the law

does not ordain, nor be deprived of anything which it does not

prohibit.

Article 20.

Within the territory of the Nation, foreigners shall enjoy all

the civil rights of citizens; they can exercise their

industries, commerce or professions, in accordance with the

laws; own, buy and sell real-estate; navigate the rivers and

coasts; freely profess their religion, and testate and marry.

They shall not be obliged to become citizens, nor to pay

forced contributions. Two years previous residence in the

Nation shall be required for naturalization, but the

authorities can shorten this term in favour of him who so

desires it, under the allegation and proof of services

rendered to the Republic.

Article 21.

Every Argentine citizen is obliged to arm himself in defense

of his country and of this Constitution, according to the laws

which Congress shall ordain for the purpose, and the decrees

of the National Executive. For the period of ten years from

the day on which they may have obtained their citizenship,

this service shall be voluntary on the part of the

naturalized.

Article 22.

The people shall not deliberate nor govern save by means of

their Representatives and Authorities, created by this

Constitution. Every armed force or meeting of persons which

shall arrogate to itself the rights of the people, and

petition in their name, is guilty of sedition.

Article 23.

In the event of internal commotion or foreign attack which

might place in jeopardy the practice of this Constitution, and

the free action of the Authorities created by it, the Province

or territory where such disturbance exists shall be declared

in a state of siege, all constitutional guarantees being

meantime suspended there. But during such suspension the

President of the Republic cannot condemn nor apply any

punishment per se. In respect to persons, his power shall be

limited to arresting and removing them from one place to

another in the Nation, should they not prefer to leave Argentine

territory.

Article 24.

Congress shall establish the reform of existing laws in all

branches, as also the trial by Jury.

Article 25.

The Federal Government shall foment European immigration; and

it cannot restrict, limit, nor lay any impost upon, the entry

upon Argentine territory, of such foreigners as come for the

purpose of cultivating the soil, improving manufactures, and

introducing and teaching the arts and sciences.

Article 26.

The navigation of the interior rivers of the Nation is free to

all flags, subject only to such regulations as the National

Authority may dictate.

Article 27.

The Federal Government is obliged to strengthen the bonds of

peace and commerce with foreign powers, by means of treaties

which shall be in conformity with the principles of public law

laid down in this Constitution.

Article 28.

The principles, rights and guarantees laid down in the

foregoing articles, cannot be altered by any laws intended to

regulate their practice.

Article 29.

Congress cannot grant to the Executive, nor the provincial

legislatures to the Governor of Provinces, any "extraordinary

faculties," nor the "sum of the public power," nor

"renunciations or supremacies" by which the lives, honor or

fortune of the Argentines shall be at the mercy of any

Government or person whatever. Acts of this nature shall be

irremediably null and void, and shall subject those who frame,

vote, or sign them, to the pains and penalties incurred by

those who are infamous traitors to their country.

{513}

Article 30.

This Constitution can be reformed in whole or in part. The

necessity for the reform shall be declared by Congress by at

least a two-thirds vote; but it can only be accomplished by a

convention called ad hoc.

Article 31.

This Constitution, and the laws of the Nation which shall be

made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which

shall be made with Foreign Powers, shall be the supreme law of

the land; and the authorities of every Province shall be bound

thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any Province

to the contrary notwithstanding, excepting in the case of

Buenos-Aires, in the treaties ratified after the compact of

November 11th, 1859.

Article 32.

The Federal Congress shall not dictate laws restricting the

liberty of the press, nor establish any federal jurisdiction

over it.

Article 33.

The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights and

guarantees, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other

rights and guarantees, not enumerated; but which spring from

the principle of popular sovereignty, and the republican form

of Government.

Article 34.

The Judges of the Federal courts shall not be Judges of

Provincial tribunals at the same time; nor shall the federal

service, civil as well as military, constitute a domicil in

the Province where it may be exercised, if it be not

habitually that of the employé; it being understood by this,

that all Provincial public-service is optional in the Province

where such employé may casually reside.

Article 35.

The names which have been successively adopted for the Nation,

since the year 1810 up to the present time; viz., the United

Provinces of the Rio de la Plata, Argentine Republic and

Argentine Confederation, shall henceforward serve without

distinction, officially to designate the Government and

territory of the Provinces, whilst the words Argentine Nation

shall be employed in the making and sanction of the laws.

Part II.--Section I.

Article 36.

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a

Congress composed of two Chambers, one of National Deputies,

and the other of Senators of the Provinces and of the capital.

Chapter I.

Article 37.

The Chamber of Deputies shall be composed of representatives

elected directly by the people of the Provinces, for which

purpose each one shall be considered as a single electoral

district, and by a simple plurality of votes in the ratio of

one for each 20,000 inhabitants, or for a fraction not less

than 10,000.

Article 38.

The deputies for the first Legislature shall be nominated in

the following proportion: for the Province of Buenos-Aires,

twelve; for that of Córdoba, six; for Catamarca, three;

Corrientes, four; Entre-Rios, two; Jujui, two; Mendoza, three;

Rioja, two; Salta, three; Santiago, four; San Juan, two;

Santa-Fé, two; San Luis, two; and for that of Tucumán, three.

Article 39.

For the second Legislature a general census shall be taken,

and the number of Deputies be regulated by it; thereafter,

this census shall be decennial.

Article 40.

No person shall be a Deputy who shall not have attained the

age of twenty-five years, have been four years in the exercise

of citizenship, and be a native of the Province which elects

him, or a resident of it for the two years immediately

preceding.

Article 41.

For the first election, the provincial Legislatures shall

regulate the method for a direct election of the National

Deputies. Congress shall pass a general law for the future.

Article 42.

The Deputies shall hold their place for four years, and are

re-eligible; but the House shall be renewed each biennial, by

halves; for which purpose those elected to the first

Legislature, as soon as the session opens, shall decide by lot

who shall leave at the end of the first period.

Article 43.

In case of vacancy, the Government of the Province or of the

capital, shall call an election for a new member.

Article 44.

The origination of the tax-laws and those for the recruiting

of troops, belongs exclusively to the House of Deputies.

Article 45.

It has the sole right of impeaching before the Senate, the

President, Vice-President, their Ministers, and the members of

the Supreme Court and other inferior Tribunals of the Nation,

in suits which may be undertaken against them for the improper

discharge of, or deficiency in, the exercise of their

functions; or for common crimes, after having heard them, and

declared by a vote of two thirds of the members present, that

there is cause for proceeding against them.

Chapter II.

Article 46.

The Senate shall be composed of two Senators from each

Province, chosen by the Legislatures thereof by plurality of

vote, and two from the capital elected in the form prescribed

for the election of the President of the Nation. Each Senator

shall have one vote.

Article 47.

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained the

age of thirty years, been six years a citizen of the Nation,

enjoy an annual rent or income of two thousand hard-dollars,

and be a native of the Province which elects him, or a

resident of the same for the two years immediately preceding.

Article 48.

The Senators shall enjoy their trust for nine years, and are

indefinitely re-eligible; but the Senate shall be renewed by

thirds each three years, and shall decide by lot, as soon as

they be all re-united, who shall leave at the end of the first

and second triennial periods.

Article 49.

The Vice-President of the Nation shall be President of the

Senate; but shall have no vote, except in a case of a tie.

Article 50.

The Senate shall choose a President pro-tempore who shall

preside during the absence of the Vice-President, or when he

shall exercise the office of President of the Nation.

Article 51.

The Senate shall have sole power to try all impeachments

presented by the House of Deputies. When sitting for that

purpose they shall be under oath. When the President of the

Nation is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside. No person

shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of

the members present.

Article 52.

Judgment in case of impeachment, shall not extend farther than

to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy

any office of honor, trust, or profit under the Nation. But

the party convicted shall, nevertheless, be liable to

indictment, trial, judgment and punishment according to law,

before the ordinary tribunals.

{514}

Article 53.

It belongs, moreover, to the Senate, to authorize the

President to declare martial law in one or more points of the

Republic, in case of foreign aggression.

Article 54.

When any seat of a Senator be vacant by death, resignation or

other reason, the Government to which the vacancy belongs,

shall immediately proceed to the election of a new member.

Chapter III.

Article 55.

Both Chambers shall meet in ordinary session, every year from

the 1st May until the 30th September. They can be

extraordinarily convoked, or their session be prolonged by the

President of the Nation.

Article 56.

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and

qualifications of its own members. Neither of them shall enter

into session without an absolute Majority of its members; but

a smaller number may compel absent members to attend the

sessions, in such terms and under such penalties as each House

may establish.

Article  57.

Both Houses shall begin and close their sessions

simultaneously. Neither of them whilst in sessions can suspend

its meetings for more than three days, without the consent of

the other.

Article 58.

Each House may make its rules of proceeding, and with the

concurrence of two-thirds punish its members for disorderly

behavior in the exercise of their functions, or remove, and

even expel them from the House, for physical or moral

incapacity occurring after their incorporation; but a majority

of one above one half of the members present, shall suffice to

decide questions of voluntary resignation.

Article  59.

In the act of their incorporation the Senators and Deputies

shall take an oath to properly fulfil their charge, and to act

in all things in conformity to the prescriptions of this

Constitution.

Article 60.

No member of Congress can be indicted, judicially

interrogated, or molested for any opinion or discourse which

he may have uttered in fulfilment of his Legislative duties.

Article 61.

No Senator or Deputy, during the term for which he may have

been elected, shall be arrested, except when taken 'in

flagrante' commission of some crime which merits capital

punishment or other degrading sentence; an account thereof

shall be rendered to the Chamber he belongs to, with a verbal

process of the facts.

Article 62.

When a complaint in writing be made before the ordinary courts

against any Senator or Deputy, each Chamber can by a

two-thirds vote, suspend the accused in his functions and

place him at the disposition of the competent judge for trial.

Article 63.

Each of the Chambers can cause the Ministers of the Executive

to come to their Hall, to give such explanations or

information as may be considered convenient.

Article 64.

No member of Congress can receive any post or commission from

the Executive, without the previous consent of his respective

Chamber, excepting such as are in the line of promotion.

Article 65.

The regular ecclesiastics cannot be members of Congress, nor

call the Governors of Provinces represent the Province which

they govern.

Article 66.

The Senators and Deputies shall be remunerated for their

services, by a compensation to be ascertained by law.

Chapter IV.

Article 67.

The Congress shall have power:--

1. To legislate upon the Custom-Houses and establish import

duties; which, as well as all appraisements for their

collection, shall be uniform throughout the Nation, it being

clearly understood that these, as well as all other national

contributions, can be paid in any money at the just value

which may be current in the respective Provinces. Also, to

establish export duties.

2. To lay direct taxes for determinate periods, whenever the

common defense and general welfare require it, which shall be

uniform throughout the territory of the Nation.

3. To borrow money on the credit of the Nation.

4. To determine the use and sale of the National lands.

5. To establish and regulate a National Bank in the capital,

with branches in the Provinces, and with power to emit bills.

6. To regulate the payment of the home and foreign debts of

the Nation.

7. To annually determine the estimates of the National

Administration, and approve or reject the accounts of

expenses.

8. To grant subsidies from the National Treasury to those

Provinces, whose revenues, according to their budgets, do not

suffice to cover the ordinary expenses.

9. To regulate the free navigation of the interior rivers,

open such ports as may be considered necessary, create and

suppress Custom-Houses, but without suppressing those which

existed in each Province at the time of its incorporation.

10. To coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign

coin, and adopt a uniform system of weights and measures for

the whole Nation.

11. To decree civil, commercial, penal and mining Codes, but

such Codes shall have no power to change local jurisdiction;

their application shall belong to the Federal or Provincial

courts, in accordance with such things or persons as may come

under their respective jurisdiction; especially, general laws

embracing the whole Nation, shall be passed upon

naturalization and citizenship, subject to the principle of

native citizenship; also upon bankruptcy, the counterfeiting

of current-money and public State documents; and such laws as

may be required for the establishment of trial by Jury.

12. To regulate commerce by land and sea with foreign nations,

and between the Provinces.

13. To establish and regulate the general post-offices and

post-roads of the Nation.

14. To finally settle the National boundaries, fix those of

the Provinces, create new Provinces, and determine by a

special legislation, the organization and governments, which

such National territories as are beyond the limits assigned to

the Province, should have.

15. To provide for the security of the frontiers; preserve

peaceful relations with the Indians, and promote their

conversion to Catholicism.

16. To provide all things conducive to the prosperity of the

country, to the advancement and happiness of the Provinces,

and to the increase of enlightenment, decreeing plans for

general and university instruction, promoting industry,

immigration, the construction of railways, and navigable

canals, the peopling of the National lands, the introduction

and establishment of new industries, the importation of

foreign capital and the exploration of the interior rivers, by

protection laws to these ends, and by temporary concessions

and stimulating recompenses.

{515}

17. To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court,

create and suppress public offices, fix their attributes,

grant pensions, decree honors and general amnesties.

18. To accept or reject the resignation of the President or

Vice-President of the Republic, and declare new elections; to

make the scrutiny and rectification of the same.

19. To ratify or reject the treaties made with other Nations

and the Concordats with the Apostolic See, and regulate the

patronage of advowsons throughout the Nation.

20. To admit religious orders within the Nation, other than

those already existing.

21. To authorize the Executive to declare war and make peace.

22. To grant letters of marque and reprisal, and to make rules

concerning prizes.

23. To fix the land and sea forces in time of peace and war:

and to make rules and regulations for the government of said

forces.

24. To provide for calling forth the militia of all, or a part

of, the Provinces, to execute the laws of the Nation, suppress

insurrections or repel invasions. To provide for organizing,

arming, and disciplining said militia, and for governing such

part of them as may be employed in the service of the Nation,

reserving to the Provinces respectively, the appointment of

the corresponding chiefs and officers, and the authority of

training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by

Congress.

25. To permit the introduction of foreign troops within the

territory of the Nation, and the going beyond it of the

National forces.

26. To declare martial law in any or various points of the

Nation in case of domestic commotion, and ratify or suspend

the declaration of martial law made by the executive during

the recess.

27. To exercise exclusive legislation over the territory of

the National capital, and over such other places acquired by

purchase or cession in any of the Provinces, for the purpose

of establishing forts, arsenals, warehouses, or other needful

national buildings.

28. To make all laws and regulations which shall be necessary

for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all

others vested by the present Constitution in the Government of

the Argentine Nation.

Chapter V.

Article 68.

Laws may originate in either of the Houses of Congress, by

bills presented by their members or by the Executive,

excepting those relative to the objects treated of in Article

44.

Article 69.

A bill being approved by the House wherein it originated,

shall pass for discussion to the other House. Being approved

by both, it shall pass to the Executive of the Nation for his

examination; and should it receive his approbation he shall

publish it as law.

Article 70.

Every bill not returned within ten working-days by the

Executive, shall be taken as approved by him.

Article 71.

No bill entirely rejected by one House, can be presented again

during that year. But should it be only amplified or corrected

by the revising House, it shall return to that wherein it

originated; and if there the additions or corrections be

approved by an absolute majority, it shall pass to the

Executive. If the additions or corrections be rejected, it

shall return to the revising House, and if here they be again

sanctioned by a majority of two-thirds of its members, it

shall pass to the other House, and it shall not be understood

that the said additions and corrections are rejected, unless

two-thirds of the members present should so vote.

Article 72.

A bill being rejected in whole or in part by the Executive, he

shall return it with his objections to the House in which it

originated; here it shall be debated again; and if it be

confirmed by a majority of two-thirds, it shall pass again to

the revising House. If both Houses should pass it by the same

majority, it becomes a law, and shall be sent to the Executive

for promulgation. In such case the votes of both Houses shall

be by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons so voting

shall be recorded, as well as the objections of the Executive,

and shall be immediately published in the daily-press. If the

Houses differ upon the objections, the bill cannot be renewed

during that year.

Article 73.

The following formula shall be used in the passage of the

laws: "The Senate and Chamber of Deputies of the Argentine

Nation in Congress assembled, etc.. decree, or sanction, with

the force of law."

Section II.--Chapter I.

Article 74.

The Executive power of the Nation shall be exercised by a

citizen, with the title of "President of the Argentine

Nation."

Article 75.

In case of the sickness, absence from the capital, death,

resignation or dismissal of the President, the Executive power

shall be exercised by the Vice-President of the Nation. In

case of the removal, death, resignation, or inability of the

President and Vice-President of the Nation, Congress will

determine which public functionary shall then fill the

Presidency, until the disability be removed or a new President

be elected.

Article 76.

No person except a natural-born citizen or a son of a

natural-born citizen brought forth abroad, shall be eligible

as President or Vice-President of the Nation; he is required

to belong to the Apostolic-Roman-Catholic communion, and

possess the other qualifications required to be elected

Senator.

Article 77.

The President and Vice-President shall hold office during the

term of six years; and cannot be re-elected except after an

interval of an equal period.

Article 78.

The President of the Nation shall cease in his functions the

very day on which his period of six years expires, and no

event whatever which may have interrupted it, can be a motive

for completing it at a later time.

Article 79.

The President and Vice-President shall receive a compensation

from the National Treasury, which cannot be altered during the

period for which they shall have been elected. During the same

period they cannot exercise any other office nor receive any

other emolument from the Nation, or any of its Provinces.

Article 80.

The President and Vice-President before entering upon the

execution of their offices, shall take the following oath

administered by the President of the Senate (the first time by

the President of the Constituent Congress) in Congress

assembled: "I (such an one) swear by God our Lord, and by

these Holy Evangelists, that I will faithfully and

patriotically execute the office of President (or

Vice-President) of the Nation, and observe and cause to be

faithfully observed, the Constitution of the Argentine Nation.

If I should not do so, let God and the Nation indict me."

{516}

Chapter II.

Article 81.

The election of the President and Vice-President of the

Nation, shall be made in the following manner:-The capital and

each of the Provinces shall by direct vote nominate a board of

electors, double the number of Deputies and Senators which

they send to Congress, with the same qualifications and under

the same form as those prescribed for the election of

Deputies. Deputies or Senators, or officers in the pay of the

Federal Government cannot be electors. The electors being met

in the National-capital and in that of their respective

Provinces, four months prior to the conclusion of the term of

the out-going President, they shall proceed by signed ballots,

to elect a President, and Vice-President, one of which shall

state the person as President, and the other the person as

Vice-President, for whom they vote. Two lists shall be made of

all the individuals elected as President, and other two also,

of those elected as Vice-President, with the number of votes

which each may have received. These lists shall be signed by

the electors, and shall be remitted closed and sealed, two of

them (one of each kind) to the President of the Provincial

Legislature, and to the President of the Municipality in the

capital, among whose records they shall remain deposited and

closed; the other two shall be sent to the President of the

Senate (the first time to the President of the Constituent

Congress).

Article 82.

The President of the Senate (the first time that of the

Constituent Congress) all the lists being received, shall open

them in the presence of both Houses. Four members of Congress

taken by lot and associated to the Secretaries, shall

immediately proceed to count the votes, and to announce the

number which may result in favor of each candidate for the

Presidency and Vice-Presidency of the Nation. Those who have

received an absolute majority of all the votes in both cases,

shall be immediately proclaimed President and Vice-President.

Article 83.

In case there be no absolute majority, on account of a

division of the votes, Congress shall elect one of the two

persons who shall have received the highest number of votes.

If the first majority should have fallen to a single person,

and the second to two or more, Congress shall elect among all

the persons who may have obtained the first and second

majorities.

Article 84.

This election shall be made by absolute plurality of votes,

and voting by name. If, on counting the first vote, no

absolute majority shall have been obtained, a second trial

shall be made, limiting the voting to the two persons who

shall have obtained the greatest number of suffrages at the

first trial. In case of an equal number of votes, the

operation shall be repeated, and should the result be the

same, then the President of the Senate (the first time that of

the Constituent Congress) shall decide it. No scrutiny or

rectification of these elections can be made, unless

three-fourth parts of all the members of the Congress be

present.

Article 85.

The election of the President and Vice-President of the

Nation, shall be concluded in a single meeting of the

Congress, and thereafter, the result and the electoral lists

shall be published in the daily-press.

Chapter III.

Article 86.

The President of the Nation has the following attributes:--

1. He is the supreme chief of the Nation, and is charged with

the general administration of the country.

2. He issues such instructions and regulations as may be

necessary for the execution of the laws of the Nation, taking

care not to alter their spirit with regulative exceptions.

3. He is the immediate and local chief of the National

capital.

4. He participates in making the laws according to the

Constitution; and sanctions and promulgates them.

5. He nominates the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the

Inferior Federal tribunals, and appoints them by and with the

consent and advice of the Senate.

6. He has power to pardon or commute penalties against

officers subject to Federal jurisdiction, preceded by a report

of the proper Tribunal, excepting in case of impeachment by

the House of Deputies.

7. He grants retiring-pensions, leaves of absence and

pawnbrokers' licences, in conformity to the laws of the

Nation.

8. He exercises the rights of National Patronage in the

presentation of Bishops for the cathedrals, choosing from a

ternary nomination of the Senate.

9. He grants letters-patent or retains the decrees of the

Councils, the bulls, briefs and rescripts of the Holy Roman

Pontiff, by and with the consent of the Supreme Court, and

must require a law for the same when they contain general and

permanent dispositions.

10. He appoints and removes Ministers Plenipotentiary and

Chargé d'Affaires, by and with the consent and advice of the

Senate; and himself alone appoints and removes the Ministers

of his Cabinet, the officers of the Secretary-ships, Consular

Agents, and the rest of the employés of the Administration

whose nomination is not otherwise ordained by this

Constitution.

11. He annually opens the Sessions of Congress, both Houses

being united for this purpose in the Senate Chamber, giving an

account to Congress on this occasion of the state of the

Nation, of the reforms provided by the Constitution, and

recommending to its consideration such measures as may be

judged necessary and convenient.

12. He prolongs the ordinary meetings of Congress or convokes

it in extra session, when a question of progress or an

important interest so requires.

13. He collects the rents of the Nation and decrees their

expenditure in conformity to the law or estimates of the

Public expenses.

14. He negotiates and signs those treaties of peace, of

commerce, of navigation, of alliance, of boundaries and of

neutrality, requisite to maintain good relations with foreign

powers; he receives their Ministers and admits their Consuls.

15. He is commander in chief of all the sea and land forces of

the Nation.

16. He confers, by and with the consent of the Senate, the

high military grades in the army and navy of the Nation; and

by himself on the field of battle.

17. He disposes of the land and sea forces, and takes charge

of their organization and distribution according to the

requirements of the Nation.

18. By the authority and approval of Congress, he declares war

and grants letters of marque and reprisal.

{517}

19. By and with the consent of the Senate, in case of foreign

aggression and for a limited time, he declares martial law in

one or more points of the Nation. In case of internal

commotion he has this power only when Congress is in recess,

because it is an attribute which belongs to this body. The

President exercises it under the limitations mentioned in

Article 23.

20. He may require from the chiefs of all the branches and

departments of the Administration, and through them from all

other employés, such reports as he may believe necessary, and

they are compelled to give them.

21. He cannot absent himself from the capital of the Nation

without permission of Congress. During the recess he can only

do so without permission on account of important objects of

public service.

22. The President shall have power to fill all vacancies that

may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting

commissions, which shall expire at the end of their next

session.

Chapter IV.

Article 87.

Five Minister-Secretaries; to wit, of the Interior; of Foreign

Affairs; of Finance; of Justice, Worship and Public

Instruction; and of War and the Navy; shall have under their

charge the dispatch of National affairs, and they shall

counter-sign and legalize the acts of the President by means

of their signatures, without which requisite they shall not be

efficacious. A law shall determine the respective duties of

the Ministers.

Article 88.

Each Minister is responsible for the acts which he legalizes,

and collectively, for those which he agrees to with his

colleagues.

Article 89.

The Ministers cannot determine anything whatever, by

themselves, except what concerns the economical and

administrative regimen of their respective Departments.

Article 90.

As soon as Congress opens, the Ministers shall present to it a

detailed report of the State of the Nation, in all that

relates to their respective Departments.

Article 91.

They cannot be Senators or Deputies without resigning their

places as Ministers.

Article 92.

The Ministers can assist at the meetings of Congress and take

part in its debates, but they cannot vote.

Article 93.

They shall receive for their services a compensation

established by law, which shall not be increased or

diminished, in favor or against, the actual incumbents.

Section III.--Chapter I.

Article 94.

The Judicial Power of the Nation shall be exercised by a

Supreme Court of Justice, and by such other inferior Tribunals

as Congress may establish within the dominion of the Nation.

Article 95.

The President of the Nation cannot in any case whatever,

exercise Judicial powers, arrogate to himself any knowledge of

pending causes, or reopen those which have terminated.

Article 96.

The Judges of the Supreme Court and of the lower

National-Tribunals, shall keep their places quamdiu se bene

gesserit, and shall receive for their services a compensation

determined by law, which shall not be diminished in any manner

whatever during their continuance in office.

Article 97.

No one can be a member of the Supreme Court of Justice, unless

he shall have been an attorney at law of the Nation for eight

years, and shall possess the qualifications required for a

Senator.

Article 98.

At the first installation of the Supreme Court, the

individuals appointed shall take an oath administered by the

President of the Nation, to discharge their functions, by the

good and legal administration of Justice according to the

prescriptions of this Constitution. Thereafter, the oath shall

be taken before the President of the Court itself.

Article 99.

The Supreme Court shall establish its own internal and

economical regulations, and shall appoint its subaltern

employés.

Chapter II.

Article 100.

The Judicial power of the Supreme Court and the lower

National-Tribunals, shall extend to all cases arising under

this Constitution, the laws of the Nation with the reserve

made in clause 11 of Article 67, and by treaties with foreign

nations; to all cases affecting ambassadors, public Ministers

and foreign Consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime

jurisdiction; to controversies to which the Nation shall be

party; to controversies between two or more Provinces; between

a Province and the citizens of another; between the citizens

of different Provinces; and between a Province or its

citizens, against a foreign State or citizen.

Article 101.

In these cases the Supreme Court shall exercise an appelate

jurisdiction according to such rules and exceptions as

Congress may prescribe; but in all cases affecting

ambassadors, ministers and foreign consuls, or those in which

a Province shall be a party, it shall exercise original and

exclusive jurisdiction.

Article 102.

The trial of all ordinary crimes except in cases of

impeachment, shall terminate by jury, so soon as this

institution be established in the Republic. These trials shall

be held in the same Province where the crimes shall have been

committed, but when not committed within the frontiers of the

Nation, but against International Law, Congress shall

determine by a special law the place where the trial shall

take effect.

Article 103.

Treason against the Nation shall only consist in levying war

against it, or in adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and

comfort. Congress shall fix by a special law the punishment of

treason; but it cannot go beyond the person of the criminal,

and no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood to

relatives of any grade whatever.

Article 104.

The Provinces keep all the powers not delegated by this

Constitution to the Federal Government, and those which were

expressly reserved by special compacts at the time of their

incorporation.

Article 105.

They create their own local institutions and are governed by

these. They elect their own Governors, their Legislators and

other Provincial functionaries, without intervention from the

Federal Government.

Article 106.

Each Province shall make its own Constitution in conformity

with the dispositions of Article 5.

Article 107.

The Provinces with the consent of Congress can celebrate

contracts among themselves for the purposes of administering

justice and promoting economical interests and works of common

utility, and also, can pass protective laws for the purpose

with their own resources, of promoting manufactures,

immigration, the building of railways and canals, the peopling

of their lands, the introduction and establishment of new

industries, the import of foreign-capital and the exploration

of their rivers.

{518}

Article 108.

The Provinces cannot exercise any powers delegated to the

Nation. They cannot celebrate compacts of a political

character, nor make laws on commerce or internal or external

navigation; nor establish Provincial Custom-Houses, nor coin

money, nor establish Banks of emission, without authority of

Congress; nor make civil, commercial, penal or mining Codes

after Congress shall have sanctioned those provided for in

this Constitution; nor pass laws upon citizenship or

naturalization; bankruptcy, counterfeiting money or public

State-documents; nor lay tonnage dues; nor arm vessels of war

or raise armies, save in the case of foreign invasion, or of a

danger so imminent that it admits of no delay, and then an

account thereof must be immediately given to the Federal

Government; or name or receive foreign agents; or admit new

religious orders.

Article 109.

No Province can declare or make war to another Province. Its

complaints must be submitted to the Supreme Court of Justice

and be settled by it. Hostilities de facto are acts of

civil-war and qualified as seditious and tumultuous, which the

General Government must repress and suffocate according to

law.

Article 110.

The Provincial Governors are the natural agents of the Federal

Government to cause the fulfilment of the laws of the Nation.

See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1880-1891.

----------CONSTITUTION OF THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF THE AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN EMPIRE.

Introduced in 1867.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867, and 1866-1887.

CONSTITUTION OF BELGIUM.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1884.

CONSTITUTION OF BOLIVIA.

See PERU: A. D. 1825-1826, and 1826-1876.

----------End----------

CONSTITUTION OF BRAZIL.

The following text of the Constitution of the United States of

Brazil, adopted February 24, 1891, is taken from a translation

published in Bulletin No. 7 of the Bureau of American

Republics, Washington:

We, the representatives of the Brazilian people, united in

constitutional congress, to organize a free and democratic

regime, do establish, decree and promulgate the following

constitution of the Republic of the United States of Brazil:

Article 1.

The Brazilian nation, adopting as a form of government the

Federal Republic proclaimed November 15, 1889, constitutes

itself, by the perpetual and indissoluble union of its former

provinces, the United States of Brazil.

Article 2.

Each of the former provinces shall constitute a State, and the

former municipal district shall form the Federal District,

continuing to be the capital of the Union until the following

article shall be carried in to effect.

Article 3.

In the center there is allotted as the property of the Union a

zone of 14,400 square kilometres, which in due time shall be

laid off for the establishment of the future federal capital.

Sole paragraph.--After the change of site of the

capital, the present Federal District shall constitute a

State.

Article 4.

The States shall have the right to incorporate themselves one

with another, sub-divide themselves, dismember themselves to

join with others or form new States, with the consent of the

respective local legislatures in two successive annual

sessions and the approval of the national Congress.

Article 5.

It shall be the duty of each State to provide, at its own

expense, for the necessities of its government and

administration; but the Union shall extend assistance to any

State which, in case of public calamity, shall demand it.

Article 6.

The Federal Government shall not interfere in matters

pertaining peculiarly to the States, save:

(1) To repel foreign invasion, or the invasion of one State by

another.

(2) To maintain the federative republican form of government.

(3) To reestablish order and tranquillity in the States at the

request of the respective governments.

(4) To assure the execution of the laws and federal decrees.

Article 7.

It is the exclusive prerogative of the Union to decree:

(1) Duties on imports from foreign countries.

(2) Duties of entry, departure, and stay of vessels; the

coasting trade for national articles being free of duties, as

well as for foreign merchandise that has already paid an

import duty.

(3) Stamp duties, save the restrictions imposed by article 9,

§1. No.1.

(4) Postal and federal telegraphic taxes.

§1. The Union alone shall have the power:

(1) To establish banks of emission.

(2) To create and maintain custom-houses.

§2. The taxes decreed by the Union shall be uniform for all

the States.

§3. The laws of the Union and the acts and decisions of its

authorities shall be executed throughout the country by

federal officials, except that the enforcement of the former

may be committed to the governments of the States, with the

consent of the said States.

Article 8.

The Federal Government is forbidden to make distinctions and

preferences in favor of the ports of any of the States against

those of others.

Article 9.

The States alone are competent to decree taxes:

(1) On the exportation of merchandise of their own production.

(2) On landed property.

(3) On the transmission of property.

(4) On industries and professions.

§ 1. The States also have the exclusive right to decree:

(1) Stamp duties on instruments emanating from their

respective governments and business of their internal economy.

(2) Contributions touching their own telegraphs and postal

service.

§ 2. The products of the other States are exempt from imposts

in the State whence they are exported.

§3. It is lawful for a State to levy duties on imports of

foreign goods only when intended for consumption in its own

territory; but it shall, in such case, cover into the federal

treasury the amount of duties collected.

§4. The right is reserved to the States of establishing

telegraph lines between the different points of their own

territory, and between these and those of other States not

served by federal lines; but the Union may take possession of

them when the general welfare shall require.

{519}

Article 10.

The several States are prohibited from taxing the federal

property or revenue, or anything in the service of the Union,

and vice versa.

Article 11.

It is forbidden to the States, as well as to the Unions:

(1) To impose duties on the products of the other States, or

of foreign countries, in transit through the territory of any

State, or from one State to another, as also on the vehicles,

whether by land or water, by which they are transported.

(2) To establish, aid, or embarrass the exercise of religious

worship.

(3) To enact ex post facto laws.

Article 12.

In addition to the sources of revenue set forth in articles 7

and 9, it shall be lawful for the Union, as well as for the

States, cumulatively or otherwise, to create any others

whatsoever which may not be in contravention of the terms of

articles 7, 9, and 11, § 1.

Article 13.

The right or the Union and of the States to legislate in

regard to railways and navigation of internal waters shall be

regulated by federal law. Sole paragraph.--The

coastwise trade shall be carried on in national vessels.

Article 14.

The land and naval forces are permanent national institutions,

intended for the defense of the country from foreign attack

and the maintenance of the laws of the land. Within the limits

of the law, the armed forces are from their nature held to

obedience, each rank to its superior, and bound to support all

constitutional institutions.

Article 15.

The legislative, executive, and judicial powers are organs of

the national sovereignty, harmonious and independent among

themselves.

Article 16.

The legislative power is vested in the national Congress, with

the sanction of the President of the Republic.

§ 1. The national Congress is composed of two branches, the

Chamber of Deputies and the Senate.

§ 2. The elections for senators and for deputies shall be held

simultaneously throughout the country.

§ 3. No person shall be senator and deputy at the same time.

Article 17.

The Congress shall assemble in the federal capital on the 3d

day of May of each year, unless some other day shall be fixed

by law, without being convoked, and shall continue in session

4 months from the date of the opening, and may be prorogued,

adjourned, or convoked in extraordinary session.

§ 1. The Congress alone shall have the power to deliberate on

the prorogation or extension of its session.

§ 2. Each legislature shall last for 3 years.

§ 3. The governor of any State in which there shall be a

vacancy in the representation, including the case of

resignation, shall order a new election to be held at once.

Article 18.

The Chamber and the Senate shall hold their sessions apart and

in public, unless otherwise resolved by a majority vote, and

shall deliberate only when, in each of the chambers, there

shall be present an absolute majority of its members. Sole

paragraph.--To each of the chambers shall belong the right

to verify and recognize the powers of its members, to choose

its own presiding officers, to organize its internal

government, to regulate the service of its own police rules,

and to choose its own secretaries.

Article 19.

The deputies and senators can not be held to account for their

opinions, expressions, and votes in the discharge of their

mandate.

Article 20.

Deputies and senators, from the time of receiving their

certificate of election until a new election, can not be

arrested or proceeded against criminally without the

permission of their respective chambers, except in the case of

a flagrant crime, in which bail is inadmissible. In such case,

the prosecution being carried to exclusive decision, the

prosecuting authority shall send the court records to the

respective chamber for its decision on the prosecution of the

charge, unless the accused shall prefer immediate judgment.

Article 21.

The members of the two chambers, on taking their seats, shall

take a formal obligation, in public session, to perform their

duties faithfully.

Article 22.

During the sessions the senators and deputies shall receive an

equal pecuniary salary and mileage, which shall be fixed by

Congress at the end of each session for the following one.

Article 23.

No member of the Congress, from the time of his election, can

make contracts with the executive power or receive from it any

paid commission or employment.

§ 1. Exceptions to this prohibition are:

(1) Diplomatic missions.

(2) Commissions or military commands.

(3) Advancement in rank and legal promotion.

§ 2.

No deputy or senator, however, can accept an appointment for

any mission, commission, or command mentioned in Nos. 1 and 2

of the preceding paragraph, without the consent of the chamber

to which he belongs, when such acceptance would prevent the

exercise of his legislative duties, except in case of war or

such as involve the honor or integrity of the nation.

Article 24.

No deputy or senator can be president or form part of a

directory of any bank, company, or enterprise which enjoys the

favors of the Federal Government defined in and by law.

Sole paragraph.--Nonobservance of the provisions of the

foregoing article by any deputy or senator shall involve the

loss of his seat.

Article 25.

The legislative commission shall be incompatible with the

exercise of any other functions during the sessions.

Article 26.

The conditions for eligibility to the national Congress are:

(1) To be in possession of the rights of Brazilian citizenship

and to be registered as a voter.

(2) For the Chamber, to have been for more than 4 years a

Brazilian citizen; and for the Senate, for more than 6 years.

This provision does not include those citizens referred to in

No.4, article 69.

Article 27.

The Congress shall by special legislation declare the cases of

electoral incompetency.

Article 28.

The Chamber of Deputies shall be composed of the

representatives of the people, elected by the States and the

Federal District by direct suffrage, the representation of the

minority being guarantied.

§ 1. The number of the deputies shall be fixed by law in such

a way as not to exceed one for each 70,000 inhabitants, and

that there shall not be less than four for each State.

§ 2. To this end the Federal Government shall at once order a

census to be taken of the population of the Republic, which

shall be revised every 10 years.

Article 29.

To the Chamber belongs the initiative in the adjournment of

the legislative sessions and in all legislation in regard to

taxation, to the determination of the size of the army and

navy, in the discussion of propositions from the executive

power, and in the decision to proceed or not in charges

against the President of the Republic under the terms of

article 53, and against the ministers of state in crimes

connected with those of the said President.

{520}

Article 30.

The Senate shall be composed of citizens eligible under the

terms of article 26 and more than 35 years of age, to the

number of three senators for each State and three for the

Federal District, chosen in the same manner as the deputies.

Article 31.

The mandate of a senator shall continue for 9 years, and

one-third of the Senate shall be renewed every 3 years.

Sole paragraph.--A senator elected in place of another

shall exercise his mandate during the remainder of

the term of the latter.

Article 32.

The Vice President of the Republic shall be the president of

the Senate, where he shall vote only in case of tie, and shall

be replaced in case of absence or impediment by the vice

president of that body.

Article 33.

The Senate alone shall have the power to try and sentence the

President of the Republic and the other federal officers

designated by the constitution, under the conditions and in

the manner which it prescribes.

§ 1. The Senate, when sitting as a tribunal of justice, shall

be presided over by the president of the federal supreme

court.

§ 2. It shall not pass sentence of condemnation unless

two-thirds of its members be present.

§ 3. It shall not impose other penalties than the loss of

office and prohibition from holding any other, without

prejudice to the action of ordinary justice against the

condemned.

Article 34.

The national Congress shall have exclusive power:

(1) To estimate the revenue, and fix the expenditures of the

Federal Government annually, and take account of the receipts

and expenditures of each financial budget.

(2) To authorize the executive to contract loans and make

other operations of credit.

(3) To legislate in regard to the public debt and furnish

means for its payment.

(4) To control the collection and disposition of the national

revenue.

(5) To regulate international commerce, as well as that of the

States with each other and with the Federal District; to

establish and regulate the collection of customs duties in the

ports, create or abolish warehouses of deposit.

(6) To legislate in regard to navigation of rivers running

through more than one State, or through foreign territory.

(7) To determine the weight, value, inscription, type, and

denomination of the currency.

(8) To create banks of emission, legislate in regard to this

emission and to tax it.

(9) To fix the standard of weights and measures.

(10) To determine definitely the boundaries of the States

between each other, those of the Federal District, and those

of the national territory with the adjoining nations.

(11) To authorize the Government to declare war, if there be

no recourse to arbitration or in case of failure of this, and

to make peace.

(12) To decide definitively in regard to treaties and

conventions with foreign nations.

(13) To remove the capital of the Union.

(14) To extend aid to the States in the case referred to in

article 5.

(15) To legislate in regard to federal postal and telegraph

service.

(16) To adopt the necessary measures for the protection of the

frontiers.

(17) To fix every year the number of the land and naval

forces.

(18) To make laws for the organization of the army and navy.

(19) To grant or refuse to foreign forces passage through the

territory of the country to carry on military operations.

(20) To mobilize and make use of the national guard or local

militia in the cases designated by the Constitution.

(21) To declare a state of siege at one or more points in the

national territory, in the emergency of an attack by foreign

forces, or internal disturbance, and to approve or suspend the

state of siege proclaimed by the executive power or its

responsible agents in the absence of the Congress.

(22) To regulate the conditions and methods of elections for

federal offices throughout the country.

(23) To legislate upon the civil, criminal, and commercial

laws and legal procedures of the federal judiciary.

(24) To establish uniform naturalization laws.

(25) To create and abolish federal public offices, to fix the

duties of the same, and designate their salaries.

(26) To organize the federal judiciary according to the terms

of article 55 and the succeeding, section 3.

(27) To grant amnesty.

(28) To commute and pardon penalties imposed upon federal

officers for offenses arising from their responsibility.

(29) To make laws regarding Government lands and mines.

(30) To legislate in regard to the municipal organization of

the Federal District, as well as to the police, the superior

instruction and other services which in the capital may be

reserved for the Government of the Union.

(31) To govern by special legislation those points of the

territory of the Republic needed for the establishment of

arsenals, other establishments or institutions for federal

uses.

(32) To settle cases of extradition between the States.

(33) To enact such laws and resolutions as may be necessary

for the exercise of the powers belonging to the Union.

(34) To enact the organic laws necessary for the complete

execution of the requirements of the Constitution.

(35) To prorogue and adjourn its own sessions.

Article 35.

It shall belong likewise to the Congress, but not exclusively:

(1) To watch over the Constitution and the laws, and provide

for necessities of a federal character.

(2) To promote in the country the development of literature,

the arts, and sciences, together with immigration,

agriculture, manufactures, and commerce, without privileges

such as would obstruct the action of the local governments.

(3) To create institutions of higher instruction and of high

school education in the States.

(4) To provide for high school instruction in the Federal

District.

Article 36.

Save the exceptions named in article 27, all bills may

originate, indifferently, in the Chamber or in the Senate, and

may be introduced by any of their members.

Article 37.

A bill, after being passed in one of the chambers, shall be

submitted to the other, and, if the latter shall approve the

same, it shall send it to the executive, who, if he approve

it, shall sanction and promulgate it.

§ 1. If, however, the President of the Republic shall consider

it unconstitutional, or contrary to the good of the nation, he

shall refuse his sanction to the same within 10 working days,

counted from that on which he received it (the bill), and

shall return it, within the same period, to the chamber in

which it originated, with his reasons for his refusal.

§ 2. The failure of the executive to signify his disapproval

within the above-named 10 days shall be considered as an

approval, and in case his sanction be refused after the close

of the session of the Congress, the President shall make

public his reasons therefor.

{521}

§ 3. The bill sent back to the chamber where it originated

shall be discussed and voted upon by call of names, and shall

be considered as passed if it obtain two-thirds of the votes

of the members present; and, in this case, it shall be sent to

the other chamber, whence, if it receive the same majority, it

shall return, as a law, to the executive to be formally

promulgated.

§ 4. The sanction and promulgation shall be effected in the

following forms:

(1) "The national Congress enacts and I sanction the following

law (or resolution)."

(2) "The national Congress enacts and I promulgate the

following law (or resolution)."

Article 38.

If the law be not promulgated by the President of the Republic

within 48 hours, in the cases provided for in §§ 2 and 3 of

the preceding article, the president of the Senate, or the

vice president, if the former shall not do so in the same

space of time, shall promulgate it, making use of the

following formula: "I, president (or vice president) of the

Senate, make known to whomsoever these presents may come, that

the national Congress enacts and promulgates the following law

(or resolution)."

Article. 39.

A bill from one chamber, amended in the other, shall return to

the former, which, if it accept the amendments, shall send it,

changed to conform with the same, to the executive.

§ 1. In the contrary case, it shall go back to the amending

chamber, where the alterations shall be considered as

approved, if they receive the vote of two-thirds of the

members present; in the latter case, the bill shall return to

the chamber where it originated, and there the amendments can

be rejected only by a two-thirds vote.

§ 2. If the alterations be rejected by such vote, the bill

shall be submitted without them to the approval of the

executive.

Article 40.

Bills finally rejected or not approved, shall not be presented

again in the same legislative session.

Article 41.

The executive power shall be exercised by the President of the

United States of Brazil, as elective chief of the nation.

§ 1. The Vice President, elected simultaneously with the

President, shall serve in place of the latter in case of

impediment and succeed him in case of vacancy in the

Presidency.

§ 2. In case of impediment or vacancy in the Vice Presidency,

the following officers, in the order named, shall be called to

the Presidency: The vice president of the Senate, the

president of the Chamber of Deputies, the president of the

federal supreme court.

§ 3. The following are the conditions of eligibility to the

Presidency or Vice Presidency of the Republic:

(1) Must be a native of Brazil.

(2) Must be in the exercise of political rights.

(3) Must be more than 35 years of age.

Article 42.

In case of vacancy from any cause in the Presidency or Vice

Presidency before the expiration of the first 2 years of the

Presidential term, a new election shall be held.

Article 43.

The President shall hold his office during 4 years, and is not

eligible for reelection for the next succeeding term.

§ 1. The Vice President who shall fill the Presidency during

the last year of the Presidential term shall not be eligible

to the Presidency for the next term of that office.

§ 2. On the same day on which his Presidential term shall

cease the President shall, without fail, cease to exercise the

functions of his office, and the newly elected President shall

at once succeed him.

§ 3. If the latter should be hindered or should fail to do so,

the succession shall be effected in accordance with §§ 1 and 2

of article 41.

§ 4. The first Presidential term shall expire on the 15th of

November, 1894.

Article 44.

On taking possession of his office, the President, in a

session of the Congress, or, if it be not assembled, before

the federal supreme court, shall pronounce the following

affirmation: "I promise to maintain the federal Constitution

and comply with its provisions with perfect loyalty, to

promote the general welfare of the Republic, to observe its

laws, and support the union, integrity, and independence of

the nation."

Article 45.

The President and Vice President shall not leave the national

territory without the permission of the Congress, under

penalty of loss of office.

Article 46.

The President and Vice President shall receive the salary

fixed by the Congress in the preceding Presidential term.

Article 47.

The President and Vice President shall be chosen by direct

suffrage of the nation and an absolute majority of the votes.

§ 1. The election shall take place on the first day of March

in the last year of the Presidential term, and the counting of

the votes cast at the different precincts shall at once be

made in the respective capitals of the States and in the

federal capital. The Congress shall make the count at its

first session of the same year, with any number of members

present.

§ 2. If none of those voted for shall have received an

absolute majority, the Congress shall elect, by a majority of

votes of those present, one of the two who, in the direct

election, shall have received the highest number of votes. In

case of a tie the older shall be considered elected.

§ 3. The manner of the election and of the counting of the

votes shall be regulated by ordinary legislation.

§ 4. The relatives, both by consanguinity and by marriage, in

the first and second degrees, of the President and Vice

President shall be ineligible for the offices of President and

Vice President, provided the said officials are in office at

the time of the election or have left the office even 6 months

before.

Article 48.

To the President of the Republic shall belong the exclusive

right to--

(1) Sanction, promulgate, and make public the laws and

resolutions of the Congress; issue decrees, instructions, and

regulations for their faithful execution.

(2) Choose and dismiss at will the cabinet officers.

(3) Exercise or appoint some one to exercise supreme command

over the land and naval forces of the United States of Brazil,

as well as over the local police, when called to arms for the

internal or external defense of the Union.

(4) Govern and distribute, under the laws of the Congress,

according to the necessities of the National Government, the

land and naval forces.

(5) Dispose of the offices, both military and civil, of a

federal character, with the exceptions specified in the

Constitution.

(6) Pardon crimes and commute penalties for offenses subject

to federal jurisdiction, save in the cases mentioned in

article 34, No. 28, and article 52, § 2.

(7) Declare war and make peace, under the provisions of

article 34, No. 11.

(8) Declare war at once in case of foreign invasion or

aggression.

{522}

(9) Give an annual statement to the national Congress of the

condition of the country, with a recommendation

of pressing provisions and reforms, through a message,

which he shall send to the secretary of the Senate on the day

of the opening of the legislative session.

(10) Convoke the Congress in extra session.

(11) Appoint the federal judges when proposed by the supreme

court.

(12) Appoint the members of the federal supreme court and

ministers of the diplomatic corps, with the approval of the

senate; and, in the absence of the Congress, appoint them in

commission until considered by the senate.

(13) Appoint the other members of the diplomatic corps and

consular agents.

(14) Maintain relations with foreign states.

(15) Declare, directly, or through his responsible agents, a

state of siege at any point of the national territory, in case

of foreign aggression or serious internal disturbance.

(Article 6, No.3; article 34, No. 21; and article 80.)

(16)  Set on foot international negotiations, celebrate

agreements, conventions, and treaties, always ad referendum to

the Congress, and approve those made by the States in

conformity with article 65, submitting them when necessary to

the authority of the Congress.

Article 49.

The President of the Republic shall be assisted by the

ministers of state (cabinet officers), agents of his

confidence, who sign the acts and preside over their

respective departments into which the federal administration

is divided.

Article 50.

The cabinet ministers shall not exercise any other employment

or function of a public nature, be eligible to the Presidency

or Vice Presidency of the Union, or be elected deputy or

senator. Sole paragraph.--Any deputy or senator, who

shall accept the position of cabinet minister, shall lose his

seat in the respective chamber, and a new election shall at

once be held, in which he shall not be voted for.

Article 51.

The cabinet ministers shall not appear at the sessions of the

Congress, and shall communicate with that body in writing only

or by personal conference with the committees of the chambers.

The annual report of the ministers shall be addressed to the

President of the Republic, and distributed to all the members

of the Congress.

Article 52.

The cabinet ministers shall not be responsible to the Congress

or to the courts for advice given to the President of the

Republic.

§ 1. They shall be responsible, nevertheless, with respect to

their acts, for crimes defined in the law.

§ 2. For common crimes and those for which they are

responsible they shall be prosecuted and tried by the federal

supreme court, and for those committed jointly with the

President of the Republic, by the authority competent to judge

this latter.

Article 53.

The President of the United States of Brazil shall be brought

to trial and judgment, after the Chamber of Deputies shall

have decided that he should be tried on the charges made

against him, in the federal supreme court, in the case of

common crimes, and in those of responsibility, in the Senate.

Sole paragraph.--As soon as it shall be decided to try

him on the charges brought, the President shall be suspended

in the exercise of the duties of his office.

Article 54.

Crimes of responsibility on the part of the President of the

Republic are such as are directed against--

(1) The political existence of the Union.

(2) The Constitution and the form of the Federal Government.

(3) The free exercise of the political powers.

(4) The legal enjoyment and exercise of political or

individual rights.

(5) The internal security of the country.

(6) The purity of the administration.

(7) The constitutional keeping and use of the public funds.

(8) The financial legislation enacted by the Congress.

§ 1. These offenses shall be defined in a special law.

§ 2. Another law shall provide for the charges, the trial, and

the judgment.

§ 3. Both these laws shall be enacted in the first session of

the first Congress.

Article 55.

The judicial power of the Union shall be lodged in a federal

supreme court, sitting in the capital of the Republic, and as

many inferior federal courts and tribunals, distributed

through the country, as the Congress shall create.

Article 56.

The federal supreme court shall be composed of fifteen

justices, appointed under the provisions of article 48, No.

12, from among the oldest thirty citizens of well-known

knowledge and reputation who may be eligible to the Senate.

Article 57.

The federal justices shall hold office for life, being

removable solely by judicial sentence.

§ 1. Their salaries shall be fixed by law of the Congress, and

can not be diminished.

§ 2. The Senate shall try the members of the federal supreme

court for crimes of responsibility, and this latter the lower

federal judges.

Article 58.

The federal courts shall choose their presidents from among

their own members, and shall organize their respective

clerical corps.

§ 1. In these corps the appointment and dismissal of the

respective clerks, as well as the filling of the judicial

offices in the respective judicial districts, shall belong to

the presidents of the respective courts.

§ 2. The President of the Republic shall appoint from among

the members of the federal supreme court the attorney-general

of the Republic, whose duties shall be defined by law.

Article 59.

To the federal supreme court shall belong the duty of--

(1) Trying and judging by original and exclusive

jurisdiction--

(a) The President of the Republic for common crimes, and the

cabinet ministers in the cases specified in article 52.

(b) The ministers of the diplomatic corps for common crimes

and those of responsibility.

(c) Cases and disputes between the States and the Union, or

between the States one with another.

(d) Disputes and claims between foreign states and the Union,

or between foreign nations and the States.

(e) Conflicts between the federal courts one with another, or

between these and those of the States, as well as those

between the courts of one State and those of another.

(2) Deciding, on appeal, questions pronounced upon by the

lower federal courts and tribunals, as well as those mentioned

in § 1 of the present article and in article 60.

(3) Reviewing the proceedings of finished trials, under the

provisions of article 81.

§ 1. Decisions of State courts in last appeal can be carried

to the federal supreme court--

(a) When the validity or application of the federal laws or

treaties is called in question and the decision of the State

court shall be against the same.

(b) When the validity of laws or acts of the governments of

the States in respect to the Constitution or of the federal

laws is contested and the State court shall have decided in

favor of the validity of the acts or laws in question.

§ 2. In the cases which involve the application of the laws of

the States, the federal court shall consult the jurisprudence

of the local tribunals, and vice versa, the State court shall

consider that of the federal tribunals when the interpretation

of the laws of the Union is involved.

{523}

Article 60.

It shall belong to the federal courts to decide--

(a) Cases in which the plaintiff or the defendant shall rest

the case on some provision of the federal Constitution.

(b) All suits brought against the Government of the Union or

the national treasury based on constitutional provisions, on

the laws and regulations of the executive power, or on

contracts made with the said Government.

(c) Suits arising from compensations, claims, indemnification

of damages, or any others whatsoever brought by the Government

of the Union against private individuals, and vice versa.

(d) Litigations between a State and the citizens of another,

or between citizens of different States having differences in

their laws.

(e) Suits between foreign states and Brazilian citizens.

(f) Actions begun by foreigners, and based either on contracts

with the Federal Government or on conventions or treaties of

the Union with other nations.

(g) Questions of maritime law and navigation, whether on the

sea or on the rivers and lakes of the country.

(h) Questions of international law, whether criminal or civil.

(i) Political crimes.

§ 1. Congress is forbidden to commit any part of the federal

jurisdiction to the State courts.

§ 2. Sentences and orders of the federal judges will be

executed by federal court officers, and the local police shall

assist them when called upon by the same.

Article 61.

The decisions of the State courts or tribunals in matters

within their competence shall put an end to the suits and

questions, except as to

(1) habeas corpus, or

(2) effects of a foreigner deceased in cases not provided for

by convention or treaty. In such cases there shall be

voluntary recourse to the federal supreme court.

Article 62.

The State courts shall not have the power to intervene in

questions submitted to the federal tribunals, or to annul,

alter, or suspend the sentences or orders of these latter;

and, reciprocally, the federal judiciary can not interfere in

questions submitted to the State courts, or annul, alter, or

suspend their decisions or orders, except in the cases

provided in this Constitution.

Article 63.

Each State shall be governed by the constitution and laws

which it shall adopt, respect being observed for the

constitutional principles of the Union.

Article 64.

The unexplored mines and wild lands lying within the States

shall belong to these States respectively; and to the Union

only as much territory as may be necessary for the defense of

the frontiers, for fortifications, military works, and federal

railways. Sole paragraph.--The national properties,

not necessary for the service of the Union, shall pass to the

domain of the States in whose territory they may be situated.

Article 65.

The States shall have the right to--

(1) Conclude agreements and conventions among themselves, if

such be not of a political character. (Article 48, No. 16.)

(2) Exercise in general any and every power or right not

denied expressly by the Constitution, or implicitly in its

express terms.

Article 66.

It is forbidden to the States to--

(1) Refuse to recognize public documents of the Union, or of

any of the States, of a legislative, administrative, or

judicial character.

(2) Reject the currency or notes issued by banks, which

circulate by act of the Federal Government.

(3) Make or declare war, one with another, or make reprisals.

(4) Refuse the extradition of criminals demanded by the

justice of other States, or of the Federal District, in

conformity with the laws of Congress which relate to this

subject. (Article 41, No. 32.)

Article 67.

Save the restrictions specified in the Constitution, and the

federal laws, the Federal District shall be governed directly

by the municipal authorities. Sole paragraph.--Expenses

of a local character in the capital of the Republic must be

provided for exclusively by the municipal authorities.

Article 68.

The States shall organize themselves in such a manner as to

assure the autonomy of the municipalities in everything that

concerns their peculiar interests.

Article 69.

The following shall be Brazilian citizens:

(1) Natives of Brazil, though of foreign parentage (father),

provided he be not in the service of his nation.

(2) Sons of a Brazilian father, and illegitimate sons of a

Brazilian mother, born in foreign parts, if they take up their

residence (domicile) in the republic.

(3) Sons of a Brazilian father who may be in another country

in the service of the Republic, although they do not make

their domicile in Brazil.

(4) Foreigners, who, being in Brazil on the 15th of November,

1889, shall not declare, within 6 months from the time when

the Constitution enters into force, their desire to preserve

their original nationality.

(5) Foreigners who possess property (real estate) in Brazil

and are married to Brazilian women, or have Brazilian

children, provided they reside in Brazil, unless they shall

declare their intention of not changing their nationality.

(6) Foreigners naturalized in any other way.

Article 70.

Citizens of more than 21 years of age, and registered

according to law, shall be electors.

§ 1. The following shall not be registered as electors for

federal or State elections:

(1) Beggars.

(2) Persons ignorant of the alphabet.

(3) Soldiers on pay, except alumni of the military schools of

higher instruction.

(4) Members of monastic orders, companies, congregations, or

communities of whatsoever denomination, who are subject to

vows of obedience, rule, or statute, which implies the

surrender of individual liberty.

§ 2. Citizens who can not be registered shall not be eligible.

Article 71.

The rights of the Brazilian citizen can be suspended or lost

only in the following cases:

§ 1. The rights may be suspended--

(a) For physical or moral incapacity.

(b) For criminal conviction, during the operation of the

sentence.

§ 2. They may be lost--

(a) By naturalization in a foreign country.

(b) By acceptance of employment or pension from a foreign

power, without permission of the federal executive.

§ 3. The means of reacquiring lost rights of the Brazilian

citizen shall be specified by federal law.

Article 72.

The Constitution secures to Brazilians and foreigners residing

in the country the inviolability of their rights touching

individual liberty, and security, and property, in the

following terms:

§ 1. No person shall be forced to do, or leave undone,

anything whatever, except by virtue of law.

§ 2. Before the law all persons are equal. The Republic does

not recognize privileges of birth, or titles of nobility, and

abolishes all existing honorary orders, with all their

prerogatives and decorations, as well as all hereditary and

conciliar titles.

{524}

§ 3. All persons and religious professions may exercise,

publicly and freely, the right of worship, and may associate

themselves for that purpose, acquire property, observance

being had to the provisions of the common law.

§ 4. The Republic recognizes only the civil marriage, the

celebration of which shall be gratuitous.

§ 5. The cemeteries shall be secular in character, and be

managed by the municipal authorities, being free to all

religious sects for the exercise of their respective rites as

regards their members, provided they do not offend public

morals or the laws.

§ 6. The instruction given in the public institutions shall be

secular.

§ 7. No sect or church shall receive official aid, nor be

dependent on, nor connected with, the Government of the Union,

or of the States.

§ 8. All persons have the right of free association and

assembly, without arms; and the police force shall not

intervene, except to maintain the public order.

§ 9. Any person whatsoever shall have the right to address, by

petition, the public powers, denounce abuses of the

authorities, and appeal to the responsibility of the accused.

§ 10. In time of peace any person may, without passport, enter

or leave the territory of the Republic, with his fortune and

goods, whenever and however he may choose.

§ 11. The house is the inviolable asylum of the person; no one

can enter it at night without the consent of the inhabitant,

except to aid the victims of a crime or disaster; nor by day,

unless in the cases and in the form prescribed by law.

§ 12. The expression of opinion shall be free, in respect to

whatever subject, through the press or through the tribune,

without subjection to censorship, each one being responsible

for the abuses he may commit, in the cases and in the form

prescribed by law. Anonymous publications are forbidden.

§ 13. Cases of flagrante delicto alone excepted, no arrest

shall be made, unless after declaration of the charge (save in

cases determined by law), and by written order of the

competent authorities.

§ 14. No person shall be kept in prison without charge

formally made, save the exceptions mentioned in the law, or

taken to prison, or detained there, if he give bail, in cases

where such is lawful.

§ 15. No person shall be condemned, except by competent

authority, and in virtue of law already existing and in the

form prescribed by it.

§ 16. The law shall secure to the accused the fullest defense

by all the recourses and means essential to the same,

including the notice of the charge, delivered to the prisoner

within 24 hours and signed by the proper authority along with

the names of the accusers and witnesses.

§ 17. The rights of property are maintained in all their

plenitude, and no disappropriation shall be made, except from

necessity or public utility, and indemnity shall, in such

cases, be made beforehand. Mines belong to the owners of the

soil, under the limitations to be established by the law to

encourage the development of this branch of industry.

§ 18. Correspondence under seal is inviolable.

§ 19. No penalty shall extend beyond the person of the

delinquent.

§ 20. The penalty of the galleys is abolished, as also

judicial banishment.

§ 21. The death penalty is abolished, except in the cases

under military law in time of war.

§ 22. The habeas corpus shall always be granted when the

individual suffers violence or compulsion, through illegality

or abuse of power, or considers himself in imminent danger of

the same.

§ 23. There shall be no privileged tribunal, except in such

cases as, from their nature, belong to special courts.

§ 24. The free exercise of any profession, moral,

intellectual, or industrial, is guarantied.

§ 25. Industrial inventions belong to their authors, to whom

the law will grant a temporary privilege, or to whom the

Congress will give a reasonable premium, when it is desirable

to make the invention public property.

§ 26. To authors of literary and artistic works is guarantied

the exclusive right of reproducing them through the press or

by any other mechanical process, and their heirs shall enjoy

the same right during the space of time determined by the law.

§ 27. The law shall also secure the rights of property in

trade-marks.

§ 28. No Brazilian can be deprived of his civil and political

rights on account of religious belief or duty, nor be exempted

from the performance of any civic duty.

§ 29. Those who shall claim exemption from any burden imposed

by the laws of the Republic on its citizens, on account of

religious belief, or who shall accept any foreign decoration

or title of nobility, shall lose all their political rights.

§ 30. No tax of any kind shall be collected except in virtue

of a law authorizing the same.

§ 31. The institution of trial by jury is maintained.

Article 73.

Public offices, civil or military, are accessible to all

Brazilian citizens, always observing the conditions of

particular capacity fixed by the law; but the accumulation of

remunerations is forbidden.

Article 74.

Commissions, offices, and positions not subject to removal are

guarantied in all their plenitude.

Article 75.

Only such public officials as have become infirm in the

service of the nation shall be retired on pay.

Article 76.

Officers of the army and navy shall lose their commissions

only in case of condemnation to more than 2 years in prison,

pronounced in judgment by the competent tribunals.

Article 77.

There shall be a special court for the trial of military

offenses committed by soldiers or marines.

§ 1. This court shall be composed of a supreme military

tribunal, whose members shall hold their seats for life, and

of the councils necessary for the formulation of the charge

and the judgment of the crimes.

§ 2. The organization and powers of the supreme military

tribunal shall be determined by law.

Article 78.

The enumeration of the rights and guaranties expressed in the

Constitution does not exclude other guaranties and rights, not

enumerated, but resulting from the form of government

established and principles settled by said Constitution.

Article 79.

The citizen vested with the functions of either of these three

federal powers shall not exercise those of another.

Article 80.

Any part of the territory of the Union may be declared in

state of siege, and the constitutional guaranties suspended

for a determined period, whenever the security of the Republic

so demands in case of foreign aggression or intestine

disturbance. (Article 34, No. 21.)

§ 1. The power to execute the above provision may, if the

Congress be not in session and the country be in imminent

peril, be used by the federal executive. (Article 48, No. 15.)

§ 2. In the exercise of this power, during the state of siege,

the executive shall be restricted to the following

measures of repression against persons:

{525}

(1) To their detention in a place not allotted to persons

accused of common crimes.

(2) To banishment to other parts of the national territory.

§ 3. As soon as the Congress shall have assembled, the

President of the Republic shall make a report to that body of

the exceptional measures which may have been taken.

§ 4. The authorities who shall have ordered such measures

shall be responsible for any abuses that may have been

committed.

Article 81.

In criminal cases, trials concluded may be reviewed at any

time, in favor of the condemned parties, by the federal

supreme court, for the purpose of correcting or of confirming

the sentence.

§ 1. The law shall determine the cases and the form of such

revision, which may be asked for by the condemned, by anyone

of the people, or by the attorney-general of the Republic, ex

officio.

§ 2. In such revision the penalties imposed by the sentence

reviewed can not be increased.

§ 3. The provisions of the present article are applicable to

military trials.

Article 82.

Public officers shall be strictly responsible for the abuses

and omissions that occur in the exercise of the duties of

their offices, as well as for the indulgences and negligences

for which they do not hold their subordinates responsible.

Sole paragraph.--They shall all be bound by formal

obligation, on taking possession of their offices, to

discharge the lawful duties of the same.

Article 83.

Until revoked, the laws of the ancien regime shall remain in

force, in as far as they are not, explicitly or implicitly,

contrary to the system of government established by the

Constitution, and to the principles laid down in the same.

Article 84.

The federal government guaranties the payment of the public

debt, both internal and foreign.

Article 85.

The officers of the line and of the annexed classes of the

navy shall have the same commissions and advantage as those of

the army of corresponding rank.

Article 86.

Every Brazilian shall be bound to military service in defense

of the country and the Constitution, as provided by the

federal laws.

Article 87.

The federal army shall be made up of contingents which the

states and the Federal District are bound to furnish,

constituted in conformity with the annual law regulating the

number of the forces.

§ 1. The general organization of the army shall be determined

by a federal law, in accordance with No. 18 of article 34.

§ 2. The Union shall have charge of the military instruction

of the troops and of the higher military instruction.

§ 3. Compulsory recruiting for military purposes is abolished.

§ 4. The army and navy shall be made up by volunteering

without bounties, or, if this means be not sufficient, by lot

previously determined. The crews for the navy shall be made up

from the naval school, the schools of marine apprentices, and

the merchant marine, by means of lot.

Article 88.

In no case, either directly or indirectly, alone or in

alliance with another nation, shall the United States of

Brazil engage in a war of conquest.

Article 89.

A tribunal of accounts shall be instituted for the auditing of

the receipt and expense accounts and examining into their

legality before their presentation to the Congress. The

members of this tribunal shall be appointed by the President

of the Republic, with the approval of the Senate, and can lose

their seats only by sentence.

Article 90.

The Constitution may be amended, at the initiative of the

national Congress, or of the legislatures of the States.

§ 1. An amendment shall be considered as proposed, when,

having been presented by one-fourth, at least, of the members

of either house of the Congress, it shall have been accepted

in three readings (discussions) by two-thirds of the votes in

both houses of the Congress, or when it shall have been asked

for by two-thirds of the States represented, each one by a

majority of the votes of its legislature, said votes to be

taken in the course of 1 year.

§ 2. The proposed amendment shall be considered approved, if,

in the following year, after three discussions, it shall have

been adopted by a majority of two-thirds of the votes in the

two houses of the Congress.

§ 3. The amendment adopted shall be published with the

signatures of the presidents and clerks of the two chambers,

and be incorporated into the Constitution as a part of the

same.

§ 4. No project having a tendency to abolish the federative

republican form, or the equal representation of the States in

the Senate, shall be admitted for consideration in the

Congress.

Article 91.

This Constitution, after approval, shall be promulgated by the

president of the Congress and signed by the members of the

same.

Temporary Provisions.

Article I.

After the promulgation of this Constitution, the Congress, in

joint assembly, shall choose consecutively, by an absolute

majority of votes in the first balloting, and, if no candidate

shall receive such, by a plurality in the second balloting,

the President and Vice President of the United States of

Brazil.

§ 1. This election shall be in two distinct ballotings, for

the President and Vice President respectively, the ballots for

President being taken and counted, in the first place, and

afterwards for Vice President.

§ 2. The President and Vice President, thus elected, shall

occupy the Presidency and Vice Presidency of the Republic

during the first Presidential term.

§ 3. For said election there shall be no incompatibilities

admitted.

§ 4. As soon as said election shall be concluded, the Congress

shall consider as terminated its mission in joint session and,

separating into Chamber and Senate, shall enter upon the

exercise of its functions as defined by law, on the 15th of

June of the present year, and can not in any case be

dissolved.

§ 5. In the first year of the first legislature, among its

preparatory measures, the Senate shall designate the first and

second third of its members, whose term of office shall cease

at the end of the first and second 3-year terms.

§ 6. The discrimination shall be made in three lists,

corresponding to the three classes, allotting to them the

senators of each State and of the Federal District according

to the number of votes received by them respectively, so as to

allot to the third for the last 3 years the one receiving the

highest number of votes in the Federal District and in each

State, and to the other two-thirds the remaining two names in

the order of the number of votes received by them

respectively.

§ 7. In case of tie, the oldest shall be preferred, and if the

ages are equal, the choice shall be made by lot.

{526}

Article 2.

The State which, by the end of the year 1892, shall not have

adopted its constitution, shall, by act of the federal

legislative power, be placed under that of one of the other

States, which it shall judge most suitable, until the State

thus subjected to said constitution, shall amend it in the

manner provided in the same.

Article 3.

As fast as the States shall be organized, the Federal

Government shall deliver to them the administration of the

services which belong to them, and shall settle the

responsibility of the federal administration in all that

relates to said services and to the payment of the respective

officials.

Article 4.

While, during the period of organization of their services,

the States shall be engaged in regulating their expenses, the

Federal Government shall, for this purpose, open special

credits to them, under conditions determined by the Congress.

Article 5.

In the States which shall become organized the classification

of the revenues established in the Constitution shall enter

into force.

Article 6.

In the first appointments for the federal magistracy and for

that of the States, the preference shall be given to the

justices and magistrates of the higher courts of the greatest

note. Such as are not admitted into the new organization of

the judiciary, and have served 30 years, shall be retired on

full pay. Those who have served for less than 30 years shall

continue to receive their salaries until they shall be

employed, or retired with pay corresponding to their length of

service. The payment of salaries of magistrates retired or set

aside shall be made by the Federal Government.

Article 7.

To D. Pedro de Alcantara, ex-Emperor of Brazil, a pension is

granted, to run from the 15th of November, 1889, sufficient to

guaranty him a decent subsistence during his lifetime. The

Congress, at its first session, shall fix the amount of said

pension.

Article 8.

The Federal Government shall acquire for the nation the house

in which Dr. Benjamin Constant Botelho de Magalhães died, and

shall have placed on it a memorial slab in memory of that

great patriot, the founder of the Republic. Sole

paragraph.--The widow of the said Dr. Benjamin Constant

shall have, during her lifetime, the usufruct of the said

house. We order, then, all the authorities to whom the

recognition and execution of this Constitution belongs, to

execute it and have it executed and observed faithfully and

fully in all its provisions. Let the same be published and

observed throughout the territory of the nation.

Hall of the sessions of the National Constitutional Congress,

in the city of Rio de Janeiro, in the year 1891, and the third

of the Republic.

See BRAZIL: 1889-1891.

----------CONSTITUTION OF BRAZIL: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF CALIFORNIA.

For an account of the main features of this singular

constitution,

See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1877-1880.

----------CONSTITUTION OF CALIFORNIA: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF CANADA.

CONSTITUTION OF CANADA: A. D. 1774.

The Quebec Act.

See CANADA: A. D. 1763-1774.

CONSTITUTION OF CANADA: A. D. 1791.

The Constitutional Act.

See CANADA: A. D. 1791.

CONSTITUTION OF CANADA: A. D. 1840.

The Union Act.

See CANADA: A. D. 1840-1867.

CONSTITUTION OF CANADA: A. D. 1867.

The British North America Act.

The history of the Confederation of the provinces of British

North America, forming the Dominion of Canada, is given

briefly under CANADA: A. D. 1867. The following is the text of

the Act of the Parliament of Great Britain by which the

Confederation was formed and its constitution established:

An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New

Brunswick, and the Government thereof; and for purposes

connected therewith.

29TH MARCH, 1867.

WHEREAS the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New

Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united

into one Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of

Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in

principle to that of the United Kingdom: And whereas such a

Union would conduce to the welfare of the Provinces and

promote the interests of the British Empire; And whereas on

the establishment of the Union by authority of Parliament it

is expedient, not only that the Constitution of the

Legislative Authority in the Dominion be provided for, but

also that the nature of the Executive Government therein be

declared: And whereas it is expedient that provision be made

for the eventual admission into the Union of other parts of

British North America: Be it therefore enacted and declared by

the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and

consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in

this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the

same, as follows:

1. This Act may be cited as The British North America Act,

1867.

2. The provisions of this Act referring to Her Majesty the

Queen extend also to the heirs and successors of Her Majesty,

Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and

Ireland.

3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of

Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by

Proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not

being more than six months after the passing of this Act, the

Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form

and be one Dominion under the name of Canada; and on and after

that day those three Provinces shall form and be one Dominion

under that name accordingly.

4. The subsequent provisions of this Act shall, unless it is

otherwise expressed or implied, commence and have effect on

and after the Union, that is to say, on and after the day

appointed for the Union taking effect in the Queen's

Proclamation; and in the same provisions, unless it is

otherwise expressed or implied, the name Canada shall be taken

to mean Canada as constituted under this Act.

5. Canada shall be divided into four Provinces, named Ontario,

Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick.

{527}

6. The parts of the Province of Canada (as it exists at the

passing of this Act) which formerly constituted respectively

the Provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada shall be deemed

to be severed, and shall form two separate Provinces. The part

which formerly constituted the Province of Upper Canada shall

constitute the Province of Ontario; and the part which

formerly constituted the Province of Lower Canada shall

constitute the Province of Quebec.

7. The Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall have

the same limits as at the passing of this Act.

8. In the general census of the population of Canada, which is

hereby required to be taken in the year one thousand eight

hundred and seventy-one, and in every tenth year thereafter,

the respective populations of the four Provinces shall be

distinguished.

9. The Executive Government and authority of and over Canada

is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

10. The provisions of this Act referring to the Governor

General extend and apply to the Governor General for the time

being of Canada, or other the Chief Executive Officer or

Administrator, for the time being carrying on the Government

of Canada on behalf and in the name of the Queen, by whatever

title he is designated.

11. There shall be a Council to aid and advise in the

Government of Canada, to be styled the Queen's Privy Council

for Canada; and the persons who are to be members of that

Council shall be from time to time chosen and summoned by the

Governor General and sworn in as Privy Councillors, and

members thereof may be from time to time removed by the

Governor General.

12. All powers, authorities, and functions which under any Act

of the Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of

the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or of the

Legislature of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada, Nova

Scotia, or New Brunswick, are at the Union vested in or

exerciseable by the respective Governors or Lieutenant

Governors of those Provinces, with the advice, or with the

advice and consent, of the respective Executive Councils

thereof, or in conjunction with those Councils, or with any

number of members thereof, or by those Governors or Lieutenant

Governors individually, shall, as far as the same continue in

existence and capable of being exercised after the Union in

relation to the Government of Canada, be vested in and

exerciseable by the Governor General, with the advice or with

the advice and consent of or in conjunction with the Queen's

Privy Council for Canada, or any members thereof, or by the

Governor General individually, as the case requires, subject

nevertheless (except with respect to such as exist under Acts

of the Parliament of Great Britain or of the Parliament of the

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) to be abolished

or altered by the Parliament of Canada.

13. The provisions of this Act referring to the Governor

General in Council shall be construed as referring to the

Governor General acting by and with the advice of the Queen's

Privy Council for Canada.

14. It shall be lawful for the Queen, if Her Majesty thinks

fit, to authorize the Governor General from time to time to

appoint any person or any persons, jointly or severally, to be

his Deputy or Deputies within any part or parts of Canada, and

in that capacity to exercise during the pleasure of the

Governor General such of the powers, authorities, and

functions of the Governor General as the Governor General

deems it necessary and expedient to assign to him or them,

subject to any limitations or directions expressed or given by

the Queen; but the appointment of such a Deputy or Deputies

shall not affect the exercise by the Governor General himself

of any power, authority or function.

15. The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of

all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby

declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

16. Until the Queen otherwise directs, the seat of Government

of Canada shall be Ottawa.

17. There shall be one Parliament for Canada, consisting of

the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of

Commons.

18. The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held,

enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of

Commons, and by the members thereof respectively, shall be

such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament

of Canada, but so that the same shall never exceed those at

the passing of this Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the

Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great

Britain and Ireland and by the members thereof.

19. The Parliament of Canada shall be called together not

later than six months after the Union.

20. There shall be a Session of the Parliament of Canada once

at least in every year, so that twelve months shall not

intervene between the last sitting of the Parliament in one

Session and its first sitting in the next Session.

21. The Senate shall, subject to the provisions of this Act,

consist of seventy-two members, who shall be styled Senators.

22. In relation to the constitution of the Senate, Canada

shall be deemed to consist of three divisions--1. Ontario; 2.

Quebec; 3. The Maritime Provinces, Nova Scotia and New

Brunswick; which three divisions shall (subject to the

provisions of this Act) be equally represented in the Senate

as follows: Ontario by twenty-four Senators; Quebec by

twenty-four Senators; and the Maritime Provinces by

twenty-four Senators, twelve thereof representing Nova Scotia,

and twelve thereof representing New Brunswick. In the case of

Quebec each of the twenty-four Senators representing that

Province shall be appointed for one of the twenty-four

Electoral Divisions of Lower Canada specified in Schedule A.

to chapter one of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada.

23. The qualification of a Senator shall be as follows:

(l) He shall be of the full age of thirty years:

(2) He shall be either a natural born subject of the Queen, or

a subject of the Queen naturalized by an Act of the Parliament

of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom

of Great Britain and Ireland, or of the Legislature of one of

the Provinces of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada, Nova

Scotia, or New Brunswick, before the Union, or of the

Parliament of Canada after the Union:

(3) He shall be legally or equitably seised as of freehold for

his own use and benefit of lands or tenements held in free and

common socage, or seised or possessed for his own use and

benefit of lands or tenements held in franc-alleu or in

roture, within the Province for which he is appointed, of the

value of four thousand dollars, over and above all rents,

dues, debts, charges, mortgages, and incumbrances due or

payable out of or charged on or affecting the same:

{528}

(4) His real and personal property shall be together worth

$4,000 over and above his debts and liabilities:

(5) He shall be resident in the Province for which he is

appointed:

(6) In the case of Quebec he shall have his real property

qualification in the Electoral Division for which he is

appointed, or shall be resident in that Division.

24. The Governor General shall from time to time, in the

Queen's name, by instrument under the Great Seal of Canada,

summon qualified persons to the Senate; and, subject to the

provisions of this Act, every person so summoned shall become

and be a member of the Senate and a Senator.

25. Such persons shall be first summoned to the Senate as the

Queen by warrant under Her Majesty's Royal Sign Manual thinks

fit to approve, and their names shall be inserted in the

Queen's Proclamation of Union.

26. If at any time on the recommendation of the Governor

General the Queen thinks fit to direct that three or six

members be added to the Senate, the Governor General may by

summons to three or six qualified persons (as the case may

be), representing equally the three divisions of Canada, add

to the Senate accordingly.

27. In case of such addition being at any time made the

Governor General shall not summon any person to the Senate,

except on a further like direction by the Queen on the like

recommendation, until each of the three divisions of Canada is

represented by twenty-four Senators and no more.

28. The number of Senators shall not at any time exceed

seventy-eight.

29. A Senator shall, subject to the provisions of this Act,

hold his place in the Senate for life.

30. A Senator may by writing under his hand addressed to the

Governor General resign his place in the Senate, and thereupon

the same shall be vacant.

31. The place of a Senator shall become vacant in any of the

following cases:

(1) If for two consecutive Sessions of the Parliament he fails

to give his attendance in the Senate:

(2) If he takes an oath or makes a declaration or

acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a

foreign power, or does an act whereby he becomes a subject or

citizen, or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject

or citizen of a foreign power:

(3) If he is adjudged bankrupt or insolvent, or applies for

the benefit of any law relating to insolvent debtors, or

becomes a public defaulter:

(4) If he is attainted of treason or convicted of felony or of

any infamous crime:

(5) If he ceases to be qualified in respect of property or of

residence; provided, that a Senator shall not be deemed to

have ceased to be qualified in respect of residence by reason

only of his residing at the seat of the Government of Canada

while holding an office under that Government requiring his

presence there.

32. When a vacancy happens in the Senate by resignation,

death, or otherwise, the Governor General shall by summons to

a fit and qualified person fill the vacancy.

33. If any question arises respecting the qualification of a

Senator or a vacancy in the Senate the same shall be heard and

determined by the Senate.

34. The Governor General may from time to time, by instrument

under the Great Seal of Canada, appoint a Senator to be

Speaker of the Senate, and may remove him and appoint another

in his stead.

35. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, the

presence of at least fifteen Senators, including the Speaker,

shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the Senate for

the exercise of its powers.

36. Questions arising in the Senate shall be decided by a

majority of voices, and the Speaker shall in all cases have a

vote, and when the voices are equal the decision shall be

deemed to be in the negative.

37. The House of Commons shall, subject to the provisions of

this Act, consist of one hundred and eighty-one members, of

whom eighty-two shall be elected for Ontario, sixty-five for

Quebec, nineteen for Nova Scotia, and fifteen for New

Brunswick.

38. The Governor General shall from time to time, in the

Queen's name, by instrument under the Great Seal of Canada,

summon and call together the House of Commons.

39. A Senator shall not be capable of being elected or of

sitting or voting as a member of the House of Commons.

40. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides,

Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall, for the

purposes of the election of members to serve in the House of

Commons, be divided into Electoral Districts as follows:--

(1) Ontario shall be divided into the Counties, Ridings of

Counties, Cities, parts of Cities, and Towns enumerated in the

first Schedule to this Act, each whereof shall be an Electoral

District, each such District as numbered in that Schedule

being entitled to return one member.

(2) Quebec shall be divided into sixty-five Electoral

Districts, composed of the sixty-five Electoral Divisions into

which Lower Canada is at the passing of this Act divided under

chapter two of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada, chapter

seventy-five of the Consolidated Statutes for Lower Canada,

and the Act of the Province of Canada of the twenty-third year

of the Queen, chapter one, or any other Act amending the same

in force at the Union, so that each such Electoral Division

shall be for the purposes of this Act an Electoral District

entitled to return one member.

(3) Each of the eighteen Counties of Nova Scotia shall be an

Electoral District. The County of Halifax shall be entitled to

return two members, and each of the other Counties one member.

(4) Each of the fourteen Counties into which New Brunswick is

divided, including the City and County of St. John, shall be

an Electoral District; the City of St. John shall also be a

separate Electoral District. Each of those fifteen Electoral

Districts shall be entitled to return one member.

{529}

41. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, all

laws in force in the several Provinces at the Union relative

to the following matters or any of them, namely,--the

qualifications and disqualifications of persons to be elected

or to sit or vote as members of the House of Assembly or

Legislative Assembly in the several Provinces, the voters at

elections of such members, the oaths to be taken by voters,

the returning officers, their powers and duties, the

proceedings at elections, the periods during which elections

may be continued, the trial of controverted elections, and

proceedings incident thereto, the vacating of seats of

members, and the execution of new writs in case of seats

vacated otherwise than by dissolution,--shall respectively

apply to elections of members to serve in the House of Commons

for the same several Provinces. Provided that, until the

Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, at any election for a

Member of the House of Commons for the District of Algoma, in

addition to persons qualified by the law of the Province of

Canada to vote, every male British subject aged twenty-one

years or upwards, being a householder, shall have a vote.

42. For the first election of members to serve in the House of

Commons the Governor General shall cause writs to be issued by

such person, in such form, and addressed to such returning

officers as he thinks fit. The person issuing writs under this

section shall have the like powers as are possessed at the

Union by the officers charged with the issuing of writs for

the election of members to serve in the respective House of

Assembly or Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada,

Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick; and the Returning Officers to

whom writs are directed under this section shall have the like

powers as are possessed at the Union by the officers charged

with the returning of writs for the election of members to

serve in the same respective House of Assembly or Legislative

Assembly.

43. In case a vacancy in the representation in the House of

Commons of any Electoral District happens before the meeting

of the Parliament, or after the meeting of the Parliament

before provision is made by the Parliament in this behalf, the

provisions of the last foregoing section of this Act shall

extend and apply to the issuing and returning of a writ in

respect of such vacant District.

44. The House of Commons on its first assembling after a

general election shall proceed with all practicable speed to

elect one of its members to be Speaker.

45. In case of a vacancy happening in the office of Speaker by

death, resignation or otherwise, the House of Commons shall

with all practicable speed proceed to elect another of its

members to be Speaker.

46. The Speaker shall preside at all meetings of the House of

Commons.

47. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, in case

of the absence for any reason of the Speaker from the chair of

the House of Commons for a period of forty-eight consecutive

hours, the House may elect another of its members to act as

Speaker, and the member so elected shall during the

continuance of such absence of the Speaker have and execute

all the powers, privileges, and duties of Speaker.

48. The presence of at least twenty members of the House of

Commons shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the

House for the exercise of its powers, and for that purpose the

Speaker shall be reckoned as a member.

49. Questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided

by a majority of voices other than that of the Speaker, and

when the voices are equal, but not otherwise, the Speaker

shall have a vote.

50. Every House of Commons shall continue for five years from

the day of the return of the writs for choosing the House

(subject to be sooner dissolved by the Governor General), and

no longer.

51. On the completion of the census in the year one thousand

eight hundred and seventy-one, and of each subsequent

decennial census, the representation of the four Provinces

shall be re-adjusted by such authority, in such manner and

from such time as the Parliament of Canada from time to time

provides, subject and according to the following rules:--

(1) Quebec shall have the fixed number of sixty-five members:

(2) There shall be assigned to each of the other Provinces

such a number of members as will bear the same proportion to

the number of its population (ascertained at such census) as

the number sixty-five bears to the number of the population of

Quebec (so ascertained):

(3) In the computation of the number of members for a Province

a fractional part not exceeding one-half of the whole number

requisite for entitling the Province to a member shall be

disregarded; but a fractional part exceeding one-half of that

number shall be equivalent to the whole number:

(4) On any such re-adjustment the number of members for a

Province shall not be reduced unless the proportion which the

number of the population of the Province bore to the number of

the aggregate population of Canada at the then last preceding

re-adjustment of the number of members for the Province is

ascertained at the then latest census to be diminished by

one-twentieth part or upwards: (5) Such re-adjustment shall

not take effect until the termination of the then existing

Parliament.

52. The number of members of the House of Commons may be from

time to time increased by the Parliament of Canada, provided

the proportionate representation of the Provinces prescribed

by this Act is not thereby disturbed.

53. Bills for appropriating any part of the public revenue, or

for imposing any tax or impost, shall originate in the House

of Commons.

54. It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt

or pass any vote, resolution, address, or bill for the

appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax

or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended

to that House by message of the Governor General in the

Session in which such vote, resolution, address, or bill is

proposed.

55. Where a bill passed by the Houses of the Parliament is

presented to the Governor General for the Queen's assent, he

shall declare according to his discretion, but subject to the

provisions of this Act and to Her Majesty's instructions,

either that he assents thereto in the Queen's name, or that he

withholds the Queen's assent, or that he reserves the bill for

the signification of the Queen's pleasure.

56. Where the Governor General assents to a bill in the

Queen's name, he shall by the first convenient opportunity

send an authentic copy of the Act to one of Her Majesty's

Principal Secretaries of State, and if the Queen in Council

within two years after receipt thereof by the Secretary of

State thinks fit to disallow the Act, such disallowance (with

a certificate of the Secretary of State of the day on which

the Act was received by him) being signified by the Governor

General, by speech or message to each of the Houses of the

Parliament, or by proclamation, shall annul the Act from and

after the day of such signification.

{530}

57. A bill reserved for the signification of the Queen's

pleasure shall not have any force unless and until within two

years from the day on which it was presented to the Governor

General for the Queen's assent, the Governor General

signifies, by speech or message to each of the Houses of the

Parliament or by proclamation, that it has received the assent

of the Queen in Council. An entry of every such speech,

message, or proclamation shall be made in the Journal of each

House, and a duplicate thereof duly attested shall be

delivered to the proper officer to be kept among the Records

of Canada.

58. For each Province there shall be an officer, styled the

Lieutenant Governor, appointed by the Governor General in

Council by instrument under the Great Seal of Canada.

59. A Lieutenant Governor shall hold office during the

pleasure of the Governor General; but any Lieutenant Governor

appointed after the commencement of the first Session of the

Parliament of Canada shall not be removable within five years

from his appointment, except for cause assigned, which shall

be communicated to him in writing within one month after the

order for his removal is made, and shall be communicated by

message to the Senate and to the House of Commons within one

week thereafter if the Parliament is then sitting, and if not

then within one week after the commencement of the next

Session of the Parliament.

60. The salaries of the Lieutenant Governors shall be fixed

and provided by the Parliament of Canada.

61. Every Lieutenant Governor shall, before assuming the

duties of his office, make and subscribe before the Governor

General, or' some person authorized by him, oaths of

allegiance and office similar to those taken by the Governor

General.

62. The provisions of this Act referring to the Lieutenant

Governor extend and apply to the Lieutenant Governor for the

time being of each Province or other the chief executive

officer or administrator for the time being carrying on the

government of the Province, by whatever title he is

designated.

63. The Executive Council of Ontario and of Quebec shall be

composed of such persons as the Lieutenant Governor from to

time thinks fit, and in the first instance of the following

officers, namely:--The Attorney-General, the Secretary and

Registrar of the Province, the Treasurer of the Province, the

Commissioner of Crown Lands, and the Commissioner of

Agriculture and Public Works, with in Quebec the Speaker of

the Legislative Council and the Solicitor General.

64. The Constitution of the Executive Authority in each of the

Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall, subject to

the provisions of this Act, continue as it exists at the Union

until altered under the authority of this Act.

65. All powers, authorities, and functions which under any Act

of the Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of

the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or of the

Legislature of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, or Canada, were or

are before or at the Union vested in or exerciseable by the

respective Governors or Lieutenant Governors of those

Provinces, with the advice, or with the advice and consent, of

the respective Executive Councils thereof, or in conjunction

with those Councils, or with any number of members thereof, or

by those Governors or Lieutenant Governors individually,

shall, as far as the same are capable of being exercised after

the Union in relation to the Government of Ontario and Quebec,

respectively, be vested in, and shall or may be exercised by

the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario and Quebec respectively,

with the advice or with the advice and consent of or in

conjunction with the respective Executive Councils, or any

members thereof, or by the Lieutenant Governor individually,

as the case requires, subject nevertheless (except with

respect to such as exist under Acts of the Parliament of Great

Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great

Britain and Ireland), to be abolished or altered by the

respective Legislatures of Ontario and Quebec.

66. The provisions of this Act, referring to the Lieutenant

Governor in Council shall be construed as referring to the

Lieutenant Governor of the Province acting by and with the

advice of the Executive Council thereof.

67. The Governor General in Council may from time to time

appoint an administrator to execute the office and functions

of Lieutenant Governor during his absence, illness, or other

inability.

68. Unless and until the Executive Government of any Province

otherwise directs with respect to the Province, the seats of

Government of the Provinces shall be as follows, namely,--of

Ontario, the City of Toronto; of Quebec, the City of Quebec;

of Nova Scotia, the City of Halifax; and of New Brunswick, the

City of Fredericton.

69. There shall be a Legislature for Ontario consisting of the

Lieutenant Governor and of one House, styled the Legislative

Assembly of Ontario.

70. The Legislative Assembly of Ontario shall be composed of

eighty-two members, to be elected to represent the eighty-two

Electoral Districts set forth in the first Schedule to this

Act.

71. There shall be a Legislature for Quebec consisting of the

Lieutenant Governor and of two Houses, styled the Legislative

Council of Quebec and the Legislative Assembly of Quebec.

72. The Legislative Council of Quebec shall be composed of

twenty-four members, to be appointed by the Lieutenant

Governor in the Queen's name, by instrument under the Great

Seal of Quebec, one being appointed to represent each of the

twenty-four Electoral Divisions of Lower Canada in this Act

referred to, and each holding office for the term of his life,

unless the Legislature of Quebec otherwise provides under the

provisions of this Act.

73. The qualifications of the Legislative Councillors of

Quebec shall be the same as those of the Senators for Quebec.

74. The place of a Legislative Councillor of Quebec shall

become vacant in the cases, 'mutatis mutandis' in which the

place of Senator becomes vacant.

{531}

75. When a vacancy happens in the Legislative Council of

Quebec, by resignation, death, or otherwise, the Lieutenant

Governor, in the Queen's name, by instrument under the Great

Seal of Quebec, shall appoint a fit and qualified person to

fill the vacancy.

76. If any question arises respecting the qualification of a

Legislative Councillor of Quebec, or a vacancy in the

Legislative Council of Quebec, the same shall be heard and

determined by the Legislative Council.

77. The Lieutenant Governor may from time to time, by

instrument under the Great Seal of Quebec, appoint a member of

the Legislative Council of Quebec to be Speaker thereof, and

may remove him and appoint another in his stead.

78. Until the Legislature of Quebec otherwise provides, the

presence of at least ten members of the Legislative Council,

including the Speaker, shall be necessary to constitute a

meeting for the exercise of its powers.

79. Questions arising in the Legislative Council of Quebec

shall be decided by a majority of voices, and the Speaker

shall in all cases have a vote, and when the voices are equal

the decision shall be deemed to be in the negative.

80. The Legislative Assembly of Quebec shall be composed of

sixty-five members, to be elected to represent the sixty-five

Electoral Divisions or Districts of Lower Canada in this Act

referred to, subject to alteration thereof by the Legislature

of Quebec: Provided that it shall not be lawful to present to

the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec for assent any bill for

altering the limits of any of the Electoral Divisions or

Districts mentioned in the second Schedule to this Act, unless

the second and third readings of such bill have been passed in

the Legislative Assembly with the concurrence of the majority

of the members representing all those Electoral Divisions or

Districts, and the assent shall not be given to such bills

unless an address has been presented by the Legislative

Assembly to the Lieutenant Governor stating that it has been

so passed.

81. The Legislatures of Ontario and Quebec respectively shall

be called together not later than six months after the Union.

82. The Lieutenant Governor of Ontario and of Quebec shall

from time to time, in the Queen's name, by instrument under

the Great Seal of the Province, summon and call together the

Legislative Assembly of the Province.

83. Until the Legislature of Ontario or of Quebec otherwise

provides, a person accepting or holding in Ontario or in

Quebec any office, commission, or employment, permanent or

temporary, at the nomination of the Lieutenant Governor, to

which an annual salary, or any fee, allowance, emolument, or

profit of any kind or amount whatever from the Province is

attached, shall not be eligible as a member of the Legislative

Assembly of the respective Province, nor shall he sit or vote as

such; but nothing in this section shall make ineligible any

person being a member of the Executive Council of the

respective Province, or holding any of the following offices,

that is to say, the offices of Attorney-General, Secretary and

Registrar of the Province, Treasurer of the Province,

Commissioner of Crown Lands, and Commissioner of Agriculture

and Public Works and, in Quebec, Solicitor-General, or shall

disqualify him to sit or vote in the House for which he is

elected, provided he is elected while holding such office.

84. Until the Legislatures of Ontario and Quebec respectively

otherwise provide, all laws which at the Union are in force in

those Provinces respectively, relative to the following

matters, or any of them, namely,--the qualifications and

disqualifications of persons to be elected or to sit or vote

as members of the Assembly of Canada, the qualifications or

disqualifications of voters, the oaths to be taken by voters,

the Returning Officers, their powers and duties, the

proceedings at elections, the periods during which such

elections may be continued, and the trial of controverted

elections and the proceedings incident thereto, the vacating

of the seats of members and the issuing and execution of new

writs in case of seats vacated otherwise than by dissolution,

shall respectively apply to elections of members to serve in

the respective Legislative Assemblies of Ontario and Quebec.

Provided that until the Legislature of Ontario otherwise

provides, at any election for a member of the Legislative

Assembly of Ontario for the District of Algoma, in addition to

persons qualified by the law of the Province of Canada to

vote, every male British subject, aged twenty-one years or

upwards, being a householder, shall have a vote.

85. Every Legislative Assembly of Ontario and every

Legislative Assembly of Quebec shall continue for four years

from the day of the return of the writs for choosing the same

(subject nevertheless to either the Legislative Assembly of

Ontario or the Legislative Assembly of Quebec being sooner

dissolved by the Lieutenant Governor of the Province), and no

longer.

86. There shall be a session of the Legislature of Ontario and

of that of Quebec once at least in every year, so that twelve

months shall not intervene between the last sitting of the

Legislature in each Province in one session and its first

sitting in the next session.

87. The following provisions of this Act respecting the House

of Commons of Canada, shall extend and apply to the

Legislative Assemblies of Ontario and Quebec, that is to

say,--the provisions relating to the election of a Speaker

originally and on vacancies, the duties of the Speaker, the

absence of the Speaker, the quorum, and the mode of voting, as

if those provisions were here re-enacted and made applicable

in terms to each such Legislative Assembly.

88. The constitution of the Legislature of each of the

Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall, subject to

the provisions of this Act, continue as it exists at the Union

until altered under the authority of this Act; and the House

of Assembly of New Brunswick existing at the passing of this

Act shall, unless sooner dissolved, continue for the period

for which it was elected.

89. Each of the Lieutenant Governors of Ontario, Quebec, and

Nova Scotia shall cause writs to be issued for the first

election of members of the Legislative Assembly thereof in

such form and by such person as he thinks fit, and at such

time and addressed to such Returning Officer as the Governor

General directs, and so that the first election of member of

Assembly for any Electoral District or any subdivision thereof

shall be held at the same time and at the same places as the

election for a member to serve in the House of Commons of

Canada for that Electoral District.

{532}

90. The following provisions of this Act respecting the

Parliament of Canada, namely,--the provisions relating to

appropriation and tax bills, the recommendation of money

votes, the assent to bills, the disallowance of Acts. and the

signification of pleasure on bills reserved,--shall extend and

apply to the Legislatures of the several Provinces as if those

provisions were here re-enacted and made applicable in terms

to the respective Provinces and the Legislatures thereof, with

the substitution of the Lieutenant Governor of the Province

for the Governor General, of the Governor General for the

Queen and for a Secretary of State, of one year for two years,

and of the Province for Canada.

91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice

and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws

for the peace, order, and good government of Canada, in

relation to all matters not coming within the classes of

subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures

of the Provinces; and for greater certainty, but not so as to

restrict the generality of the foregoing terms of this

section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything

in this Act) the exclusive legislative authority of the

Parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the

classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated, that is to

say,--

1. The Public Debt and Property.

2. The regulation of Trade and Commerce.

3. The raising of money by any mode or system of Taxation.

4. The borrowing of money on the public credit.

5. Postal service.

6. The Census and Statistics.

7. Militia, Military and Naval Service, and Defence.

8. The fixing of and providing for the salaries and allowances

of civil and other officers of the Government of Canada.

9. Beacons, Buoys, Lighthouses, and Sable Island.

10. Navigation and Shipping.

11. Quarantine and the establishment and maintenance of Marine

Hospitals.

12. Sea coast and inland Fisheries.

13. Ferries between a Province and any British or Foreign

country, or between two Provinces.

14. Currency and Coinage.

15. Banking, incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper

money.

16. Savings Banks.

17. Weights and Measures.

18. Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.

19. Interest.

20. Legal tender.

21. Bankruptcy and Insolvency.

22. Patents of invention and discovery.

23. Copyrights.

24. Indians, and lands reserved for the Indians.

25. Naturalization and Aliens.

26. Marriage and Divorce.

27. The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of

Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal

Matters.

28. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of

Penitentiaries.

29. Such classes of subjects as are expressly excepted in the

enumeration of the classes of subjects by this Act assigned

exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces. And any

matter coming within any of the classes of subjects enumerated

in this section shall not be deemed to come within the class

of matters of a local or private nature comprised in the

enumeration of the classes of subjects by this Act assigned

exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces.

92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make laws

in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects

next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,--

1. The amendment from time to time, notwithstanding anything

in this Act, of the Constitution of the Province, except as

regards the office of Lieutenant Governor.

2. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising

of a Revenue for Provincial purposes.

3. The borrowing of money on the sole credit of the Province.

4. The establishment and tenure of Provincial offices and the

appointment and payment of Provincial officers.

5. The management and sale of the Public Lands belonging to

the Province and of the timber and wood thereon.

6. The establishment, maintenance, and management of public

and reformatory prisons in and for the Province.

7. The establishment, maintenance, and management of

hospitals, asylums, charities, and eleemosynary institutions

in and for the Province, other than marine hospitals.

8. Municipal institutions in the Province.

9. Shop, saloon, tavern, auctioneer, and other licenses in

order to the raising of a revenue for Provincial, local, or

municipal purposes.

10. Local works and undertakings other than such as are of the

following classes,

a. Lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals,

telegraphs, and other works and undertakings connecting the

Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or

extending beyond the limits of the Province:

b. Lines of steamships between the Province and any

British or foreign country.

c. Such works as, although wholly situate within the

Province, are before or after their execution declared by the

Parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada

or for the advantage of two or more of the Provinces.

11. The incorporation of companies with Provincial objects.

12. The solemnization of marriage in the Province.

13. Property and civil rights in the Province.

14. The administration of justice in the Province, including

the constitution, maintenance, and organization of Provincial

Courts, both of civil and of criminal jurisdiction, and

including procedure in Civil matters in those Courts.

15. The imposition of punishment by fine, penalty, or

imprisonment for enforcing any law of the Province made in

relation to any matter coming within any of the classes of

subjects enumerated in this section.

16. Generally all matters of a merely local or private nature

in the Province.

93. In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively

make laws in relation to education, subject and according to

the following provisions:

(1) Nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any

right or privilege with respect to denominational schools

which any class of persons have by law in the Province at the

Union.

(2) All the powers, privileges, and duties at the Union by law

conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the separate schools

and school trustees of the Queen's Roman Catholic subjects

shall be and the same are hereby extended to the dissentient

schools of the Queen's Protestant and Roman Catholic subjects

in Quebec.

(3) Where in any Province a system of separate or dissentient

schools exists by law at the Union or is thereafter,

established by the Legislature of the Province, an appeal

shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or

decision of any Provincial authority affecting any right or

privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic minority of the

Queen's subjects in relation to education:

{533}

(4) In case any such Provincial law as from time to time seems

to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due

execution of the provisions of this section is not made, or in

case any decision of the Governor General in Council on any

appeal under this section is not duly executed by the proper

Provincial authority in that behalf, then find in every such

case, and as far only as the circumstances of each case

require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial laws for

the due execution of the provisions of this section and of any

decision of the Governor General in Council under this

section.

94. Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the Parliament of

Canada may make provision for the uniformity of all or any of

the laws relative to property and civil rights in Ontario,

Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and of the procedure of all or

any of the Courts in those three Provinces; and from and after

the passing of any Act in that behalf the power of the

Parliament of Canada to make laws in relation to any matter

comprised in any such Act shall, notwithstanding anything in

this Act, be unrestricted; but any Act of the Parliament of

Canada making provision for such uniformity shall not have

effect in any Province unless and until it is adopted and

enacted as law by the Legislature thereof.

95. In each Province the Legislature may make laws in relation

to Agriculture in the Province, and to Immigration into the

Province; and it is hereby declared that the Parliament of

Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to

Agriculture in all or any of the Provinces, and to Immigration

into all or any of the Provinces; and any law of the

Legislature of a Province relative to Agriculture or to

Immigration shall have effect in and for the Province as long

and as far only as it is not repugnant to any Act of the

Parliament of Canada.

96. The Governor General shall appoint the Judges of the

Superior, District, and County Courts in each Province, except

those of the Courts of Probate in Nova Scotia and New

Brunswick.

97. Until the laws relative to property and civil rights in

Ontario, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and the procedure of

the Courts in those Provinces, are made uniform, the Judges of

the Courts of those Provinces appointed by the Governor

General shall be selected from the respective Bars of those

Provinces.

98. The Judges of the Courts of Quebec shall be selected from

the Bar of that Province.

99. The Judges of the Superior Courts shall hold office during

good behaviour, but shall be removable by the Governor General

on address of the Senate and House of Commons.

100. The salaries, allowances, and pensions of the Judges of

the Superior, District, and County Courts (except the Courts

of Probate in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick), and of the

Admiralty Courts in cases where the Judges thereof are for the

time being paid by salary, shall be fixed and provided by the

Parliament of Canada.

101. The Parliament of Canada may, notwithstanding anything in

this Act, from time to time, provide for the constitution,

maintenance, and organization of a general Court of Appeal for

Canada, and for the establishment of any additional Courts for

the better administration of the Laws of Canada.

102. All duties and revenues over which the respective

Legislatures of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick before

and at the Union had and have power of appropriation, except

such portions thereof as are by this Act reserved to the

respective Legislatures of the Provinces, or are raised by

them in accordance with the special powers conferred on them

by this Act, shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be

appropriated for the public service of Canada in the manner

and subject to the charges in this Act provided.

103. The Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada shall be

permanently charged with the costs, charges, and expenses

incident to the collection, management, and receipt thereof,

and the same shall form the first charge thereon, subject to

be reviewed and audited in such manner as shall be ordered by

the Governor General in Council until the Parliament otherwise

provides.

104. The annual interest of the public debts of the several

Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick at the

Union shall form the second charge on the Consolidated Revenue

Fund of Canada.

105. Unless altered by the Parliament of Canada, the salary of

the Governor General shall be ten thousand pounds sterling

money of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,

payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, and

the same shall form the third charge thereon.

106. Subject to the several payments by this Act charged on

the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, the same shall be

appropriated by the Parliament of Canada for the public

service.

107. All stocks, cash, banker's balances, and securities for

money belonging to each Province at the time of the Union,

except as in this Act mentioned, shall be the property of

Canada, and shall be taken in reduction of the amount of the

respective debts of the Provinces at the Union.

108. The public works and property of each Province,

enumerated in the third schedule to this Act, shall be the

property of Canada.

109. All lands, mines, minerals, and royalties belonging to

the several Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick

at the Union, and all sums then due or payable for such lands,

mines, minerals, or royalties, shall belong to the several

Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in

which the same are situate or arise, subject to any trusts

existing in respect thereof, and to any interest other than

that of the Province in the same.

110. All assets connected with such portions of the public

debt of each Province as are assumed by that Province shall

belong to that Province.

111. Canada shall be liable for the debts and liabilities of

each Province existing at the Union.

112. Ontario and Quebec conjointly shall be liable to Canada

for the amount (if any) by which the debt of the Province of

Canada exceeds at the Union sixty-two million five hundred

thousand dollars, and shall be charged with interest at the

rate of five per centum per annum thereon.

113. The assets enumerated in the fourth Schedule to this Act

belonging at the Union to the Province of Canada shall be the

property of Ontario and Quebec conjointly.

{534}

114. Nova Scotia shall be liable to Canada for the amount (if

any) by which its public debt exceeds at the Union eight

million dollars, and shall be charged with interest at the

rate of five per centum per annum thereon.

115. New Brunswick shall be liable to Canada for the amount

(if any) by which its public debt exceeds at the Union seven

million dollars, and shall be charged with interest at the

rate of five per centum per annum thereon.

116. In case the public debt of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick

do not at the Union amount to eight million dollars and seven

million dollars respectively, they shall respectively receive

by half-yearly payments in advance from the Government of

Canada interest at five per centum per annum on the difference

between the actual amounts of their respective debts and such

stipulated amounts.

117. The several provinces shall retain all their respective

public property not otherwise disposed of in this Act, subject

to the right of Canada to assume any lands or public property

required for fortifications or for the defence of the country.

118. The following sums shall be paid yearly by Canada to the

several Provinces for the support of their Governments and

Legislatures: Ontario, eighty thousand dollars; Quebec,

seventy thousand dollars; Nova Scotia, sixty thousand dollars;

New Brunswick, fifty thousand dollars; [total] two hundred and

sixty thousand dollars; and an annual grant in aid of each

Province shall be made, equal to eighty cents per head, of the

population us ascertained by the census of one thousand eight

hundred and sixty-one, and in the case of Nova Scotia and New

Brunswick, by each subsequent decennial census until the

population of each of those two Provinces amounts to four

hundred thousand souls, at which rate such grant shall

thereafter remain. Such grant shall be in full Settlement of

all future demands on Canada, and shall be paid half-yearly in

advance to each Province; but the Government of Canada shall

deduct from such grants, as against any Province, all sums

chargeable as interest on the Public Debt of that Province in

excess of the several amounts stipulated in this Act.

119. New Brunswick shall receive by half-yearly payments in

advance from Canada, for the period of ten years from the

Union, an additional allowance of sixty-three thousand dollars

per annum; but as long as the Public Debt of that Province

remains under seven million dollars a deduction equal to the

interest at five per centum per annum on such deficiency shall

be made from that allowance of sixty-three thousand dollars.

120. All payments to be made under this Act, or in discharge

of liabilities created under any Act of the Provinces of

Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick respectively, and

assumed by Canada, shall, until the Parliament of Canada

otherwise directs, be made in such form and manner as may from

time to time be ordered by the Governor General in Council.

121. All articles of the growth, produce, or manufacture of

anyone of the Provinces shall, from and after the Union, be

admitted free into each of the other Provinces.

122. The Customs and Excise Laws of each Province shall,

subject to the provisions of this Act, continue in force until

altered by the Parliament of Canada.

123. Where Customs duties are, at the Union, leviable on any

goods, wares or merchandises in any two Provinces, those

goods, wares and merchandises may, from and after the Union,

be imported from one of those Provinces into the other of them

on proof of payment of the Customs duty leviable thereon in

the Province of exportation, and on payment of such further

amount (if any) of Customs duty as is leviable thereon in the

Province of importation.

124. Nothing in this Act shall affect the right of New

Brunswick to levy the lumber dues provided in chapter fifteen,

of title three, of the Revised Statutes of New Brunswick, or

in any Act amending that act before or after the Union, and

not increasing the amount of such dues; but the lumber of any

of the Provinces other than New Brunswick stall not be

subjected to such dues.

125. No lands or property belonging to Canada or any Province

shall be liable to taxation.

126. Such portions of the duties and revenues over which the

respective Legislatures of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New

Brunswick had before the Union power of appropriation as are

by this Act reserved to the respective Governments or

Legislatures of the Provinces, and all duties and revenues

raised by them in accordance with the special powers conferred

upon them by this act, shall in each Province form one

Consolidated Revenue Fund to be appropriated for the public

service of the Province.

127. If any person being at the passing of this Act a member

of the Legislative Council of Canada, Nova Scotia, or New

Brunswick, to whom a place in the Senate is offered, does not

within thirty days thereafter, by writing under his hand,

addressed to the Governor General of the Province of Canada,

or to the Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick

(as the case may be), accept the same, he shall be deemed to

have declined the same; and any person who, being at the

passing of this Act a member of the Legislative Council of

Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, accepts a place in the Senate,

shall thereby vacate his seat in such Legislative Council.

128. Every member of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada

shall before taking his seat therein, take and subscribe

before the Governor General or some person authorized by him,

and every member of a Legislative Council or Legislative

Assembly of any Province shall before taking his seat therein,

take and subscribe before the Lieutenant Governor of the

Province, or some person authorized by him, the oath of

allegiance contained in the fifth Schedule to this Act; and

every member of the Senate of Canada and every member of the

Legislative Council of Quebec shall also, before taking his

seat therein, take and subscribe before the Governor General,

or some person authorized by him, the declaration of

qualification contained in the same Schedule.

{535}

129. Except as otherwise provided by this Act, all laws in

force in Canada, Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick at the Union,

and all courts of civil and criminal jurisdiction, and all

legal commissions, powers and authorities, and all officers,

judicial, administrative, and ministerial, existing therein at

the Union, shall continue in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and

New Brunswick respectively, as if the Union had not been made,

subject nevertheless (except with respect to such as are

enacted by or exist under Acts of the Parliament of Great

Britain or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great

Britain and Ireland), to be repealed, abolished or altered by

the Parliament of Canada, or by the Legislature of the

respective Province, according to the authority of the

Parliament or of that Legislature under this Act.

130. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, all

officers of the several Provinces having duties to discharge

in relation to matters other than those coming within the

classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the

Legislatures of the Provinces shall be officers of Canada, and

shall continue to discharge the duties of their respective

offices under the same liabilities, responsibilities and

penalties as if the Union had not been made.

131. Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, the

Governor General in Council may from time to time appoint such

officers as the Governor General in Council deems necessary or

proper for the effectual execution of this Act.

132. The Parliament and Government of Canada shall have all

powers necessary or proper for performing the obligations of

Canada or of any Province thereof, as part of the British

Empire towards foreign countries, arising under treaties

between the Empire and such foreign countries.

133. Either the English or the French language may be used by

any person in the debates of the Houses of Parliament of

Canada and of the Houses of the Legislature of Quebec; and

both those languages shall be used in the respective records

and journals of those Houses; and either of those languages

may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or

issuing from any Court of Canada established under this Act,

and in or from all or any of the Courts of Quebec. The Acts of

the Parliament of Canada and of the Legislature of Quebec

shall be printed and published in both those languages.

134. Until the Legislature of Ontario or of Quebec otherwise

provides, the Lieutenant Governors of Ontario and Que bee may

each appoint under the Great Seal of the Province the

following officers, to hold office during pleasure, that is to

say,--the Attorney General, the Secretary and Registrar of the

Province, the Treasurer of the Province, the Commissioner of

Crown Lands and the Commissioner of Agriculture and Public

Works, and, in the case of Quebec, the Solicitor General; and

may, by order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council from time

to time prescribe the duties of those officers and of the

several departments over which they shall preside or to which

they shall belong, and of the officers and clerks thereof; and

may also appoint other and additional officers to hold office

during pleasure, and may from time to time prescribe the

duties of those officers, and of the several departments over

which they shall preside or to which they shall belong, and of

the officers and clerks thereof.

130. Until the Legislature of Ontario or Quebec otherwise

provides, all rights, powers, duties, functions,

responsibilities or authorities at the passing of this Act

vested in or imposed on the Attorney General, Solicitor

General, Secretary and Registrar of the Province of Canada,

Minister of Finance, Commissioner of Crown Lands, Commissioner

of Public Works, and Minister of Agriculture and Receiver

General, by any law, statute or ordinance of Upper Canada,

Lower Canada, or Canada, and not repugnant to this Act, shall

be vested in or imposed on any officer to be appointed by the

Lieutenant Governor for the discharge of the same or any of

them; and the Commissioner of Agriculture and Public Works

shall perform the duties and functions of the office of

Minister of Agriculture at the passing of this Act imposed by

the law of the Province of Canada as well as those of the

Commissioner of Public Works.

136. Until altered by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the

Great Seals of Ontario and Quebec respectively, shall be the

same or of the same design, as those used in the Provinces of

Upper Canada and Lower Canada respectively before their Union

as the Province of Canada.

137. The words "and from thence to the end of the then next

ensuing Session of the Legislature," or words to the same

effect, used in any temporary Act of the Province of Canada

not expired before the Union, shall be construed to extend and

apply to the next Session of Parliament of Canada, if the

subject matter of the Act is within the powers of the same as

defined by this Act, or to the next Sessions of the

Legislatures of Ontario and Quebec respectively, if the

subject matter of the Act is within the powers of the same as

defined by this Act.

138. From and after the Union, the use of the words "Upper

Canada," instead of "Ontario," or "Lower Canada" instead of

"Quebec," in any deed, writ, process, pleading, document,

matter or thing, shall not invalidate the same.

139. Any Proclamation under the Great Seal of the Province of

Canada, issued before the Union to take effect at a time which

is subsequent to the Union, whether relating to that Province

or to Upper Canada, or to Lower Canada, and the several

matters and things therein proclaimed shall be and continue of

like force and effect as if the Union had not been made.

140. Any proclamation which is authorized by any Act of the

Legislature of the Province of Canada to be issued under the

Great Seal of the Province of Canada, whether relating to that

Province or to Upper Canada, or to Lower Canada, and which is

not issued before the Union, may be issued by the Lieutenant

Governor of Ontario or of Quebec, as its subject matter

requires, under the Great Seal thereof; and from and after the

issue of such Proclamation the same and the several matters

and things therein proclaimed shall be and continue of the

like force and effect in Ontario or Quebec as if the Union had

not been made.

141. The Penitentiary of the Province of Canada shall, until

the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides, be and continue

the Penitentiary of Ontario and of Quebec.

142. The division and adjustment of the debts, credits,

liabilities, properties and assets of Upper Canada and Lower

Canada shall be referred to the arbitrament of three

arbitrators, one chosen by the Government of Ontario, one by

the Government of Quebec, and one by the Government of Canada;

and the selection of the Arbitrators shall not be made until

the Parliament of Canada and the Legislatures of Ontario and

Quebec have met; and the arbitrator chosen by the Government

of Canada shall not be a resident either in Ontario or in

Quebec.

{536}

143. The Governor General in Council may from time to time

order that such and so many of the records, books, and

documents of the Province of Canada as he thinks fit shall be

appropriated and delivered either to Ontario or to Quebec, and

the same shall henceforth be the property of that Province:

and any copy thereof or extract therefrom, duly certified by

the officer having charge of the original thereof shall be

admitted as evidence.

144. The Lieutenant Governor of Quebec may from time to time,

by Proclamation under the Great Seal of the Province, to take

effect from a day to be appointed therein, constitute

townships in those parts of the Province of Quebec in which

townships are not then already constituted, and fix the metes

and bounds thereof.

145. Inasmuch as the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New

Brunswick have joined in a declaration that the construction

of the Intercolonial Railway is essential to the consolidation

of the Union of British North America, and to the assent thereto

of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and have consequently agreed

that provision should be made for its immediate construction

by the Government of Canada: Therefore, in order to give

effect to that agreement, it shall be the duty of the

Government and Parliament of Canada to provide for the

commencement, within six months after the Union, of a railway

connecting the River St. Lawrence with the City of Halifax in

Nova Scotia, and for the construction thereof without

intermission, and the completion thereof with all practicable

speed.

146. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice

of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, on Addresses

from the Houses of the Parliament of Canada, and from the

Houses of the respective Legislatures of the Colonies or

Provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, and British

Columbia, to admit those Colonies or Provinces, or any of

them, into the Union, and on Address from the Houses of the

Parliament of Canada to admit Rupert's Land and the

North-western Territory, or either of them, into the Union, on

such terms and conditions in each case as are in the Addresses

expressed and as the Queen thinks fit to approve, subject to

the provisions of this Act, and the provisions of any Order in

Council in that behalf shall have effect as if they had been

enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great

Britain and Ireland.

147. In case of the admission of Newfoundland and Prince

Edward Island, or either of them, each shall be entitled to a

representation in the Senate of Canada of four members, and

(notwithstanding anything in this Act) in case of the

admission of Newfoundland the normal number of Senators shall

be seventy-six and their maximum number shall be eighty-two;

but Prince Edward Island when admitted shall be deemed to be

comprised in the third of the three divisions into which

Canada is, in relation to the constitution of the Senate,

divided by this Act, and accordingly, after the admission of

Prince Edward Island, whether Newfoundland is admitted or not,

the representation of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in the

Senate shall, as vacancies occur, be reduced from twelve to

ten members respectively; and the representation of each of

those Provinces shall not be increased at any time beyond ten,

except under the provisions of this Act for the appointment of

three or six additional Senators under the direction of the

Queen.

CONSTITUTION OF CANADA:  A. D. 1871.

British North America Act, 1871.

An Act respecting the Establishment of Provinces in the

Dominion of Canada. [29TH JUNE, 1871.]

WHEREAS doubts have been entertained respecting the powers of

the Parliament of Canada to establish Provinces in territories

admitted, or which may hereafter be admitted, into the

Dominion of Canada, and to provide for the representation of

such Provinces in the said Parliament, and it is expedient to

remove such doubts, and to vest such powers in the said

Parliament: Be it enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent

Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords,

Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons in this present Parliament

assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

1. This Act may be cited for all purposes as The British North

America Act, 1871.

2. The Parliament of Canada may from time to time establish

new Provinces in any territories forming for the time being

part of the Dominion of Canada, but not included in any

Province thereof, and may, at the time of such establishment,

make provision for the constitution and administration of any

such Province, and for the passing of laws for the peace,

order and good government of such Province, and for its

representation in the said Parliament.

3. The Parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the

consent of the Legislature of any Province of the said

Dominion, increase, diminish, or otherwise alter the limits of

such Province, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed

to by the said Legislature, and may, with the like consent,

make provision respecting the effect and operation of any such

increase or diminution or alteration of territory in relation

to any Province affected thereby.

4. The Parliament of Canada may from time to time make

provision for the administration, peace, order, and good

government of any territory not for the time being included in

any Province.

5. The following Acts passed by the said Parliament of Canada,

and intituled respectively: "An Act for the temporary

government of Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory

when united with Canada;" and "An Act to amend and continue

the Act thirty-two and thirty-three Victoria, chapter three,

and to establish and provide for the government of the

Province of Manitoba," shall be and be deemed to have been

valid and effectual for all purposes whatsoever from the date

at which they respectively received the assent, in the Queen's

name, of the Governor General of the said Dominion of Canada.

6. Except as provided by the third section of this Act, it

shall not be competent for the Parliament of Canada to alter

the provisions of the last mentioned Act of the said

Parliament in so far as it relates to the Province of

Manitoba, or of any other Act hereafter establishing new

Provinces in the said Dominion, subject always to the right of

the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba to alter from time

to time the provisions of any law respecting the qualification

of electors and members of the Legislative Assembly, and to

make laws respecting elections in the said Province.

{537}

CONSTITUTION OF CANADA: A. D. 1875.

Parliament of Canada Act, 1875.

An Act to remove certain doubts with respect to the powers of

the Parliament of Canada, under Section 18 of the British

North America Act, 1867. [19TH JULY, 1875.]

WHEREAS by section 18 of The British North America Act, 1867,

it is provided as follows:-

"The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed,

and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and

by the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from

time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, but

so that the same shall never exceed those at the passing of

this Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of

Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,

and by the members thereof." And whereas doubts have arisen

with regard to the power of defining by an Act of the

Parliament of Canada, in pursuance of the said section, the

said privileges, powers or immunities; and it is expedient to

remove such doubts: Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's

Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of

the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present

Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as

follows:-

1. Section 18 of The British North America Act, 1867, is

hereby repealed, without prejudice to anything done under that

section, and the following section shall be substituted for

the section so repealed:--The privileges, immunities, and

powers to be held, enjoyed and exercised by the Senate and by

the House of Commons, and by the members thereof respectively,

shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the

Parliament of Canada, but so that any Act of the Parliament of

Canada defining such privileges, immunities and powers shall

not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding

those at the passing of such Act held, enjoyed, and exercised

by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of

Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof.

2. The Act of the Parliament of Canada passed in the

thirty-first year of the reign of her present Majesty, chapter

twenty-four, intituled An Act to provide for oaths to

witnesses being administered in certain cases for the purposes

of either House of Parliament, shall be deemed to be valid,

and to have been valid as from the date at which the royal

assent was given thereto by the Governor General of the

Dominion of Canada.

3. This Act may be cited as The Parliament of Canada Act,

1875.

CONSTITUTION OF CANADA: A. D, 1886.

British North America Act, 1886.

An Act respecting the Representation in the Parliament of

Canada of Territories which for the time being form part of

the Dominion of Canada, but are not included in any Province.

[25TH JUNE, 1886.]

WHEREAS it is expedient to empower the Parliament of Canada to

provide for the representation in the Senate and House of

Commons of Canada, or either of them, of any territory which

for the time being forms part of the Dominion of Canada, but

is not included in any Province: Be it therefore enacted by

the Queen's. Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice

and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons,

in the present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of

the same, as follows:--

1. The Parliament of Canada may from time to time make

provision for the representation in the Senate and House of

Commons of Canada, or in either of them, of any territories

which for the time being form part of the Dominion of Canada,

but are not included in any Province thereof.

2. Any Act passed by the Parliament of Canada before the

passing of this Act for the purpose mentioned in this Act

shall, if not disallowed by the Queen, be, and shall be deemed

to have been, valid and effectual from the date at which it

received the assent, in Her Majesty's name, of the

Governor-General of Canada. It is hereby declared that any Act

passed by the Parliament of Canada, whether before or after

the passing of this Act, for the purpose mentioned in this

Act, or in The British North America Act, 1871, has effect,

notwithstanding anything in The British North America Act,

1867, and the number of Senators or the number of Members of

the House of Commons specified in the last-mentioned Act is

increased by the number of Senators or of Members, as the case

may be, provided by any such Act of the Parliament of Canada

for the representation of any provinces or territories of

Canada.

3. This Act maybe cited as The British North America Act,

1886. This Act and The British North America Act, 1867, and

The British North America Act, 1871, shall be construed

together, and may be cited together as The British North

America Acts, 1861 to 1886.

----------CONSTITUTION OF CANADA: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF (OR FOR) THE CAROLINAS (Locke's).

See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1669-1693.

CONSTITUTION OF CHILE.

See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884, and 1885-1891.

CONSTITUTION OF CLEISTHENES.

See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.

CONSTITUTION OF COLOMBIA.

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1830-1886, and 1885-1891.

CONSTITUTION OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY).

CONSTITUTION OF CONNECTICUT

(1639--the Fundamental Agreement of New Haven).

See CONNECTICUT; A. D. 1636-1639, and 1639.

CONSTITUTION OF DENMARK.

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

CONSTITUTION OF THE DUTCH REPUBLIC, or the United Netherlands.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

{538}

CONSTITUTION OF ENGLAND.

"Our English Constitution was never made, in the sense in

which the Constitutions of many other countries have been

made. There never was any moment when Englishmen drew out

their political system in the shape of a formal document,

whether as the carrying out of any abstract political theories

or as the imitation of the past or present system of any other

nation. There are indeed certain great political documents,

each of which forms a landmark in our political history. There

is the Great Charter [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1215], the Petition

of Rights [ENGLAND:  A. D. 1625-1628, and 1628], the Bill of

Rights [ENGLAND:  A. D. 1689 (October)]. But not one of these

gave itself out as the enactment of anything new. All claimed

to set forth, with new strength, it might be, and with new

clearness, those rights of Englishmen which were already old.

...  The life and soul of English law has ever been precedent;

we have always held that whatever our fathers once did their

sons have a right to do again."

E. A. Freeman, The Growth of the English

Constitution, chapter 2.

"It is, in the first place, necessary to have a clear

understanding of what we mean when we talk about 'the English

Constitution.' Few terms in our language have been more laxly

employed. ...  Still, the term, 'the English Constitution' is

susceptible of full and accurate explanation: though it may

not be easy to set it lucidly forth, without first

investigating the archaeology of our history, rather more

deeply than may suit hasty talkers and superficial thinkers.

... Some furious Jacobins, at the close of the last century,

used to clamour that there was no such thing as the English

Constitution, because it could not be produced in full written

form, like that of the United States. ... But an impartial and

earnest investigator may still satisfy himself that England

has a constitution, and that there is ample cause why she

should cherish it. And by this it is meant that he will

recognise and admire, in the history, the laws and the

institutions of England, certain great leading principles,

which have existed from the earliest period of our nationality

down to the present time; expanding and adapting themselves to

the progress of society and civilization, advancing and

varying in development, but still essentially the same in

substance and spirit. These great primeval and enduring

principles are the principles of the English Constitution. And

we are not obliged to learn them from imperfect evidences or

precarious speculation; for they are imperishably recorded in

the Great Charter, and in Charters and Statutes connected with

and confirmatory of Magna Charta [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1215].

... These great primeval and enduring principles of our

Constitution are as follows: The government of the country by

an hereditary sovereign, ruling with limited powers, and bound

to summon and consult a parliament of the whole realm,

comprising hereditary peers and elective representatives of

the commons. That without the sanction of parliament no tax of

any kind can be imposed; and no law can be made, repealed, or

altered. That no man be arbitrarily fined or imprisoned, that

no man's property or liberties be impaired, and that no man be

in any way punished, except after a lawful trial. Trial by jury.

That justice shall not be sold or delayed. These great

constitutional principles can all be proved, either by express

terms or by fair implication, from Magna Carta, and its ...

supplement [the statute 'Confirmatio Cartarum ']. Their

vigorous development was aided and attested in many subsequent

statutes, especially in the Petition of Rights and the Bill of

Rights. ... Lord Chatham called these three 'The Bible of the

English Constitution,' to which appeal is to be made on every

grave political question."

E. S. Creasy, Rise and Progress of the English

Constitution, chapter 1.

"The fact that our constitution has to be collected from

statutes, from legal decisions, from observation of the course

of conduct of the business of politics; that much of what is

written is of a negative sort, stating what the Crown and its

ministers cannot do; that there is no part of it which an

omnipotent Parliament may not change at will; all this is a

puzzle not only to foreign jurists who are prepared to say,

with De Tocqueville, that the English constitution does not

exist, but to ourselves who are prepared to maintain that it

is a monument, if only we can find it, of political sagacity.

Those who praise it call it flexible; those who criticise it

unstable."

Sir W. R. Anson, The Law and Custom of the

Constitution, part 1, page 35.

ALSO IN:

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England

in its Origin and Development.

H. Hallam,  Constitutional History of England:

Henry VII. to George II.

T. E. May, Constitutional History of England, 1760-1860.

R. Gneist, History of the English Constitution.

E. Fischel, The English Constitution.

W. Bagehot, The English Constitution.

E. Boutmy, The English Constitution.

See, also, PARLIAMENT, THE ENGLISH,

and CABINET, THE ENGLISH.

----------CONSTITUTION OF ENGLAND: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1791.

The Constitution accepted by Louis XVI.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1791,

and 1791 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (or the Year One).

The Jacobin Constitution.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (or the Year Three).

The Constitution of the Directory.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1799.

The Constitution of the Consulate.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1814.

The Constitution of the Restoration.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE).

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1848.

The Constitution of the Second Republic.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1848 (APRIL-DECEMBER).

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1852.-

The Constitution of the Second Empire.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1851-1852.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

The Constitution of the Third Republic.

The circumstances of the framing and adoption in 1875 of the

Constitution of the Third Republic will be found narrated

under  FRANCE: A. D. 1871-1876.

The following is the text of the organic law of 1875, with the

later amendatory and supplemental enactments, down to July 17,

1889, as translated and edited, with an historical

introduction, by Mr. Charles F. A. Currier, and published in

the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social

Science, March, 1893. It is reproduced here with the kind

permission of the President of the Academy, Professor Edmund

J. James:

{539}

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1875.

Law on the Organization of the Public Powers. February 25.

ARTICLE 1.

The legislative power is exercised by two assemblies: the

Chamber of Deputies and the Senate. The Chamber of Deputies is

elected by universal suffrage, under the conditions determined

by the electoral law.

[Footnote: See law of November 30, 1875, infra.]

The composition, the method of election, and the powers of the

Senate shall be regulated by a special law.

[Footnote: See laws of February 24, and August 2, 1875, infra.]

ARTICLE  2.

The President of the Republic is chosen by an absolute

majority of votes of the Senate and Chamber of Deputies united

in National Assembly. He is elected for seven years. He is

re-eligible.

ARTICLE 3.

The President of the Republic has the initiative of the laws,

concurrently with the members of the two Chambers. He

promulgates the laws when they have been voted by the two

Chambers; he looks after and secures their execution. He has

the right of pardon; amnesty can be granted by law only. He

disposes of the armed force. He appoints to all civil and

military positions. He presides over national festivals;

envoys and ambassadors of foreign powers are accredited to

him. Every act of the President of the Republic must be

countersigned by a Minister.

ARTICLE  4.

As vacancies occur on and after the promulgation of the

present law, the President of the Republic appoints, in the

Council of Ministers, the Councilors of State in ordinary

service. The Councilors of State thus chosen may be dismissed

only by decree rendered in the Council of Ministers. The

Councilors of State chosen by virtue of the law of May 24,

1872, cannot, before the expiration of their powers, be

dismissed except in the manner determined by that law. After

the dissolution of the National Assembly, revocation may be

pronounced only by resolution of the Senate.

ARTICLE  5.

The President of the Republic may, with the advice of the

Senate, dissolve the Chamber of Deputies before the legal

expiration of its term. [In that case the electoral colleges

are summoned for new elections within the space of three

months.]

[Footnote: Amended by constitutional law of

August 14, 1884, infra.]

ARTICLE 6.

The Ministers are jointly and severally ('solidairement')

responsible to the Chambers for the general policy of the

government, and individually for their personal acts. The

President of the Republic is responsible in case of high

treason only.

[Footnote:  See ARTICLE 12, law of July 16, 1875, infra.]

ARTICLE 7.

In case of vacancy by death or for any other reason, the two

Chambers assembled together proceed at once to the election of

a new President. In the meantime the Council of Ministers is

invested with the executive power.

[Footnote:  See ARTICLES. 3 and 11, law of July 16, 1875, infra.]

ARTICLE 8.

The Chambers shall have the right by separate resolutions,

taken in each by an absolute majority of votes, either upon

their own initiative or upon the request of the President of

the Republic, to declare a revision of the Constitutional Laws

necessary. After each of the two Chambers shall have come to

this decision, they shall meet together in National Assembly

to proceed with the revision. The acts effecting revision of

the constitutional laws, in whole or in part, must be by an

absolute majority of the members composing the National

Assembly. [During the continuance, however, of the powers

conferred by the law of November 20, 1873, upon Marshal de

MacMahon, this revision can take place only upon the

initiative of the President of the Republic.]

[Footnote: Amended by constitutional law of

August 14, 1884, infra.]

[ARTICLE  9.

The seat of the Executive Power and of the two Chambers is at

Versailles.]

[Footnote: Repealed by constitutional law

of June 21, 1879, infra.]

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1875.

Law on the Organization of the Senate. February 24.

[Footnote: By the constitutional law of

August 14, 1884, it was provided that Articles 1 to 7

of this law should no longer have a constitutional

character; and they were repealed

by the law of December 9, 1884, infra.]

[ARTICLE 1.

The Senate consists of three hundred members: Two hundred and

twenty-five elected by the departments and colonies, and

seventy-five elected by the National Assembly.]

[ARTICLE  2.

The departments of the Seine and Nord elect each five

senators. The following departments elect four senators each:

Seine-Inférieure, Pas-dc-Calais, Gironde, Rhône, Finistère,

Côtes-du-Nord. The following departments elect three senators

each: Loire-Inférieure, Saône-et-Loire, Ille-et-Vilaine,

Seine-et-Oise, Isère, Puy-de-Dôme, Somme, Bouches-du-Rhône,

Aisne, Loire, Manche, Maine-et-Loire, Morbihan, Dordogne,

Haute-Garonne, Charente-Inférieure, Calvados, Sarthe, Hérault,

Basses-Pyrénées, Gard, Aveyron, Vendée, Orne, Oise, Vosges,

Allier. All the other departments elect two senators each. The

following elect one senator each: The Territory of Belfort,

the three departments of Algeria, the four colonies:

Martinique, Guadeloupe, Reunion and the French Indies.]

[ARTICLE  3.

No one can be senator unless he is a French citizen, forty

years of age at least, and enjoying civil and political

rights.]

[ARTICLE  4.

The senators of the departments and colonies are elected by an

absolute majority and by 'scrutin de liste', by a college

meeting at the capital of the department or colony and

composed: (1) of the deputies; (2) of the general councilors;

(3) of the arrondissement councilors; (4) of delegates

elected, one by each municipal council, from among the voters

of the commune. In the French Indies the members of the

colonial council or of the local councils are substituted for

the general councilors, arrondissement councilors and

delegates from the municipal councils. They vote at the

capital of each district.]

[ARTICLE  5.

The senators chosen by the Assembly are elected by 'scrutin de

liste' and by an absolute majority of votes.]

[ARTICLE 6.

The senators of the departments and colonies are elected for

nine years and renewable by thirds every three years. At the

beginning of the first session the departments shall be

divided into three series containing an equal number of

senators each. It shall be determined by lot which series

shall be renewed at the expiration of the first and second

triennial periods.]

[ARTICLE  7.

The senators elected by the Assembly are irremovable.

Vacancies by death, by resignation, or for any other reason,

shall, within the space of two months, be filled by the Senate

itself.]

{540}

ARTICLE  8.

The Senate has, concurrently with the Chamber of Deputies, the

initiative and passing of laws. Money bills, however, must

first be introduced in, and passed by the Chamber of Deputies.

ARTICLE  9.

The Senate may be constituted a Court of Justice to judge

either the President of the Republic or the Ministers, and to

take cognizance of attacks made upon the safety of the State.

ARTICLE  10.

Elections to the Senate shall take place one month before the

time fixed by the National Assembly for its own dissolution.

The Senate shall organize and enter upon its duties the same

day that the National Assembly is dissolved.

ARTICLE  11.

The present law shall be promulgated only after the

passage of the law on the public powers.

[Footnote: i. e., the law of February 25, 1875, supra.]

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE; 1875.

Law on the Relations of the Public Powers. July 16.

ARTICLE 1.

The Senate and the Chamber of Deputies shall assemble each

year the second Tuesday of January, unless convened earlier by

the President of the Republic. The two Chambers continue in

session at least five months each year. The sessions of each

begin and end at the same time. [On the Sunday following the

opening of the session, public prayers shall be addressed to

God in the churches and temples, to invoke His aid in the

labors of the Chambers.]

[Footnote: Repealed by law of August 14, 1884, infra.]

ARTICLE  2.

The President of the Republic pronounces the closure of the

session. He may convene the Chambers in extra session. He must

convene them if, during the recess, an absolute majority of

the members of each Chamber request it. The President may

adjourn the Chambers. The adjournment, however, must not

exceed one month, nor take place more than twice in the same

session.

ARTICLE  3.

One month at least before the legal expiration of the powers

of the President of the Republic, the Chambers must be called

together in National Assembly and proceed to the election of a

new President. In default of a summons, this meeting shall

take place, as of right, the fifteenth day before the

expiration of those powers. In case of the death or

resignation of the President of the Republic, the two Chambers

shall reassemble immediately, as of right. In case the Chamber

of Deputies, in consequence of Article 5 of the law of

February 25, 1875, is dissolved at the time when the

presidency of the Republic becomes vacant, the electoral

colleges shall be convened at once, and the Senate shall

reassemble as of right.

ARTICLE  4.

Every meeting of either of the two Chambers which shall be

held at a time other than the common session of both is

illegal and void, except the case provided for in the

preceding article, and that when the Senate meets as a court

of justice; and in this last case, judicial duties alone shall

be performed.

ARTICLE  5.

The sittings of the Senate and of the Chamber of Deputies are

public. Nevertheless each Chamber may meet in secret session,

upon the request of a fixed number of its members, determined

by the rules. It decides by absolute majority whether the

sitting shall be resumed in public upon the same subject.

ARTICLE 6.

The President of the Republic communicates with the Chambers

by messages, which are read from the tribune by a Minister.

The Ministers have entrance to both Chambers, and must be

heard when they request it. They may be represented, for the

discussion of a specific bill, by commissioners designated by

decree of the President of the Republic.

ARTICLE 7.

The President of the Republic promulgates the laws within the

month following the transmission to the Government of the law

finally passed. He must promulgate, within three days, laws

whose promulgation shall have been declared urgent by an

express vote in each Chamber. Within the time fixed for

promulgation the President of the Republic may, by a message

with reasons assigned, request of the two Chambers a new

discussion, which cannot be refused.

ARTICLE  8.

The President of the Republic negotiates and ratifies

treaties. He communicates them to the Chambers as soon as the

interests and safety of the State permit. Treaties of peace,

and of commerce, treaties which involve the finances of the

State, those relating to the persons and property of French

citizens in foreign countries, shall become definitive only

after having been voted by the two Chambers. No cession, no

exchange, no annexation of territory shall take place except

by virtue of a law.

ARTICLE 9.

The President of the Republic cannot declare war except by the

previous assent of the two Chambers.

ARTICLE  10.

Each Chamber is the judge of the eligibility of its members,

and of the legality of their election; it alone can receive

their resignation.

ARTICLE 11.

The bureau of each Chamber is elected each year for the entire

session, and for every extra session which may be held before

the ordinary session of the following year. When the two

Chambers meet together as a National Assembly, their bureau

consists of the President, Vice-Presidents and Secretaries of

the Senate.

[Footnote: The bureau of the Senate consists of a president,

four vice-presidents, six secretaries and three questors; the

bureau of the Chamber of Deputies is the same, except that

there are eight secretaries instead of six.]

ARTICLE 12.

The President of the Republic may be impeached by the Chamber

of Deputies only, and tried by the Senate only. The Ministers

may be impeached by the Chamber of Deputies for offences

committed in the performance of their duties. In this case

they are tried by the Senate. The Senate may be constituted a

court of Justice, by a decree of the President of the

Republic, issued in the Council of Ministers, to try all

persons accused of attempts upon the safety of the State. If

procedure is begun by the ordinary courts, the decree

convening the Senate may be issued any time before the

granting of a discharge. A law shall determine the method of

procedure for the accusation, trial and judgment.

[Footnote: Fixed by law of April 10, 1880.]

ARTICLE 13.

No member of either Chamber shall be prosecuted or held

responsible on account of any opinions expressed or votes cast

by him in the performance of his duties.

{541}

ARTICLE  14.

No member of either Chamber shall, during the session, be

prosecuted or arrested for any offence or misdemeanor, except

on the authority of the Chamber of which he is a member,

unless he be caught in the very act. The detention or

prosecution of a member of either Chamber is suspended for the

session, and for its [the Chamber's] entire term, if it

demands it.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1879.

Law Revising Article 9 of the Constitutional Law of

February 25,1875, June 21.

Article 9 of the constitutional law of February 25, 1875, is

repealed.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1884.

Law Partially Revising the Constitutional Laws, August 14.

ARTICLE 1.

Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the constitutional law of February

25, 1875, on the Organization of the Public Powers, is amended

as follows: "In that case the electoral colleges meet for new

elections within two months, and the Chamber within the ten

days following the close of the elections."

ARTICLE  2.

To Paragraph 3 of Article 8 of the same law of February 25,

1875, is added the following: "The Republican form of the

Government cannot be made the subject of a proposed revision.

Members of families that have reigned in France are ineligible

to the presidency of the Republic."

ARTICLE  3.

Articles 1 to 7 of the constitutional law of February 24,

1875, on the Organization of the Senate, shall no longer have

a constitutional character.

[Footnote: And may therefore be amended by ordinary

legislation. See the law of December 9, 1884, infra.]

ARTICLE  4.

Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the constitutional law of July 16,

1875, on the Relation of the Public Powers, is repealed.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1875.

Law on the Election of Senators. August 2.

ARTICLE 1.

A decree of the President of the Republic, issued at least six

weeks in advance, determines the day for the elections to the

Senate, and at the same time that for the choice of delegates

of the municipal councils. There must be an interval of at

least one month between the choice of delegates and the

election of senators.

ARTICLE  2.

Each municipal council elects one delegate. The election is

without debate, by secret ballot, and by an absolute majority

of votes. After two ballots a plurality is sufficient, and in

case of an equality of votes, the oldest is declared elected.

If the Mayor is not a member of the municipal council, he

presides, but shall not vote.

[Footnote: Amended by Article 8, law of December 9, 1884,

infra.]

On the same day and in the same way an alternate is elected,

who takes the place of the delegate in case of refusal or

inability to serve.

[Footnote: See Article 4, law of February 24, 1875, supra.]

The choice of the municipal councils shall not extend to a

deputy, a general councilor, or an arrondissement councilor.

[Footnote: See Article 4, law of February 24, 1875, supra. ]

All communal electors, including the municipal councilors, are

eligible without distinction.

ARTICLE  3.

In the communes where a municipal committee exists, the

delegate and alternate shall be chosen by the old council.

[Footnote: Amended by Article 8,

law of December 9, 1884, infra. ]

ARTICLE  4.

If the delegate was not present at the election, the Mayor

shall see to it that he is notified within twenty-four hours.

He must transmit to the Prefect, within five days, notice of

his acceptance. In case of refusal or silence, he is replaced

by the alternate, who is then placed upon the list as the

delegate of the commune.

[Footnote: See Article 8, law of December 9, 1884, infra.]

ARTICLE  5.

The official report of the election of the delegate and

alternate is transmitted at once to the Prefect; it states the

acceptance or refusal of the delegates and alternates, as well

as the protests raised, by one or more members of the

municipal council, against the legality of the election. A

copy of this official report is posted on the door of the town

hall.

[Footnote: See Article 8, law of December 9, 1884, infra.]

ARTICLE  6.

A statement of the results of the election of delegates and

alternates is drawn up within a week by the Prefect; this is

given to all requesting it, and may be copied and published.

Every elector may, at the bureaux of the prefecture, obtain

information and a copy of the list, by communes, of the

municipal councilors of the department, and, at the bureaux of

the sub-prefectures a copy of the list, by communes, of the

municipal councilors of the arrondissement.

ARTICLE  7.

Every communal elector may, within three days, address

directly to the Prefect a protest against the legality of the

election. If the Prefect deems the proceedings illegal, he may

request that they be set aside.

ARTICLE  8.

Protests concerning the election of the delegate or alternate

are decided, subject to an appeal to the Council of State, by

the council of the prefecture, and, in the colonies, by the

privy council. A delegate whose election is annulled because

he does not satisfy the conditions demanded by law, or on

account of informality, is replaced by the alternate. In case

the election of the delegate and alternate is rendered void,

as by the refusal or death of both after their acceptance, new

elections are held by the municipal council on a day fixed by

an order of the Prefect.

[Footnote: See Article 8, law of December 9, 1884, infra.]

ARTICLE  9.

Eight days, at the latest, before the election of senators,

the Prefect, and, in the colonies, the Director of the

Interior, arranges the list of the electors of the department

in alphabetical order. The list is communicated to all

demanding it, and may be copied and published. No elector has

more than one vote.

ARTICLE  10.

The deputies, the members of the general council, or of the

arrondissement councils, who have been announced by the

returning committees, but whose powers have not been verified,

are enrolled upon the list of electors and are allowed to

vote.

ARTICLE 11.

In each of the three departments of Algeria the electoral

college is composed: (1) of the deputies; (2) of the members

of the general councils, of French citizenship; (3) of

delegates elected by the French members of each municipal

council from among the communal electors of French

citizenship.

ARTICLE  12.

The electoral college is presided over by the President of the

civil tribunal of the capital of the department or colony. The

President is assisted by the two oldest and two youngest

electors present at the opening of the meeting. The bureau

thus constituted chooses a secretary from among the electors.

If the President is prevented [from presiding] his place is

taken by the Vice-President [of the civil tribunal], and, in

his absence, by the oldest justice.

{542}

ARTICLE 13.

The bureau divides the electors in alphabetical order into

sections of at least one hundred voters each. It appoints the

President and Inspectors of each of these sections. It decides

all questions and contests which may arise in the course of

the election, without, however, power to depart from the

decisions rendered by virtue of Article 8 of the present law.

ARTICLE  14.

The first ballot begins at eight o'clock in the morning and

closes at noon. The second begins at two o'clock and closes at

four o'clock. The third, if it takes place, begins at six

o'clock and closes at eight o'clock. The results of the

ballotings are determined by the bureau and announced the same

day by the President of the electoral college.

[Footnote: See Article 8, law of December 9, 1884, infra.]

ARTICLE  15.

No one is elected senator on either of the first two ballots

unless he receives: (1) an absolute majority of the votes

cast; and (2) a number of votes equal to one-fourth of the

total number of electors registered. On the third ballot a

plurality is sufficient, and, in case of an equality of votes,

the oldest is elected.

ARTICLE  16.

Political meetings for the nomination of senators may take

place conformably to the rules laid down by the law of June 6,

1868 subject to the following conditions:

[Footnote: France is divided Into twenty-six judicial

districts, in each of which there is a cour d'appel. There are

similar courts in Algeria and the colonies. The Cour de

Cassation is the supreme court of appeal for all France,

Algeria and the colonies.]

I. These meetings may be held from the date of the election of

delegates up to the day of the election [of senators]

inclusive;

II. They must be preceded by a declaration made, at latest,

the evening before, by seven senatorial electors of the

arrondissement, and indicating the place, the day and the hour

the meeting is to take place, and the names, occupation and

residence of the candidates to be presented;

III. The municipal authorities will see to it that no one is

admitted to the meeting unless he is a deputy, general

councilor, arrondissement councilor, delegate or candidate.

The delegate will present, as a means of identification, a

certificate from the Mayor of his commune, the candidate a

certificate from the official who shall have received the

declaration mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

[Footnote: See Article 8, law of December 9, 1884, infra.]

ARTICLE  17.

Delegates who take part in all the ballotings shall, if they

demand it, receive from the State, upon the presentation of

their letter of summons, countersigned by the President of the

electoral college, a remuneration for traveling expenses,

which shall be paid to them upon the same basis and in the

same manner as that given to jurors by Articles 35, 90 and

following, of the decree of June 18, 1811. A public

administrative regulation shall determine the method of fixing

the amount and the method of payment of this remuneration.

[Footnote: Done by decree of December 26, 1875.]

ARTICLE  18.

Every delegate who, without lawful reason, shall not take part

in all the ballotings, or, having been hindered, shall not

have given notice to the alternate in sufficient season,

shall, upon the demand of the public prosecutor, be punished

by a fine of fifty francs by the civil tribunal of the

capital.

[Footnote: Of the department.] The same penalty may be

imposed upon the alternate who, after having been notified by

letter, telegram, or notice personally delivered in due

season, shall not have taken part in the election.

ARTICLE  19.

Every attempt at corruption by the employment of means

enumerated in Articles 177 and following, of the Penal Code,

to influence the vote of an elector, or to keep him from

voting, shall be punished by imprisonment of from three months

to two years, and a fine of from fifty to five hundred francs,

or by one of these two penalties alone. Article 463 of the

Penal Code shall apply to the penalties imposed by the present

article.

[Footnote: See Article 8, Jaw of December 9, 1884,

infra. ]

ARTICLE  20.

It is incompatible for a senator to be:

I. Councilor of State, Maitre de Requêtes, Prefect or

Sub-Prefect, except Prefect of the Seine and Prefect of

Police;

II. Member of the courts of appeal ("appel, ") or of the

tribunals of first instance, except public prosecutor at the

court of Paris;

[Footnote: France is divided Into twenty-six judicial

districts, in each of which there is a cour d'appel. There are

similar courts in Algeria and the colonies. The Cour de

Cassation is the supreme court of appeal for all France,

Algeria and the colonies.]

III. General Paymaster, Special Receiver, official or employé

of the central administration of the ministries.

ARTICLE  21.

The following shall not be elected by the department or the

colony included wholly or partially in their jurisdiction,

during the exercise of their duties and during the six months

following the cessation of their duties by resignation,

dismissal, change of residence, or other cause:

I. The First Presidents, Presidents, and members of the courts

of appeal ("appel");

II. The Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Examining Magistrates,

and members of the tribunals of first instance;

III. The Prefect of Police; Prefects and Sub-Prefects, and

Prefectorial General Secretaries; the Governors, Directors of

the Interior, and General Secretaries of the Colonies;

V. The Chief Arrondissement Engineers and Chief Arrondissement

Road-Surveyors;

V. The School Rectors and Inspectors;

VI. The Primary School Inspectors;

VII. The Archbishops, Bishops, and Vicars General;

VIII. The officers of all grades of the land and naval force;

IX. The Division Commissaries and the Military Deputy

Commissaries;

X. The General Paymasters and Special Receivers of Money;

XI. The Supervisors of Direct and Indirect Taxes, of

Registration of Lands and of Posts;

XII. The Guardians and Inspectors of Forests.

ARTICLE 22.

A senator elected in several departments, must let his choice

be known to the President of the senate within ten days

following the verification of the elections. If a choice is

not made in this time, the question is settled by lot in open

session. The vacancy shall be filled within one month and by

the same electoral body. The same holds true in case of an

invalidated election.

ARTICLE 23.

If by death or resignation the number of senators of a

department is reduced by one·half, the vacancies shall be

filled within the space of three months, unless the vacancies

occur within the twelve months preceding the triennial

elections. At the time fixed for the triennial elections, all

vacancies shall be filled which have occurred, whatever their

number and date.

[Footnote: See Article 8, law of December 9, 1884, infra. ]

[ARTICLE  24.

The election of senators chosen by the National Assembly takes

place in public sitting, by "scrutin de liste," and by an

absolute majority of votes, whatever the number of ballotings.]

{543}

[ARTICLE  25.

When it is necessary to elect successors of senators chosen by

virtue of Article 7 of the law of February 24, 1875, the

Senate proceeds in the manner indicated in the preceding

article].

[Footnote: Articles 24 and 25 repealed by law of December 9,

1584, infra.]

ARTICLE  26.

Members of the Senate receive the same salary as members of

the Chamber of Deputies.

[Footnote: See Article 17, law of November 30, 1875, infra. ]

ARTICLE  27.

There are applicable to elections to the Senate all the

provisions of the electoral law relating:

I. to cases of unworthiness and incapacity;

II. to offences, prosecutions, and penalties;

III. to election proceedings, in all respects not contrary to

the provisions of the present law.

Temporary Provisions.

ARTICLE  28.

For the first election of members of the Senate, the law which

shall determine the date of the dissolution of the National

Assembly shall fix, without regard to the intervals

established by Article 1, the date on which the municipal

councils shall meet for the election of delegates and the day

for the election of Senators. Before the meeting of the

municipal councils, the National Assembly shall proceed to the

election of those Senators whom it is to choose.

ARTICLE  20.

The provisions of Article 21, by which an interval of six

months must elapse between the cessation of duties and

election, shall not apply to officials, except Prefects and

Sub-Prefects, whose duties shall have ceased either before the

promulgation of the present law or within twenty days

following.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1875.

Law on the Election of Deputies. November 30.

[Footnote: See infra, the laws of June 10,1885, and

February 13, 1889, amending the electoral law. ]

ARTICLE  1.

The deputies shall be chosen by the voters registered:

I. upon the lists drawn up in accordance with the law of July 7, 1874;

II. upon the supplementary list including those who have lived

in the commune six months. Registration upon the supplementary

list shall take place conformably to the laws and regulations

now governing the political electoral lists, by the committees

and according to the forms established by Articles 1, 2 and 3

of the law of July 7, 1874. Appeals relating to the formation

and revision of either list shall be carried directly before

the Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeal ("Cassation"). The

electoral lists drawn up March 31, 1875, shall serve until

March 31, 1876.

ARTICLE  2.

The soldiers of all ranks and grades, of both the land and

naval forces, shall not vote when they are with their

regiment, at their post or on duty. Those who, on election

day, are in private residence, in non-activity or in

possession of a regular leave of absence, may vote in the

commune on the lists of which they are duly registered. This

last provision applies equally to officers on the unattached

list or on the reserve list.

ARTICLE  3.

During the electoral period, circulars and platforms

("professions de foi") signed by the candidates, placards and

manifestoes signed by one or more voters, may, after being

deposited with the public prosecutor, be posted and

distributed without previous authorization. The distribution

of ballots is not subjected to this deposit.

[Footnote: See, however, a law of December 20, 1878, by which

deposit is made necessary.]

Every public or municipal official is forbidden to distribute

ballots, platforms and circulars of candidates. The provisions

of Article 19 of the organic law of August 2, 1875, on the

elections of Senators, shall apply to the elections of

deputies.

ARTICLE  4.

Balloting shall continue one day only. The voting occurs at

the chief place of the commune; each commune may nevertheless

be divided, by order of the Prefect, into as many sections as

may be demanded by local circumstances and the number of

voters. The second ballot shall take place the second Sunday

following the announcement of the first ballot, according to

the provisions of Article 65, of the law of March 15, 1849.

ARTICLE  5.

The method of voting shall be according to the provisions of

the organic and regulating decrees of February 2, 1852. The

ballot is secret. The voting lists used at the elections in

each section, signed by the President and Secretary, shall

remain deposited for eight days at the Secretary's office at

the town hall, where they shall be communicated to every voter

requesting them.

ARTICLE  6.

Every voter is eligible, without any tax qualification, at the

age of twenty-five years.

ARTICLE  7.

No soldier or sailor forming part of the active forces of land

or sea may, whatever his rank or position, be elected a member

of the Chamber of Deputies. This provision applies to soldiers

and sailors on the unattached list or in non-activity, but

does not extend to officers of the second section of the list

of the general staff, nor to those who, kept in the first

section for having been commander-in-chief in the field, have

ceased to be employed actively, nor to officers who, having

privileges acquired on the retired list, are sent to or

maintained at their homes while awaiting the settlement of

their pension. The decision by which the officer shall have

been permitted to establish his rights on the retired list

shall become, in this case, irrevocable. The rule laid down in

the first paragraph of the present Article shall not apply to

the reserve of the active army nor to the territorial army.

ARTICLE  8.

The exercise of public duties paid out of the treasury of the

State is incompatible with the office of deputy. Consequently

every official elected deputy shall be superseded in his

duties if, within the eight days following the verification of

powers, he has not signified that he does not accept the

office of deputy. There are excepted from the preceding

provisions the duties of Minister, Under Secretary of State,

Ambassador, Minister Plenipotentiary, Prefect of the Seine,

Prefect of Police, First President of the Court of Appeal

("cassation,") First President of the Court of Accounts, First

President of the Court of Appeal ("appel") of Paris, Attorney

General at the Court of Appeal ("cassation,") Attorney General

at the Court of Accounts, Attorney General at the Court of

Appeal ("appel") of Paris, Archbishop and Bishop, Consistorial

Presiding Pastor in consistorial districts whose capital has

two or more pastors, Chief Rabbi of the Central consistory,

Chief Rabbi of the Consistory of Paris.

ARTICLE 9.

There are also excepted from the provisions of Article 8:

I. titular professors of chairs which are filled by

competition or upon the nomination of the bodies where the

vacancy occurs;

II. persons who have been charged with a temporary mission.

All missions continuing more than six months cease to be

temporary and are governed by Article 8 above.

{544}

ARTICLE  10.

The official preserves the rights which he has acquired to a

retiring pension, and may, after the expiration of his term of

office, be restored to active service. The civil official who,

having had twenty years of service at the date of the

acceptance of the office of deputy, and shall be fifty years

of age at the time of the expiration of this term of office,

may establish his rights to an exceptional retiring pension.

This pension shall be regulated according to the third

Paragraph of Article 12 of the law of June 9, 1853. If the

official is restored to active service after the expiration of

his term of office, the provisions of Article 3, Paragraph 2,

and Article 28 of the law of June 9, 1853, shall apply to him.

In duties where the rank is distinct from the employment, the

official, by the acceptance of the office of deputy, loses the

employment and preserves the rank only.

ARTICLE  11.

Every deputy appointed or promoted to a salaried public

position ceases to belong to the Chamber by the very fact of

his acceptance; but he may be re-elected, if the office which

he occupies is compactible with the office of deputy. Deputies

who become Ministers or Under-Secretaries of State are not

subjected to a re-election.

ARTICLE  12.

There shall not be elected by the arrondissement or the colony

included wholly or partially in their jurisdiction, during the

exercise of their duties or for six months following the

expiration of their duties due to resignation, dismissal,

change of residence, or any other cause:

I. The First-Presidents, Presidents, and members of the Courts

of Appeal ("appel");

II. The Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Titular Judges, Examining

Magistrates, and members of the tribunals of first instance;

III. The Prefect of Police; the Prefects and General

Secretaries of the Prefectures; the Governors, Directors of

the Interior, and General Secretaries of the Colonies;

IV. The Chief Arrondissement Engineers and Chief

Arrondissement Road-Surveyors;

V. The School Rectors and Inspectors;

VI. The Primary School Inspectors;

VII. The Archbishops, Bishops, and Vicars General;

VIII. The General Paymasters and Special Receivers of Money;

IX. The Supervisors of Direct and Indirect Taxes, of

Registration of Lands, and of Posts;

X. The Guardians and Inspectors of Forests. The Sub-Prefects

shall not be elected in any of the arrondissements of the

department where they perform their duties.

ARTICLE  13.

Every imperative mandate is null and void.

ARTICLE  14.

Members of the Chamber of Deputies are elected by single

districts. Each administrative arrondissement shall elect one

deputy. Arrondissements having more than 100,000 inhabitants

shall elect one deputy in addition for every additional

100,000 inhabitants or fraction of 100,000. Arrondissements of

this kind shall be divided into districts whose boundaries

shall be established by law and may be changed only by law.

ARTICLE  15.

Deputies shall be chosen for four years. The Chamber is

renewable integrally.

ARTICLE  16.

In ease of vacancy by death, resignation, or otherwise, a new

election shall be held within three months of the date when

the vacancy occurred. In case of option,  the vacancy shall be

filled within one month.

[Footnote: i. e., when a deputy had been elected from two or

more districts.]

ARTICLE  17.

The deputies shall receive a salary. This salary is regulated

by Articles 96 and 97 of the law of March 15, 1849, and by the

provisions of the law of February 16, 1872.

ARTICLE  18.

No one is elected on the first ballot unless he receives: (1)

an absolute majority of the votes cast; (2) a number of votes

equal to one-fourth of the number of voters registered. On the

second ballot a plurality is sufficient. In case of an equality

of votes, the oldest is declared elected.

ARTICLE  19.

Each department of Algeria elects one deputy.

ARTICLE  20.

The voters living in Algeria in a place not yet made a

commune, shall be registered on the electoral list of the

nearest commune. When it is necessary to establish electoral

districts, either for the purpose of grouping mixed communes

in each of which the number of voters shall be insufficient,

or to bring together voters living in places not formed into

communes the decrees for fixing the seat of these districts

shall be issued by the Governor-General, upon the report of

the Prefect or of the General commanding the division.

ARTICLE  21.

The four colonies to which senators have been assigned by the

law of February 24, 1875, on the organization of the Senate,

shall choose one deputy each.

ARTICLE 22.

Every violation of the prohibitive provisions of Article 3,

Paragraph 3, of the present law shall be punished by a fine of

from sixteen francs to three hundred francs. Nevertheless the

criminal courts may apply Article 463 of the Penal Code. The

provisions of Article 6 of the law of July 7, 1874, shall

apply to the political electoral lists. The decree of January

29, 1871, and the laws of April 10, 1871, May 2, 1871, and

February 18, 1873, are repealed. Paragraph 11 of Article 15 of

the organic decree of February 2, 1852, is also repealed, in

so far as it refers to the law of May 21, 1836, on lotteries,

reserving, however, to the courts the right to apply to

convicted persons Article 42 of the Penal Code. The provisions

of the laws and decrees now in force, with which the present

law does not conflict, shall continue to be applied.

ARTICLE 23.

The provision of Article 12 of the present law by which an

interval of six months must elapse between the expiration of

duties and election, shall not apply to officials, except

Prefects and Sub-Prefects, whose duties shall have ceased

either before the promulgation of the present law or within

the twenty days following it.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1879.

Law Relating to the Seat of the Executive Power and of the

Chambers at Paris. July 22.

ARTICLE 1.

The seat of the Executive Power and of the two Chambers is at

Paris.

ARTICLE 2.

The Palace of the Luxemburg and the Palais-Bourbon are

assigned, the first to the use of the Senate, the second to

that of the Chamber of Deputies. Nevertheless each of the

Chambers is authorized to choose, in the city of Paris, the

palace which it wishes to occupy.

{545}

ARTICLE 3.

The various parts of the palace of Versailles now occupied by

the Senate and Chamber of Deputies preserve their

arrangements. Whenever, according to Articles 7 and 8 of the

law of February 25, 1875, on the organization of the public

powers, a meeting of the National Assembly takes place, it

shall sit at Versailles, in the present hall of the Chamber of

Deputies. Whenever, according to Article 9 of the law of

February 24, 1875, on the organization of the Senate, and

Article 12 of the constitutional law of July 16, 1875, on the

relations of the public powers, the Senate shall be called

upon to constitute itself a Court of Justice, it shall

indicate the town and place where it proposes to sit.

ARTICLE 4.

The Senate and Chamber of Deputies will sit at Paris on and

after November 3 next.

ARTICLE  5.

The Presidents of the Senate and Chamber of Deputies are

charged with the duty of securing the external and internal

safety of the Chambers over which they preside. To this end

they have the right to call upon the armed force and every

authority whose assistance they judge necessary. The demands

may be addressed directly to all officers, commanders, or

officials, who are bound to obey immediately, under the

penalties established by the laws. The Presidents of the

Senate and Chamber of Deputies may delegate to the questors or

to one of them their right of demanding aid.

ARTICLE  6.

Petitions to either of the Chambers can be made and presented

in writing only. It is forbidden to present them in person or

at the bar.

ARTICLE  7.

Every violation of the preceding article, every provocation,

by speeches uttered publicly, or by writings, or printed

matter, posted or distributed, to a crowd upon the public

ways, having for an object the discussion, drawing up, or

carrying to the Chambers or either of them, of petitions,

declarations, or addresses--whether or not any results follow

such action--shall be punished by the penalties enumerated in

Paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the law of June 7, 1848.

ARTICLE  8.

The preceding provisions do not diminish the force of the law

of June 7, 1848, on riotous assemblies.

ARTICLE  9.

Article 463 of the Penal Code applies to the offences

mentioned in the present law.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1884.

Law Amending the Organic Laws on the Organization of the

Senate and the Elections of Senators. December 9.

ARTICLE 1.

The Senate consists of three hundred members, elected by the

departments and the colonies. The present members, without any

distinction between senators elected by the National Assembly

or the Senate and those elected by the departments and

colonies, maintain their term of office during the time for

which they have been chosen.

ARTICLE  2.

The department of the Seine elects ten senators. The

department of the Nord elects eight senators. The following

departments elect five senators each: Côtes-du-Nord,

Finistère, Gironde. Ille-et-Vilaine, Loire, Loire-Inférieure,

Pas-de-Calais, Rhône, Saône-et-Loire, Seine-Inférieure. The

following departments elect four senators each: Aisne,

Bouches-du-Rhône, Charente-Inférieure, Dordogne,

Haute-Garonne, Isère, Maine-et-Loire, Manche, Morbihan,

Puy-de-Dome, Seine-et-Oise, Somme. The following departments

elect three senators each: Ain, Allier, Ardèche, Ardennes,

Aube, Aude, Aveyron, Calvados, Charente, Cher, Corrèze, Corse,

Côte·d'Or, Creuse, Doubs, Drôme, Eure, Eure-et-Loir, Gard,

Gers, Hérault, Indre, Indre-et-Loire, Jura, Landes,

Loir-et-Cher, Haute-Loire, Loiret, Lot, Lot-et-Garonne, Marne,

Haute-Marne, Mayenne, Meurthe-et-Moselle, Meuse, Nièvre, Oise,

Orne, Basses-Pyréneées, Haute-Saône, Sarthe, Savoie,

Haute-Savoie, Seine-et-Marne, Deux-Sèvres, Tarn, Var, Vendée,

Vienne, Haute-Vienne, Vosges, Yonne. The following departments

elect two senators each: Basses-Alpes, Hautes-Alpes,

Alpes-Maritimes, Ariège, Cantal, Lozère, Hautes-Pyrénées,

Pyrénées-Orientales, Tarn-et-Garonne, Vancluse. The following

elect one senator each: the Territory of Belfort, the three

departments of Algeria, the four colonies: Martinique,

Guadeloupe, Réunion and French Indies.

ARTICLE  3.

In the departments where the number of senators is increased

by the present law, the increase shall take effect as

vacancies occur among the life senators. To this end, within

eight days after the vacancy occurs, it shall be determined by

lot what department shall be called upon to elect a senator.

This election shall take place within three months of the

determination by lot. Furthermore, if the vacancy occurs

within six months preceding the triennial election, the

vacancy shall be filled at that election. The term of office

in this case shall expire at the same time as that of the

other senators belonging to the same department.

ARTICLE  4.

No one shall be a senator unless he is a French citizen, forty

years of age, at least, and enjoying civil and political

rights. Members of families that have reigned in France are

ineligible to the Senate.

ARTICLE 5.

The soldiers of the land and naval forces cannot be elected

senators. There are excepted from this provision:

I. The Marshals and Admirals of France;

II. The general officers maintained without limit of age in

the first section of the list of the general staff and not

provided with a command;

III. The general officers placed in the second section of the

list of the general staff;

IV. Soldiers of the land and naval forces who belong either to

the reserve of the active army or to the territorial army.

ARTICLE  6.

Senators are elected by "scrutin de liste," by a college

meeting at the capital of the department or colony, and

composed:

(1) of the Deputies;

(2) of the General Councilors;

(3) of the Arrondissement Councilors;

(4) of delegates elected from among the voters of the commune,

by each Municipal Council.

Councils composed of ten members shall elect one delegate.

Councils composed of twelve members shall elect two delegates.

Councils composed of sixteen members shall elect three

delegates. Councils composed of twenty-one members shall elect

six delegates. Councils composed of twenty-three members shall

elect nine delegates. Councils composed of twenty-seven

members shall elect twelve delegates. Councils composed of

thirty members shall elect fifteen delegates. Councils

composed of thirty-two members shall elect eighteen delegates.

Councils composed of thirty-four members shall elect

twenty-one delegates. Councils composed of thirty-six members

or more shall elect twenty-four delegates. The Municipal

Council of Paris shall elect thirty delegates. In the French

Indies the members of the local councils take the place of

Arrondissement Councilors. The Municipal Council of Pondichéry

shall elect five delegates.  The Municipal Council of Karikal

shall elect three delegates. All the other communes shall

elect two delegates each. The balloting takes place at the

capital of each district.

{546}

ARTICLE 7.

Members of the Senate are elected for nine years. The Senate

is renewed every three years according to the order of the

present series of departments and colonies.

ARTICLE 8.

Articles 2 (paragraphs 1 and 2), 3, 4, 5, 8, 14, 16, 19 and 23

of the organic law of August 2, 1875, on the Elections of

Senators are amended as follows:

"Article 2 (paragraphs 1 and 2). In each Municipal Council the

election of delegates takes place without debate and by secret

ballot, by "scrutin de liste" and by an absolute majority of

votes cast. After two ballots a plurality is sufficient, and

in case of an equality of votes the oldest is elected. The

procedure and method is the same for the election of

alternates. Councils having one, two, or three delegates to

choose shall elect one alternate. Those choosing six or nine

delegates elect two alternates. Those choosing twelve or

fifteen delegates elect three alternates. Those choosing

eighteen or twenty-one delegates elect four alternates. Those

choosing twenty-four delegates elect five alternates. The

Municipal Council of Paris elects eight alternates; The

alternates take the place of delegates in case of refusal or

inability to serve, in the order determined by the number of

votes received by each of them.

Article 3.

In communes where the duties of a Municipal Council are

performed by a special delegation organized by virtue of

Article 44 of' the law of April 5, 1884, the senatorial

delegates and alternates shall be chosen by the old council.

Article  4.

If the delegates were not present at the election, notice is

given them by the Mayor within twenty-four hours. They must

within five days notify the Prefect of their acceptance. In

case of declination or silence they shall be replaced by the

alternates, who are then placed upon the list as the delegates

of the commune.

Article 5.

The official report of the election of delegates and

alternates is transmitted at once to the Prefect. It indicates

the acceptance or declination of the delegates and alternates,

as well as the protests made by one or more members of the

Municipal Council against the legality of the election. A copy

of this official report is posted on the door of the town

hall.

Article 8.

Protests concerning the election of delegates or alternates

are decided, subject to an appeal to the Council of State, by

the Council of the Prefecture, and, in the colonies, by the

Privy Council. Delegates whose election is set aside because

they do not satisfy the conditions demanded by law, or because

of informality, are replaced by the alternates. In case the

election of a delegate and of an alternate is rendered void,

as by the refusal or death of both after their acceptance, new

elections are held by the Municipal Council on a day fixed by

decree of the Prefect.

Article  14.

The first ballot begins at eight o'clock in the morning and

closes at noon. The second begins at two o'clock and closes at

four o'clock. The third begins at seven o'clock and closes at

ten o'clock. The results of the ballotings are determined by

the bureau and announced immediately by the President of the

electoral college.

Article 16.

Political meetings for the nomination of senators may be held

from the date of the promulgation of the decree summoning the

electors up to the day of the election inclusive. The

declaration prescribed by Article 2 of the law of June 30,

1881, shall be made by two voters, at least. The forms and

regulations of this Article, as well as those of Article 3,

shall be observed. The members of Parliament elected or

electors in the department, the senatorial electors, delegates

and alternates, and the candidates, or their representatives,

may alone be present at these meetings. The municipal

authorities will see to it that no other person is admitted.

Delegates and alternates shall present as a means of

identification a certificate from the Mayor of the commune;

candidates or their representatives a certificate from the

official who shall have received the declaration mentioned in

Paragraph 2.

Article 19.

Every attempt at corruption or constraint by the employment of

means enumerated in Articles 177 and following of the Penal

Code, to influence the vote of an elector or to keep him from

voting, shall be punished by imprisonment of from three months

to two years, and by a fine of from fifty francs to five

hundred francs, or by one of these penalties alone. Article

463 of the Penal Code is applicable to the penalties provided

for by the present article.

Article  23.

Vacancies caused by the death or resignation of senators shall

be filled within three months; moreover, if the vacancy occurs

within the six months preceding the triennial elections, it

shall be filled at those elections."

ARTICLE  9.

There are repealed:

(1) Articles 1 to 7 of the law of February 24, 1875, on the

organization of the Senate;

(2) Articles 24 and 25 of the law of August 2, 1875, on the

elections of senators.

Temporary Provision.

In case a special law on parliamentary incompatibilities shall

not have been passed at the date of the next senatorial

elections, Article 8, of the law of November 30, 1875, shall

apply to those elections. Every official affected by this

provision, who has had twenty years of service and is fifty

years of age at the date of his acceptance of the office [of

senator], may establish his right to a proportional retiring

pension, which shall be governed by the third paragraph of

Article 12, of the law of June 9, 1853.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1885.

Law Amending the Electoral Law. June 16.

[Footnote: Articles 1, 2 and 3 repealed

by the law of February 13 1889, infra.]

[ARTICLE 1.

The members of the Chamber of Deputies are elected by "scrutin

de liste."]

[ARTICLE  2.

Each department elects the number

of deputies assigned to it in the table

(Footnote: This table may be found in the Bulletin des Lois,

twelfth series, No. 15,518; and in the Journal Officiel for

June 17, 1885, page 3074.)

annexed to the present law, on the basis of one deputy for

seventy thousand inhabitants, foreign residents not included.

Account shall be taken, nevertheless, of every fraction

smaller than seventy thousand.

(Footnote: i. e., fractions of less than 70,000 are entitled

to a deputy.)

Each department elects at least three deputies. Two deputies

are assigned to the territory of Belfort, six to Algeria, and

ten to the colonies, as is indicated by the table. This table

can be changed by law only.]

[ARTICLE  3.

The department forms a single electoral district.]

ARTICLE  4.

Members of families that have reigned in France are ineligible

to the Chamber of Deputies.

{547}

ARTICLE  5.

No one is elected on the first ballot unless he receives: (1)

an absolute majority of the votes cast; (2) a number of votes

equal to one-fourth of the total number of voters registered.

On the second ballot a plurality is sufficient. In case of an

equality of votes, the oldest of the candidates is declared

elected.

ARTICLE  6.

Subject to the case of a dissolution foreseen and regulated by

the Constitution, the general elections take place within

sixty days preceding the expiration of the powers of the

Chamber of Deputies.

ARTICLE  7.

Vacancies shall not be filled which occur in the six months

preceding the renewal of the Chamber.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1887.

Law on Parliamentary Incompatibilities. December 26.

Until the passage of a special law on parliamentary

incompatibilities,  Articles 8 and 9 of the law of November

30, 1875, shall apply to senatorial elections. Every official

affected by this provision who has had twenty years of service

and is fifty years of age at the time of his acceptance of the

office [of senator]. may establish his rights to a

proportional retiring pension, which shall be governed by the

third paragraph of Article 12 of the law of June 9, 1853.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1889.

Law Re-establishing Single Districts for the Election of

Deputies. February 13.

ARTICLE 1.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the law of June 16, 1885, are repealed.

ARTICLE  2.

Members of the Chamber of Deputies are elected by single

districts. Each administrative arrondissement in the

departments, and each municipal arrondissement at Paris and at

Lyons, elects one deputy. Arrondissements whose population

exceeds one hundred thousand inhabitants elect an additional

deputy for every one hundred thousand or fraction of one

hundred thousand inhabitants. The arrondissements are in this

case divided into districts, a table of which is annexed to

the present law and can be changed by a law only.

[Footnote: This table may be found in the Journal

Officiel for February 14, 1889. pages 76 and following; and

in the Bulletin des Lois, twelfth series, No. 20,475.]

ARTICLE  3.

One deputy is assigned to the territory of Belfort, six to

Algeria, and ten to the colonies, as is indicated by the

table.

ARTICLE 4.

On and after the promulgation of the present law, until the

renewal of the Chamber of Deputies, vacancies occurring in the

Chamber of Deputies shall not be filled.

CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: 1889.

Law on Multiple Candidatures. July 17.

ARTICLE 1.

No one may be a candidate in more than one district.

ARTICLE  2.

Every citizen who offers himself or is offered at the general

or partial elections must, by a declaration signed or

countersigned by himself, and duly legalized, make known in

what district he means to be a candidate. This declaration is

deposited, and a provisional receipt obtained therefor, at the

Prefecture of the department concerned, the fifth day, at

latest, before the day of election. A definitive receipt shall

be delivered within twenty-four hours.

ARTICLE  3.

Every declaration made in violation of Article 1 of the

present law is void and not to be received. If declarations

are deposited by the same citizen in more than one district,

the earliest in date is alone valid. If they bear the same

date, all are void.

ARTICLE  4.

It is forbidden to sign or post placards, to carry or

distribute ballots, circulars, or platforms in the interest of

a candidate who has not conformed to the requirements of the

present law.

ARTICLE  5.

Ballots bearing the name of a citizen whose candidacy is put

forward in violation of the present law shall not be included

in the return of votes. Posters, placards, platforms, and

ballots posted or distributed to support a candidacy in a

district where such candidacy is contrary to the law, shall be

removed or seized.

ARTICLE  6.

A fine of ten thousand francs shall be imposed on the

candidate violating the provisions of the present law, and one

of five thousand francs on all persons acting in violation of

Article 4 of the present law.

----------CONSTITUTION OF FRANCE: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY.

CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY: 13th-17th Centuries.

The Old (Holy Roman) Empire.

The Golden Bull.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152; 1347-1493;

and DIET, THE GERMANIC.

CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY: A. D. 1815.-

The Confederation.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820.

CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY: A. D. 1871.

The New Empire.

On the 18th day of January, 1871, at Versailles, King William

of Prussia assumed the title of German Emperor. On the 16th of

April following the Emperor issued a proclamation, by and with

the consent of the Council of the German Confederation, and of

the Imperial Diet, decreeing the adoption of a constitution

for the Empire.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1871 (JANUARY) and (APRIL).

The following is a translation of the text of the Constitution,

as transmitted by the American Minister at Berlin to his

Government:

His Majesty the King of Prussia, in the name of the North

German Union, His Majesty the King of Bavaria, His Majesty the

King of Würtemberg, His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of

Baden, and His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Hesse, and by

Rhine for those parts of the Grand Duchy of Hesse which are

situated south of the Main, conclude an eternal alliance for

the protection of the territory of the confederation, and of

the laws of the same, as well as for the promotion of the

welfare of the German people. This confederation shall bear

the name of the German Empire, and shall have the following

constitution.

I. Territory.

Article I.

The territory of the confederation shall consist of the States

of Prussia, with Lauenburg, Bavaria, Saxony, Würtemberg,

Baden, Hesse, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Saxe-Weimar,

Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Oldenburg, Brunswick, Saxe-Meiningen,

Saxe-Altenburg, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Anhalt,

Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt, Schwarzburg-Sondershnusen, Waldeck,

Reuss of the elder branch, Reuss of the younger branch,

Schaumburg-Lippe, Lippe, Lubeck, Bremen, and Hamburg.

{548}

II. Legislation of the Empire.

Article 2.

Within this territory the Empire shall have the right of

legislation according to the provisions of this constitution,

and the laws of the Empire shall take precedence of those of

each individual state. The laws of the Empire shall be

rendered binding by imperial proclamation, such proclamation

to be published in a journal devoted to the publication of the

laws of the Empire, (Reichsgesetzblatt.) If no other period

shall be designated in the published law for it to take

effect, it shall take effect on the fourteenth day after the

day of its publication in the law-journal at Berlin.

Article 3.

There is one citizenship for all Germany, and the citizens or

subjects of each state of the federation shall be treated in

every other state thereof as natives, and shall have the right

of becoming permanent residents, of carrying on business, of

filling public offices, and may acquire all civil rights on

the same conditions as those born in the state, and shall also

have the same usage as regards civil prosecutions and the

protection of the laws. No German shall be limited, in the

exercise of this privilege, by the authorities of his native

state, or by the authorities of any other state of the

confederation. The regulations governing the care of paupers,

and their admission into the various parishes, are not

affected by the principle enunciated in the first paragraph.

In like manner those treaties shall remain in force which have

been concluded between the various states of the federation in

relation to the custody of persons who are to be banished, the

care of sick, and the burial of deceased citizens. With regard

to the rendering of military service to the various states,

the necessary laws will be passed hereafter. All Germans in

foreign countries shall have equal claims upon the protection

of the Empire.

Article 4.

The following matters shall be under the supervision of the

Empire and its legislature:

1. The privilege of carrying on trade in more than one place;

domestic affairs and matters relating to the settlement of

natives of one state in the territory of another; the right of

citizenship; the issuing and examination of passports;

surveillance of foreigners and of manufactures, together with

insurance business, so far as these matters are not already

provided for by article 3 of this constitution, (in Bavaria,

however, exclusive of domestic affairs and matters relating to

the settlement of natives of one state in the territory of

another;) and likewise matters relating to colonization and

emigration to foreign countries.

2. Legislation concerning customs duties and commerce, and

such imposts as are to be applied to the uses of the Empire.

3. Regulation of weights and measures of the coinage, together

with the emission of funded and unfunded paper money.

4. Banking regulations in general.

5. Patents for inventions.

6. The protection of literary property.

7. The organization of a general system of protection for

German trade in foreign countries; of German navigation, and

of the German flag on the high seas; likewise the organization

of a general consular representation of the Empire.

8. Railway matters, (subject in Bavaria to the provisions of

article 46,) and the construction of means of communication by

land and water for the purposes of home defense and of general

commerce.

9. Rafting and navigation upon those waters which are common

to several States, and the condition of such waters, as

likewise river and other water dues.

10. Postal and telegraphic affairs; but in Bavaria and Hungary

these shall be subject to the provisions of article 52.

11. Regulations concerning the execution of judicial sentences

in civil matters, and the fulfillment of requisitions in

general.

12. The authentication of public documents.

13. General legislation regarding the law of obligations,

criminal law, commercial law, and the law of exchange;

likewise judicial proceedings.

14. The imperial army and navy.

15. The surveillance of the medical and veterinary

professions.

16. The press, trades' unions, &c.

Article 5.

The legislative power of the Empire shall be exercised by the

federal council and the diet. A majority of the votes of both

houses shall be necessary and sufficient for the passage of a

law. When a law is proposed in relation to the army or navy,

or to the imposts specified in article 35, the vote of the

presiding officer shall decide; in case of a difference of

opinion in the federal council, if said vote shall be in favor

of the retention of the existing arrangements.

III. Federal Council.

Article 6.

The federal council shall consist of the representatives of

the states of the confederation, among whom the votes shall be

divided in such a manner that Prussia, including the former

votes of Hanover, the electorate of Hesse, Holstein, Nassau,

and Frankfort shall have 17 votes; Bavaria, 6 votes; Saxony, 4

votes; Würtemberg, 4 votes; Baden, 3 votes; Hesse, 3 votes;

Mecklenburg-Schwerin, 2 votes; Saxe-Weimar, 1 vote;

Mecklenburg-Strelitz, 1 vote; Oldenburg, 1 vote; Brunswick, 2

votes; Saxe-Meiningen, 1 vote; Saxe-Altenburg, 1 vote;

Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, 1 vote; Anhalt, 1 vote;

Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt, 1 vote; Schwarzburg-Sondershansen, 1

vote; Waldeck, 1 vote; Reuss, elder branch, 1 vote; Reuss,

younger branch, 1 vote; Schaumburgh-Lippe, 1 vote; Lippe, 1

vote; Lubeck, 1 vote; Bremen, 1 vote; Hamburgh, 1 vote; total

58 votes. Each member of the confederation shall appoint as

many delegates to the federal council as it has votes; the

total of the votes of each state shall, however, be cast by

only one delegate.

Article 7.

The federal council shall take action upon--

1. The measures to be proposed to the diet and the resolutions

passed by the same.

2. The general provisions and regulations necessary for the

execution of the laws of the Empire, so far as no other

provision is made by said laws.

3. The defects which may be discovered in the execution of the

laws of the Empire, or of the provisions and regulations

heretofore mentioned. Each member of the confederation shall

have the right to introduce motions, and it shall be the duty

of the presiding officer to submit them for deliberation.

Legislative action shall take place by simple majority, with

the exceptions of the provisions in articles 5, 37, and 78.

Votes not represented or instructed shall not be counted. In

the case of a tie, the vote of the presiding officer shall

decide. When legislative action upon a subject which does not

affect, according to the provisions of this constitution, the

whole Empire is taken, the votes of only those states of the

confederation shall be counted which shall be interested in

the matter in question.

{549}

Article 8.

The federal council shall appoint from its own members

permanent committees--

1. On the army and the fortifications.

2. On naval affairs.

3. On duties and taxes.

4. On commerce and trade.

5. On railroads, post  offices, and telegraphs.

6. On the judiciary.

7. On accounts.

In each of these committees there shall be representatives of

at least four states of the confederation, beside the

presiding officer, and each state shall be entitled to only

one vote in the same. In the committee on the army and

fortifications Bavaria shall have a permanent seat; the

remaining members of it, as well as the members of the

committee on naval affairs, shall be appointed by the Emperor;

the members of the other committees shall be elected by the

federal council. These committees shall be newly formed at

each session of the federal council, i. e., each year, when

the retiring members shall again be eligible. Besides, there

shall be appointed in the federal council a committee on

foreign affairs, over which Bavaria shall preside, to be

composed of the plenipotentiaries of the Kingdoms of Bavaria,

Saxony, and Würtemberg, and of two plenipotentiaries of the

other states of the Empire, who shall be elected annually by

the federal council. Clerks shall be placed at the disposal of

the committees to perform the necessary work appertaining

thereto.

Article 9.

Each member of the federal council shall have the right to

appear in the diet, and shall be heard there at any time when

he shall so request, to represent the views of his government,

even when the same shall not have been adopted by the majority

of the council. Nobody shall be at the same time a member of

the federal council and of the diet.

Article 10.

The Emperor shall afford the customary diplomatic protection

to the members of the federal council.

IV. Presidium.

Article II.

The King of Prussia shall be the president of the

confederation, and shall have the title of German Emperor. The

Emperor shall represent the Empire among nations, declare war,

and conclude peace in the name of the same, enter into

alliances and other conventions with foreign countries,

accredit embassadors, and receive them. For a declaration of

war in the name of the Empire, the consent of the federal

council shall be required, except in case of an attack upon

the territory of the confederation or its coasts. So far as

treaties with foreign countries refer to matters which,

according to article 4, are to be regulated by the legislature

of the Empire, the consent of the federal council shall be

required for their ratification, and the approval of the diet

shall be necessary to render them valid.

Article 12.

The Emperor shall have the right to convene the federal

council and the diet, and to open, adjourn, and close them.

Article 13.

The convocation of the federal council and the diet shall take

place annually, and the federal council may be called together

for the preparation of business without the diet; the latter,

however, shall not be convoked without the federal council.

Article 14.

The convocation of the federal council shall take place as

soon as demanded by one-third of its members.

Article 14.

The chancellor of the Empire, who shall be appointed by the

Emperor, shall preside in the federal council, and supervise

the conduct of its business. The chancellor of the Empire

shall have the right to delegate the power to represent him to

any member of the federal council.

Article 16.

The necessary bills shall be laid before the diet in the name

of the Emperor, in accordance with the resolutions of the

federal council, and they shall be represented in the diet by

members of the federal council or by special commissioners

appointed by said council.

Article 17.

To the Emperor shall belong the right to prepare and publish

the laws of the Empire. The laws and regulations of the

Emperor shall be published in the name of the Empire, and

require for their validity the signature of the chancellor of

the Empire, who thereby becomes responsible for their

execution.

Article 18.

The Emperor shall appoint the officers of the Empire, require

them to take the oath of allegiance, and dismiss them when

necessary. Officials appointed to an office of the Empire from

one of the states of the confederation shall enjoy the same

rights to which they were entitled in their native states by

their official position, provided no other legislative

provision shall have been made previously to their entrance

into the service of the Empire.

Article 19.

If states of the confederation shall not fulfill their

constitutional duties, proceedings may be instituted against

them by military execution. This execution shall be ordered by

the federal council, and enforced by the Emperor.

V. Diet.

Article 20.

The members of the diet shall be elected by universal

suffrage, and by direct secret ballot. Until regulated by law,

which is reserved by section 5 of the election law of May 31,

1869 (Bundesgesetzblatt, 1869, section 145,) 48 delegates

shall be elected in Bavaria, 17 in Würtemberg, 14 in Baden, 6

in Hesse, south of the river Main, and the total number of

delegates shall be 382.

Article 21.

Officials shall not require a leave of absence in order to

enter the diet. When a member of the diet accepts a salaried

office of the Empire, or a salaried office in one of the

states of the confederation, or accepts any office of the

Empire, or of a state, with which a high rank or salary is

connected, he shall forfeit his seat and vote in the diet, but

may recover his place in the same by a new election.

Article 22.

The proceedings of the diet shall be public. Truthful reports

of the proceedings of the public sessions of the diet shall

subject those making them to no responsibility.

Article 23.

The diet shall have the right to propose laws within the

jurisdiction of the Empire, and to refer petitions addressed

to it to the federal council or the chancellor of the Empire.

Article 24.

Each legislative period of the diet shall last three years.

The diet may be dissolved by a resolution of the federal

council, with the consent of the Emperor.

Article 25.

In the case of a dissolution of the diet, new elections shall

take place within a period of 60 days, and the diet shall

reassemble within a period of 90 days after the dissolution.

Article 26.

Unless by consent of the diet, an adjournment of that body

shall not exceed the period of 30 days, and shall not be

repeated during the same session, without such consent.

Article 27.

The diet shall examine into the legality of the election of

its members and decide thereon. It shall regulate the mode of

transacting business, and its own discipline, by establishing

rules therefor, and elect its president, vice-presidents, and

secretaries.

{550}

Article 28.

The diet shall pass laws by absolute majority. To render the

passage of laws valid, the presence of the majority of the

legal number of members shall be required. When passing laws

which do not affect the whole Empire, according to the

provisions of this constitution, the votes of only those

members shall be counted who shall have been elected in those

states of the confederation which the laws to be passed shall

affect.

Article 29.

The members of the diet shall be the representatives of the

entire people, and shall not be subject to orders and

instructions from their constituents.

Article 30.

No member of the diet shall at any time suffer legal

prosecution on account of his vote, or on account of

utterances made while in the performance of his functions, or

be held responsible outside of the diet for his actions.

Article 31.

Without the consent of the diet, none of its members shall be

tried or punished, during the session, for any offense

committed, except when arrested in the act of committing the

offense, or in the course of the following day. The same rule

shall apply in the case of arrests for debt. At the request of

the diet, all legal proceedings instituted against one of its

members, and likewise imprisonment, shall be suspended during

its session.

Article 32.

The members of the diet shall not be allowed to draw any

salary, or be compensated as such.

VI. Customs and Commerce.

Article 33.

Germany shall form a customs and commercial union, having a

common frontier for the collection of duties. Such territories

as cannot, by reason of their situation, be suitably embraced

within the said frontier, shall be excluded. It shall be

lawful to introduce all articles of commerce of a state of the

confederation into any other state of the confederation,

without paying any duty thereon, except so far as such

articles are subject to taxation therein.

Article 34.

The Hanseatic towns, Bremen and Hamburg, shall remain free

ports outside of the common boundary of the customs union,

retaining for that purpose a district of their own, or of the

surrounding territory, until they shall request to be admitted

into the said union.

Article 35.

The Empire shall have the exclusive power to legislate

concerning everything relating to the customs, the taxation of

salt and tobacco manufactured or raised in the territory of

the confederation; concerning the taxation of manufactured

brandy and beer, and of sugar and sirup prepared from beets or

other domestic productions. It shall have exclusive power to

legislate concerning the mutual protection of taxes upon

articles of consumption levied in the several states of the

Empire; against embezzlement; as well as concerning the

measures which are required, in granting exemption from the

payment of duties, for the security of the common customs

frontier. In Bavaria, Würtemberg, and Baden, the matter of

imposing duties on domestic brandy and beer is reserved for

the legislature of each country. The states of the

confederation shall, however, endeavor to bring about uniform

legislation regarding the taxation of these articles.

Article 36.

The imposing of duties and excises on articles of consumption,

and the collection of the same (article 35,) is left to each

state of the confederation within its own territory, so far as

this has been done by each state heretofore. The Emperor shall

have the supervision of the institution of legal proceedings

by officials of the empire, whom he shall designate as

adjuncts to the custom or excise offices, and boards of

directors of the several states, after hearing the committee

of the Confederate Council on customs and revenues. Notices

given by these officials as to defects in the execution of the

laws of the Empire (article 35) shall be submitted to the

confederate council for action.

Article 37.

In taking action upon the rules and regulations for the

execution of the laws of the Empire, (article 35,) the vote of

the presiding officer shall decide, whenever he shall

pronounce for upholding the existing rule or regulation.

Article 38.

The amounts accruing from customs and other revenues

designated in article 35 of the latter, so far as they are

subject to legislation by the diet, shall go to the treasury

of the Empire. This amount is made up of the total receipts

from the customs and other revenues, after deducting

therefrom--

I. Tax compensations and reductions in conformity with

existing laws or regulations.

2. Reimbursements for taxes unduly imposed.

3. The costs for collection and administration, viz.:

a. In the department of customs, the costs which are

required for the protection and collection of customs on the

frontiers and in the frontier districts.

b. In the department of the duty on salt, the costs

which are used for the pay of the officers charged with

collecting and controlling these duties in the salt mines.

c. In the department of duties on beet-sugar and

tobacco, the compensation which is to be allowed, according to

the resolutions of the confederate council, to the several

state governments for the costs of the collection of these

duties.

d. Fifteen per cent. of the total receipts in the

departments of the other duties.

The territories situated outside of the common customs

frontier shall contribute to the expenses of the Empire by

paying an 'aversum,' (a sum of acquittance.) Bavaria,

Würtemberg, and Baden shall not share in the revenues from

duties on liquors and beer, which go into the treasury of the

Empire, nor in the corresponding portion of the aforesaid

'aversum.'

Article 39.

The quarterly statements to be regularly made by the revenue

officers of the federal states at the end of every quarter,

and the final settlements (to be made at the end of the year,

and after the closing of the account-books) of the receipts

from customs, which have become due in the course of the

quarter, or during the fiscal year, and the revenues of the

treasury of the Empire, according to article 38, shall be

arranged by the boards of directors of the federal states,

after a previous examination in general summaries in which

every duty is to be shown separately; these summaries shall be

transmitted to the federal committee on accounts. The latter

provisionally fixes, every three months, taking as a basis

these summaries, the amount due to the treasury of the Empire

from the treasury of each state, and it shall inform the

federal council and the federal States of this act;

furthermore, it shall submit to the federal council, annually,

the final statement of these amounts, with its remarks. The

federal council shall act upon the fixing of these amounts.

{551}

Article 40.

The terms of the customs-union treaty of July 8, 1867, remain

in force, so far as they have not been altered by the

provisions of this constitution, and as long as they are not

altered in the manner designated in articles 7 and 78.

VII. Railways.

Article 41.

Railways, which are considered necessary for the defense of

Germany or for purposes of general commerce, may be built for

the account of the Empire by a law of the Empire, even in

opposition to the will of those members of the confederation

through whose territory the railroads run, without detracting

from the rights of the sovereign of that country; or private

persons may be charged with their construction and receive

rights of expropriation. Every existing railway company is

bound to permit new railroad lines to be connected with it, at

the expense of these latter. All laws granting existing

railway companies the right of injunction against the building

of parallel or competition lines are hereby abolished

throughout the Empire, without detriment to rights already

acquired. Such right of injunction can henceforth not be

granted in concessions to be given hereafter.

Article 42.

The governments of the federal states bind themselves, in the

interest of general commerce, to have the German railways

managed as a uniform net-work, and for this purpose to have

the lines constructed and equipped according to a uniform

system.

Article 43.

Accordingly, as soon as possible, uniform arrangements as to

management, shall be made, and especially shall uniform

regulations be instituted for the police of the railroads. The

Empire shall take care that the administrative officers of the

railway lines keep the roads always in such a condition as is

required for public security, and that they be equipped with

the necessary rolling stock.

Article 44.

Railway companies are bound to establish such passenger trains

of suitable velocity as may be required for ordinary travel,

and for the establishment of harmonizing schedules of travel;

also, to make provision for such freight trains as may be

necessary for commercial purposes, and to establish, without

extra remuneration, offices for the direct forwarding of

passengers and freight trains, to be transferred, when

necessary, from one road to another.

Article 45.

The Empire shall have control over the tariff of fares. The

same shall endeavor to cause--

1. Uniform regulations to be speedily introduced on all German

railway lines.

2. The tariff to be reduced and made uniform as far as

possible, and particularly to cause a reduction of the tariff

for the transport of coal, coke, wood, minerals, stone, salt,

crude iron, manure, and similar articles, for long distances,

as demanded by the interests of agriculture and industry, and

to introduce a one-penny tariff as soon as practicable.

Article 46.

In case of distress, especially in case of an extraordinary

rise in the price of provisions, it shall be the duty of the

railway companies to adopt temporarily a low special tariff,

to be fixed by the Emperor, on motion of the competent

committee, for the forwarding of grain, flour, vegetables, and

potatoes. This tariff shall, however, not be less than the

lowest rate for raw produce existing on the said line. The

foregoing provisions, and those of articles 42 to 45, shall

not apply to Bavaria. The imperial government has, however,

the power, also with regard to Bavaria, to establish, by way

of legislation, uniform rules for the construction and

equipment of such railways as may be of importance for the

defense of the country.

Article 47.

The managers of all railways shall be required to obey,

without hesitation, requisitions made by the authorities of

the Empire for the use of their roads for the defense of

Germany. Particularly shall the military and all material of

war be forwarded at uniform reduced rates.

VIII. Mails and Telegraphs.

Article 48.

The mails and telegraphs shall be organized and managed as

state institutions throughout the German Empire. The

legislation of the empire in regard to postal and telegraphic

affairs, provided for in article 4, does not extend to those

matters whose regulation is left to the managerial

arrangement, according to the principles which have controlled

the North German administration of mails and telegraphs.

Article 49.

The receipts of mails and telegraphs are a joint affair

throughout the Empire. The expenses shall be paid from the

general receipts. The surplus goes into the treasury of the

Empire. (Section 12.).

Article 50.

The Emperor has the supreme supervision of the administration

of mails and telegraphs. The authorities appointed by him are

in duty bound and authorized to see that uniformity be

established and maintained in the organization of the

administration and in the transaction of business, as also in

regard to the qualifications of employés. The Emperor shall

have the power to make general administrative regulations, and

also exclusively to regulate the relations which are to exist

between the post and telegraph offices of Germany and those of

other countries. It shall be the duty of all officers of the

post-office and telegraph department to obey imperial orders.

This obligation shall be included in their oath of office. The

appointment of superior officers (such as directors,

counselors, and superintendents,) as they shall be required

for the administration of the mails and telegraphs, in the

various districts; also the appointment of officers of the

posts and telegraphs (such as inspectors or comptrollers,)

acting for the aforesaid authorities in the several districts,

in the capacity of supervisors, shall be made by the Emperor

for the whole territory of the German Empire, and these

officers shall take the oath of fealty to him as a part of

their oath of office. The governments of the several states

shall be informed in due time, by means of imperial

confirmation and official publication, of the aforementioned

appointments, so far as they may relate to their territories.

Other officers required by the department of mails and

telegraphs, as also all officers to be employed at the various

stations, and for technical purposes, and hence officiating at

the actual centers of communication, &c., shall be appointed

by the respective governments of the states. Where there is no

independent administration of inland mails or telegraphs, the

terms of the various treaties are to be enforced.

{552}

Article 51.

In assigning the surplus of the post-office department to the

treasury of the Empire for general purposes, (article 49,) the

following proceeding is to be observed in consideration of the

difference which has heretofore existed in the clear receipts

of the post-office departments of the several territories, for

the purpose of securing a suitable equalization during the

period of transition below named. Of the post-office surplus,

which accumulated in the several mail districts during the

five years from 1861 to 1865, an average yearly surplus shall

be computed, and the share which every separate mail district

has had in the surplus resulting therefrom for the whole

territory of the Empire shall be fixed upon by a percentage.

In accordance with the proportion thus made, the several

states shall be credited on the account of their other

contributions to the expenses of the empire with their quota

accruing from the postal surplus in the Empire, for a period

of eight years subsequent to their entrance into the

post-office department of the Empire. At the end of the said

eight years this distinction shall cease, and any surplus in

the post-office department shall go, without division, into

the treasury of the Empire, according to the principle

enunciated in article 49. Of the quota of the post-office

department surplus resulting during the aforementioned period

of eight years in favor of the Hanseatic towns, one-half shall

every year be placed at the disposal of the Emperor, for the

purpose of providing for the establishment of uniform

post-offices in the Hanseatic towns.

Article 52.

The stipulations of the foregoing articles 48 to 51 do not

apply to Bavaria and Würtemberg. In their stead the following

stipulation shall be valid for these two states of the

confederation. The Empire alone is authorized to legislate

upon the privileges of the post-office and telegraph

departments, on the legal position of both institutions toward

the public, upon the franking privilege and rates of postage,

and upon the establishment of rates for telegraphic

correspondence into Hanseatic towns. Exclusive, however, of

managerial arrangements, and the fixing of tariffs for

internal communication within Bavaria and Würtemberg. In the

same manner the Empire shall regulate postal and telegraphic

communication with foreign countries, excepting the immediate

communication of Bavaria and Würtemberg with their neighboring

states, not belonging to the Empire, in regard to which

regulation the stipulations in article 49 of the postal treaty

of November 23, 1867, remains in force. Bavaria and Würtemberg

shall not share in the postal and telegraphic receipts which

belong to the treasury of the Empire.

IX. Marine and Navigation.

Article 53.

The navy of the Empire is a united one, under the supreme

command of the Emperor. The Emperor is charged with its

organization and arrangement, and he shall appoint the

officers and officials of the navy, and in his name these and

the seamen are to be sworn in. The harbor of Kiel and the

harbor of the Iade are imperial war harbors. The expenditures

required for the establishment and maintenance of the navy and

the institutions connected therewith shall be defrayed from

the treasury of the Empire. All sea-faring men of the Empire,

including machinists and hands employed in ship-building, are

exempt from service in the army, but obliged to serve in the

imperial navy. The apportionment of men to supply the wants of

the navy shall be made according to the actual sea-faring

population, and the quota furnished in accordance herewith by

each state shall be credited to the army account.

Article 54.

The merchant vessels of all states of the confederation shall

form a united commercial marine. The Empire shall determine

the process for ascertaining the tonnage of sea-going vessels,

shall regulate the issuing of tonnage-certificates and

sea-letters, and shall fix the conditions to which a permit

for commanding a sea-going vessel shall be subject. The

merchant vessels of all the states of the confederation shall

be admitted on an equal footing to the harbors, and to all

natural and artificial water-courses of the several states of

the confederation, and shall receive the same usage therein.

The duties which shall be collected from sea-going vessels, or

levied upon their freights, for the use of naval institutions

in the harbors, shall not exceed the amount required for the

maintenance and ordinary repair of these institutions. On all

natural water-courses, duties are only to be levied for the

use of special establishments, which serve for facilitating

commercial intercourse. These duties, as well as the duties

for navigating such artificial channels, which are property of

the state, are not to exceed the amount required for the

maintenance and ordinary repair of the institutions and

establishments. These rules apply to rafting, so far as it is

carried on on navigable water-courses. The levying of other or

higher duties upon foreign vessels or their freights than

those which are paid by the vessels of the federal states or

their freights does not belong to the various states, but to

the Empire.

Article 55.

The flag of the war and merchant navy shall be black, white,

and red.

X. Consular Affairs.

Article 56.

The Emperor shall have the supervision of all consular affairs

of the German Empire, and he shall appoint consuls, after

hearing the committee of the federal council on commerce and

traffic. No new state consulates are to be established within

the jurisdiction of the German consuls. German consuls shall

perform the functions of state consuls for the states of the

confederation not represented in their district. All the now

existing state consulates shall be abolished, as soon as the

organization of the German consulates shall be completed, in

such a manner that the representation of the separate

interests of all the federal states shall be recognized by the

federal council as secured by the German consulates.

XI. Military Affairs of the Empire.

Article 57.

Every German is subject to military duty, and in the discharge

of this duty no substitute can be accepted.

Article 58.

The costs and the burden of all the military system of the

Empire are to be borne equally by all the federal states and

their subjects, and no privileges or molestations to the

several states or classes are admissible. Where an equal

distribution of the burdens cannot be effected 'in natura'

without prejudice to the public welfare, affairs shall be

equalized by legislation in accordance with the principles of

justice.

{553}

Article 59.

Every German capable of bearing arms shall serve for seven

years in the standing army, ordinarily from the end of his

twentieth to the beginning of his twenty-eighth year; the

first three years in the army of the field, the last four

years in the reserve; during the next five years he shall

belong to the militia. In those states of the confederation in

which heretofore a longer term of service than twelve years

was required by law, the gradual reduction of the required

time of service shall take place in such a manner as is

compatible with the interests and the war-footing of the army

of the Empire. As regards the emigration of men belonging to

the reserve, only those provisions shall be in force which

apply to the emigration of members of the militia.

Article 60.

The strength of the German army in time of peace shall be,

until the 31st December, 1871, one per cent. of the population

of 1867, and shall be furnished by the several federal states

in proportion to their population. In future the strength of

the army in time of peace shall be fixed by legislation.

Article 61.

After the publication of this constitution the full Prussian

military system of legislation shall be introduced without

delay throughout the Empire, as well the statutes themselves

as the regulations, instructions, and ordinances issued for

their execution, explanation, or completion; thus, in

particular, the military penal code of April 3, 1845; the

military orders of the penal court of April 3, 1845; the

ordinance concerning the courts of honor of July 20, 1843; the

regulations with respect to recruiting, time of service,

matters relating to the service and subsistence, to the

quartering of troops, claims for damages, mobilizing, &c., for

times of peace and war. Orders for the attendance of the

military upon religious services is, however, excluded. When a

uniform organization of the German army shall have been

established, a comprehensive military law for the Empire shall

be submitted to the diet and the federal council for their

action in accordance with the constitution.

Article 62.

For the purpose of defraying the expenses of the whole German

army, and the institutions connected therewith, the sum of 225

(two hundred and twenty-five) thalers, shall be placed at the

disposal of the Emperor until the 31st of December, 1871, for

each man in the army on the peace-footing, according to

article 60. (See section 12.) After the 31st of December,

1871, the payment of these contributions of the several states

to the imperial treasury must be continued: The strength of

the army in time of peace, which has been temporarily fixed in

article 60, shall be taken as a basis for calculating these

amounts until it shall be altered by a law of the Empire. The

expenditure of this sum for the whole army of the Empire and

its establishments shall be determined by a budget law. In

determining the budget of military expenditures, the lawfully

established organization of the imperial army, in accordance

with this constitution, shall be taken as a basis.

Article 63.

The total land force of the Empire shall form one army, which,

in war and in peace, shall be under the command of the

Emperor. The regiments, &c., throughout the whole German army

shall bear continuous numbers. The principal colors and the

cut of the garments of the Royal Prussian army shall serve as

a pattern for the rest of the army. It is left to commanders

of contingent forces to choose the external badges, cockades,

&c. It shall be the duty and the right of the Emperor to take

care that, throughout the German army, all divisions be kept

full and well equipped, and that unity be established and

maintained in regard to organization and formation, equipment,

and command in the training of the men, as well as in the

qualification of the officers. For this purpose the Emperor

shall be authorized to satisfy himself at any time of the

condition of the several contingents, and to provide remedies

for existing defects. The Emperor shall determine the

strength, composition, and division of the contingents of the

imperial army, and also the organization of the militia, and

he shall have the right to designate garrisons within the

territory of the confederation, as also to call any portion of

the army into active service. In order to maintain the

necessary unity in the care, arming, and equipment of all

troops of the German army, all orders hereafter to be issued

for the Prussian army shall be communicated in due form to the

commanders of the remaining contingents by the committee on

the army and fortifications, provided for in article 8, No. 1.

Article 64.

All German troops are bound implicitly to obey the orders of

the Emperor. This obligation shall be included in the oath of

allegiance. The commander-in-chief of a contingent, as well as

all officers commanding troops of more than one contingent,

and all commanders of fortresses, shall be appointed by the

Emperor. The officers appointed by the Emperor shall take the

oath of fealty to him. The appointment of generals, or of

officers performing the duties of generals, in a contingent

force, shall be in each case subject to the approval of the

Emperor. The Emperor has the right with regard to the transfer

of officers, with or without promotion, to positions which are

to be filled in the service of the Empire, be it in the

Prussian army or in other contingents, to select from the

officers of all the contingents of the army of the Empire.

Article 65.

The right to build fortresses within the territory of the

Empire shall belong to the Emperor, who, according to section

12, shall ask for the appropriation of the necessary means

required for that purpose, if not already included in the

regular appropriation.

Article 66.

If not otherwise stipulated, the princes of the Empire and the

senates shall appoint the officers of their respective

contingents, subject to the restriction of article 64. They

are the chiefs of all the troops belonging to their respective

territories, and are entitled to the honors connected

therewith. They shall have especially the right to hold

inspections at any time, and receive, besides the regular

reports and announcements of changes for publication, timely

information of all promotions and appointments concerning

their respective contingents. They shall also have the right

to employ, for police purposes, not only their own troops but

all other contingents of the army of the Empire who are

stationed in their respective territories.

Article 67.

The unexpended portion of the military appropriation shall,

under no circumstances, fall to the share of a single

government, but at all times to the treasury of the Empire.

Article 68.

The Emperor shall have the power, if the public security of

the Empire demands it, to declare martial law in any part

thereof, until the publication of a law regulating the

grounds, the form of announcement, and the effects of such a

declaration, the provisions of the Prussian law of June 4,

1851, shall be substituted therefor. (Laws of 1851, page 451.)

{554}

Addition to section XI.

The provisions contained in this section shall go into effect

in Bavaria as provided for in the treaty of alliance of

November 23, 1870, ( Bundesgesetzblatt, 1871, section 9,)

under III, section 5, in Würtemberg, as provided for in the

military convention of November 21-25, 1870, (

Bundesgesetzblatt, 1870, section 658.)

XII. Finances of the Empire.

Article 69.

All receipts and expenditures of the Empire shall be estimated

yearly, and included in the financial estimate. The latter

shall be fixed by law before the beginning of the fiscal year,

according to the following principles:

Article 70.

The surplus of the previous year, as well as the customs

duties, the common excise duties, and the revenues derived

from the postal and telegraph service, shall be applied to the

defrayal of all general expenditure. In so far as these

expenditures are not covered by the receipts, they shall be

raised, as long as no taxes of the Empire shall have been

established, by assessing the several states of the Empire

according to their population, the amount of the assessment to

be fixed by the Chancellor of the Empire in accordance with

the budget agreed upon.

Article 71.

The general expenditure shall be, as a rule, granted for one

year; they may, however, in special cases, be granted for a

longer period. During the period of transition fixed in

Article 60, the financial estimate, properly classified, of

the expenditures of the army shall be laid before the federal

council and the diet for their information.

Article 72.

An annual report of the expenditure of all the receipts of

the Empire shall be rendered to the federal council and the

diet, through the Chancellor of the Empire.

Article 73.

In cases of extraordinary requirements, a loan may be

contracted in accordance with the laws of the Empire, such

loan to be granted by the Empire.

Addition to section XII.

Articles 69 and 71 apply to the expenditures for the Bavarian

army only according to the provisions of the addition to

section XI of the treaty of November 23, 1870; and article 72

only so far as is required to inform the federal council and

the diet of the assignment to Bavaria of the required sum for

the Bavarian army.

XIII. Settlement of Disputes and Modes of Punishment.

Article 74.

Every attempt against the existence, the integrity, the

security, or the constitution of the German Empire; finally,

any offense committed against the federal council, the diet, a

member of the federal council, or of the diet, a magistrate or

public official of the Empire, while in the execution of his

duty, or with reference to his official position, by word,

writing, printing, signs, or caricatures, shall be judicially

investigated, and upon conviction punished in the several

states of the Empire, according to the laws therein existing,

or which shall hereafter exist in the same, according to which

laws a similar offense against anyone of the states of the

Empire, its constitution, legislature, members of its

legislature, authorities or officials is to be judged.

Article 75.

For those offenses, specified in Article 74, against the

German Empire, which, if committed against one of the states

of the Empire, would be deemed high treason, the superior

court of appeals of the three free Hanseatic towns at Lubeck

shall be the competent deciding tribunal in the first and last

resort. More definite provisions as to the competency and the

proceedings of the superior court of appeals shall be adopted

by the Legislature of the Empire. Until the passage of a law

of the Empire, the existing competency of the courts in the

respective states of the Empire, and the provisions relative

to the proceedings of those courts, shall remain in force.

Article 76.

Disputes between the different states of the confederation, so

far as they are not of a private nature, and therefore to be

decided by the competent authorities, shall be settled by the

federal council, at the request of one of the parties.

Disputes relating to constitutional matters in those of the

states of the confederation whose constitution contains no

provision for the settlement of such differences, shall be

adjusted by the federal council, at the request of one of the

parties, or, if this cannot be done, they shall be settled by

the legislative power of the confederation.

Article 77.

If in one of the states of the confederation justice shall be

denied, and no sufficient relief can be procured by legal

measures, it shall be the duty of the federal council to

receive substantiated complaints concerning denial or

restriction of justice, which are to be judged according to

the constitution and the existing laws of the respective

states of the confederation, and thereupon to obtain judicial

relief from the confederate government in the matter which

shall have given rise to the complaint.

XIV. General Provision.

Amendments of the constitution shall be made by legislative

enactment. They shall be considered as rejected when 14 votes

are cast against them in the federal council. The provisions

of the constitution of the Empire, by which fixed rights of

individual states of the confederation are established in

their relation to the whole, shall only be modified with the

consent of that state of the confederation which is

immediately concerned.

----------CONSTITUTION OF GERMANY: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF JAPAN.

The following text of the Constitution of the Empire of Japan,

promulgated by the Emperor, February 11, 1889, is from a

pamphlet published at Johns Hopkins University on the occasion

of a meeting of professors, students and guests, April 17,

1889, to celebrate its promulgation:

{555}

Having, by virtue of the glories of Our Ancestors, ascended

the throne of a lineal succession unbroken for ages eternal;

desiring to promote the welfare of, and to give development to

the moral and intellectual faculties of Our beloved subjects,

the very same that have been favoured with the benevolent care

and affectionate vigilance of Our Ancestors; and hoping to

maintain the prosperity of the State, in concert with Our

people and with their support, We hereby promulgate, in

pursuance of Our Imperial Rescript of the 14th day of the 10th

month of the 14th year of Meiji, a fundamental law of State,

to exhibit the principles, by which We are to be guided in Our

conduct, and to point out to what Our descendants and Our

subjects and their descendants are forever to conform. The

rights of sovereignty of the State, We have inherited from Our

Ancestors, and We shall bequeath them to Our descendants.

Neither We nor they shall in future fail to wield them, in

accordance with the provisions of the Constitution hereby

granted. We now declare to respect and protect the security of

the rights and of the property of Our people, and to secure to

them the complete enjoyment of the same, within the extent of

the provisions of the present Constitution and of the law. The

Imperial Diet shall first be convoked for the 23d year of

Meiji, and the time of its opening shall be the date, when the

present Constitution comes into force. When in the future it

may become necessary to amend any of the provisions of the

present Constitution, We or Our successors shall assume the

initiative right, and submit a project for the same to the

Imperial Diet. The Imperial Diet shall pass its vote upon it,

according to the conditions imposed by the present

Constitution, and in no otherwise shall Our descendants or Our

subjects be permitted to attempt any alteration thereof. Our

Ministers of State, on Our behalf, shall be held responsible

for the carrying out of the present Constitution, and Our

present and future subjects shall forever assume the duty of

allegiance to the present Constitution. [His Imperial

Majesty's Sign-Manual.] The 11th day of the 2nd month of the

22nd year of Meiji. [Countersigned by Ministers.]

Chapter I.

Article I.

The Empire of Japan shall be reigned over and governed by a

line of Emperors unbroken for ages eternal.

Article II.

The Imperial Throne shall be succeeded to by Imperial male

descendants, according to the provisions of the Imperial House

Law.

Article III.

The Emperor is sacred and inviolable.

Article IV.

The Emperor is the head of the Empire, combining in Himself

the rights of sovereignty, and exercises them, according to

the provisions of the present Constitution.

Article V.

The Emperor exercises the legislative power with the consent

of the Imperial Diet.

Article VI.

The Emperor gives sanction to laws, and orders them to be

promulgated and executed.

Article VII.

The Emperor convokes the Imperial Diet, opens, closes, and

prorogues it, and dissolves the House of Representatives.

Article VIII.

The Emperor, in consequence of an urgent necessity to maintain

public safety or to avert public calamities, issues, when the

Imperial Diet is not sitting, Imperial Ordinances in the place

of law. Such Imperial Ordinances are to be laid before the

Imperial Diet at its next session, and when the Diet does not

approve the said Ordinances, the Government shall declare them

to be invalid for the future.

Article IX.

The Emperor issues, or causes to be issued, the Ordinances

necessary for the carrying out of the laws, or for the

maintenance of the public peace and order, and for the

promotion of the welfare of the subjects. But no Ordinance

shall in any way alter any of the existing laws.

Article X.

The Emperor determines the organization of the different

branches of the administration, and the salaries of all civil

and military officers, and appoints and dismisses the same.

Exceptions especially provided for in the present Constitution

or in other laws, shall be in accordance with the respective

provisions (bearing thereon).

Article XI.

The Emperor has the supreme command of the Army and Navy.

Article XII.

The Emperor determines the organization and peace standing of

the Army and Navy.

Article XIII.

The Emperor declares war, makes peace, and concludes treaties.

Article XIV.

The Emperor proclaims the law of siege. The conditions and

effects of the law of siege shall be determined by law.

Article XV

The Emperor confers titles of nobility, rank, orders, and

other marks of honor.

Article XVI.

The Emperor orders amnesty, pardon, commutation of punishment,

and rehabilitation.

Article XVII.

A Regency shall be instituted in conformity with the

provisions of the Imperial House Law. The Regent shall

exercise the powers appertaining to the Emperor in His name.

Chapter II.

Article XVIII.

The conditions necessary for being a Japanese subject shall be

determined by law.

Article XIX.

Japanese subjects may, according to qualifications determined

in law or ordinances, be appointed to civil or military

offices equally, and may fill any other public offices.

Article XX.

Japanese subjects are amenable to service in the Army or Navy,

according to the provisions of law.

Article XXI.

Japanese subjects are amenable to the duty of paying taxes,

according to the provisions of law.

Article XXII.

Japanese subjects shall have the liberty of abode and of

changing the same within the limits of law.

Article XXIII.

No Japanese subject shall be arrested, detained, tried, or

punished, unless according to law.

Article XXIV.

No Japanese subject shall be deprived of his right of being

tried by the judges determined by law.

Article XXV.

Except in the cases provided for in the law, the house of no

Japanese subject shall be entered or searched without his

consent.

Article XXVI.

Except in the cases mentioned in the law, the secrecy of the

letters of every Japanese subject shall remain inviolate.

Article XXVII.

The right of property of every Japanese subject shall remain

inviolate. Measures necessary to be taken for the public

benefit shall be provided for by law.

Article XXVIII.

Japanese subjects shall, within limits not prejudicial to

peace and order, and not antagonistic to their duties as

subjects, enjoy freedom of religious belief.

{556}

Article XXIX.

Japanese subjects shall, within the limits of law, enjoy the

liberty of speech, writing, publication, public meetings, and

associations.

Article XXX.

Japanese subjects may present petitions, by observing the

proper forms of respect, and by complying with the rules

specially provided for the same.

Article XXXI.

The provisions contained in the present Chapter shall not

affect the exercise of the powers appertaining to the Emperor

in times of war or in cases of a national emergency.

Article XXXII.

Each and everyone of the provisions contained in the preceding

Articles of the present Chapter, that are not in conflict with

the laws or the rules and discipline of the Army and Navy,

shall apply to the officers and men of the Army and of the

Navy.

Chapter III.

Article XXXIII.

The Imperial Diet shall consist of two Houses, a House of

Peers and a House of Representatives.

Article XXXIV.

The House of Peers shall, in accordance with the Ordinance

concerning the House of Peers, be composed of the members of

the Imperial Family, of the orders of nobility, and of those

persons who have been nominated thereto by the Emperor.

Article XXXV.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members

elected by the people according to the provisions of the Law

of Election.

Article XXXVI.

No one can at one and the same time be a member of both

Houses.

Article XXXVII.

Every law requires the consent of the Imperial Diet.

Article XXXVIII.

Both Houses shall vote upon projects of law submitted to it by

the Government, and may respectively initiate projects of law.

Article XXXIX.

A Bill, which has been rejected by either the one or the other

of the two houses, shall not be again brought in during the

same session.

Article XL.

Both Houses can make representations to the Government, as to

laws or upon any other subject. When, however, such

representations are not accepted, they cannot be made a second

time during the same session.

Article XLI.

The Imperial Diet shall be convoked every year.

Article XLII.

A session of the Imperial Diet shall last during three months.

In case of necessity, the duration of a session may be

prolonged by Imperial Order.

Article XLI II.

When urgent necessity arises, an extraordinary session may be

convoked, in addition to the ordinary one. The duration of an

extraordinary session shall be determined by Imperial Order.

Article XLIV.

The opening, closing, prolongation of session, and prorogation

of the Imperial Diet, shall be effected simultaneously for

both Houses. In case the House of Representatives has been

ordered to dissolve, the House of Peers shall at the same time

be prorogued.

Article XLV.

When the House of Representatives has been ordered to

dissolve, Members shall be caused by Imperial Order to be

newly elected, and the new House shall be convoked within five

months from the day of dissolution.

Article XLVI.

No debate can be opened and no vote can be taken in either

House of the Imperial Diet, unless not less than one-third of

the whole number of the members thereof is present.

Article XLVII.

Votes shall be taken in both Houses by absolute majority. In

the case of a tie vote, the President shall have the casting

vote.

Article XLVIII.

The deliberations of both Houses shall be held in public. The

deliberations may, however, upon demand of the Government or

by resolution of the House, be held in secret sitting.

Article XLIX.

Both Houses of the Imperial Diet may respectively present

addresses to the Emperor.

Article L.

Both Houses may receive petitions presented by subjects.

Article LI.

Both Houses may enact, besides what is provided for in the

present Constitution and in the Law of the Houses, rules

necessary for the management of their internal affairs.

Article LII.

No member of either House shall be held responsible outside

the respective Houses, for any opinion uttered or for any vote

given in the House. When, however, a Member himself has given

publicity to his opinions by public speech, by documents in

printing or in writing, or by any other similar means he

shall, in the matter, be amenable to the general law.

Article LIII.

The members of both Houses shall, during the session, be free

from arrest, unless with the consent of the House, except in

cases of flagrant delicts, or of offences connected with a

state of internal commotion or with a foreign trouble.

Article LIV.

The Ministers of State and the Delegates of the Government

may, at any time, take seats and speak in either House.

Chapter IV.

Article LV.

The respective Ministers of State shall give their advice to

the Emperor, and be responsible for it. All Laws, Imperial

Ordinances, and Imperial Rescripts of whatever kind, that

relate to the affairs of the State, require the

countersignature of a Minister of State.

Article LVI.

The Privy Council shall, in accordance with the provisions for

the organization of the Privy Council, deliberate upon

important matters of State, when they have been consulted by

the Emperor.

Chapter V.

Article LVII.

The Judicature shall be exercised by the Courts of Law

according to law, in the name of the Emperor. The organization

of the Courts of Law shall be determined by law.

Article LVIII.

The judges shall be appointed from among those, who possess

proper qualifications according to law. No judge shall be

deprived of his position, unless by way of criminal sentence

or disciplinary punishment. Rules for disciplinary punishment

shall be determined by law.

Article LIX.

Trials and judgments of a Court shall be conducted publicly.

When, however, there exists any fear that such publicity may

be prejudicial to peace and order, or to the maintenance of

public morality, the public trial may be suspended by

provision of law or by the decision of the Court of Law.

Article LX.

All matters, that fall within the competency of a special

Court, shall be specially provided for by law.

{557}

Article LXI.

No suit at law, which relates to rights alleged to have been

infringed by the legal measures of the executive authorities,

and which shall come within the competency of the Court of

Administrative Litigation specially established by law, shall

be taken cognizance of by a Court of Law.

Chapter VI.

Article LXII.

The imposition of a new tax or the modification of the rates

(of an existing one) shall be determined by law. However, all

such administrative fees or other revenue having the nature of

compensation shall not fall within the category of the above

clause. The raising of national loans and the contracting of

other liabilities to the charge of the National Treasury,

except those that are provided in the Budget, shall require

the consent of the Imperial Diet.

Article LXIII.

The taxes levied at present shall, in so far as they are not

remodelled by new law, be collected according to the old

system.

Article LXIV.

The expenditure and revenue of the State require the consent

of the Imperial Diet by means of an annual Budget. Any and all

expenditures overpassing the appropriations set forth in the

Titles and Paragraphs of the Budget, or that are not provided

for in the Budget, shall subsequently require the approbation

of the Imperial Diet.

Article LXV.

The Budget shall be first laid before the House of

Representatives.

Article LXVI.

The expenditures of the Imperial House shall be defrayed every

year out of the National Treasury, according to the present

fixed amount for the same, and shall not require the consent

thereto of the Imperial Diet, except in case an increase

thereof is found necessary.

Article LXVII.

Those already fixed expenditures based by the Constitution

upon the powers appertaining to the Emperor, and such

expenditures as may have arisen by the effect of law, or that

appertain to the legal obligations of the Government, shall be

neither rejected nor reduced by the Imperial Diet, without the

concurrence of the Government.

Article LXVIII.

In order to meet special requirements, the Government may ask

the consent of the Imperial Diet to a certain amount as a

Continuing Expenditure Fund, for a previously fixed number of

years.

Article LXIX.

In order to supply deficiencies which are unavoidable, in the

Budget, and to meet requirements unprovided for in the same, a

Reserve Fund shall be provided in the Budget.

Article LXX.

When the Imperial Diet cannot be convoked, owing to the

external or internal condition of the country, in case of

urgent need for the maintenance of public safety, the

Government may take all necessary financial measures, by means

of an Imperial Ordinance. In the case mentioned in the

preceding clause, the matter shall be submitted to the

Imperial Diet at its next session, and its approbation shall

be obtained thereto.

Article LXXI.

When the Imperial Diet has not voted on the Budget, or when

the Budget has not been brought into actual existence, the

Government shall carry out the Budget of the preceding year.

Article LXXII.

The final account of the expenditures and revenue of the State

shall be verified and confirmed by the Board of Audit, and it

shall be submitted by the Government to the Imperial Diet,

together with the report of verification of the said Board.

The organization and competency of the Board of Audit shall be

determined by law separately.

Chapter VII.

Article LXXIII.

When it has become necessary in future to amend the provisions

of the present Constitution, a project to that effect shall be

submitted to the Imperial Diet by Imperial Order. In the above

case, neither House can open the debate, unless not less than

two-thirds of the whole number of Members are present, and no

amendment can be passed, unless a majority of not less than

two-thirds of the Members present is obtained.

Article LXXIV.

No modification of the Imperial House Law shall be required to

be submitted to the deliberation of the Imperial Diet. No

provision of the present Constitution can be modified by the

Imperial House Law.

Article LXXV.

No modification can be introduced into the Constitution, or

into the Imperial House Law, during the time of a Regency.

Article LXXVI.

Existing legal enactments, such as laws, regulations,

Ordinances, or by whatever names they may be called, shall, so

far as they do not conflict with the present Constitution,

continue in force. All existing contracts or orders, that

entail obligations upon the Government, and that are connected

with expenditure shall come within the scope of Article LXVII.

----------CONSTITUTION OF JAPAN: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF LYCURGUS.

"The constitution of Lykourgos was especially adapted to make

heroes, and it made them. To serve his country and die for

her, this was the Spartan's chief ambition. 'Victory or

death!' was their war-cry; honor, their supreme law. 'That

most to be admired in Lykourgos,' says Xenophon, 'is that he

was able to make a noble death seem preferable to a dishonored

life. This great lawgiver provided for the happiness of the

brave man, and devoted the coward to infamy. ... At Sparta men

would be ashamed to sit at table with the coward, to touch his

weapons or his hand: in the games neither party will receive

him. He has the lowest place at the dances and the dramatic

representations. In the street he is pushed aside by younger

men. His daughters share in his disgrace; they are excluded

from public feasts, and can obtain no husbands.'"

V. Duruy, History of Greece, volume 1, section 2, page 467.

Mr. Grote remarks upon the "unparalleled steadiness" of the

Spartan constitution ascribed to Lycurgus, which was

maintained "for four or five successive centuries, in the

midst of governments like the Grecian, all of which had

undergone more or less of fluctuation. No considerable

revolution--not even any palpable or formal change--occurred

in it from the days of the Messenian war down to those of Agis

III.: in spite of the irreparable blow which the power and

territory of the state sustained from Epameinondas and the

Thebans, the form of government nevertheless remained

unchanged. It was the only government in Greece which could

trace an unbroken peaceable descent from a high antiquity and

from its real or supposed founder."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 6 (volume 2).

See SPARTA, THE CONSTITUTION.

{558}

CONSTITUTION OF MEXICO.

The following translated text of the Constitution of Mexico is

from Bulletin No. 9 of the Bureau of the American Republics,

published in July, 1891:

Preamble.

In the name of God and with the authority of the Mexican

people. The representatives of the different States, of the

District and Territories which compose the Republic of Mexico,

called by the Plan proclaimed in Ayutla the 1st of March,

1854, amended in Acapulco the 11th day of the same month and

year, and by the summons issued the 17th of October, 1855, to

constitute the nation under the form of a popular,

representative, democratic republic, exercising the powers

with which they are invested, comply with the requirements of

their high office, decreeing the following political

Constitution of the Mexican Republic, on the indestructible

basis of its legitimate independence, proclaimed the 16th of

September, 1810, and completed the 27th of September, 1821.

Article I.

The Mexican people recognize that the rights of man are the

basis and the object of social institutions. Consequently they

declare that all the laws and all the authorities of the

country must respect and maintain the guarantees which the

present Constitution establishes.

Article 2.

In the Republic all are born free. Slaves who set foot upon

the national territory recover, by that act alone, their

liberty, and have a right to the protection of the laws.

Article 3.

Instruction is free. The law shall determine what professions

require a diploma for their exercise, and with what requisites

they must be issued.

Article 4.

Every man is free to adopt the profession, industrial pursuit,

or occupation which suits him, the same being useful and

honorable, and to avail himself of its products. Nor shall

anyone be hindered in the exercise of such profession,

industrial pursuit, or occupation, unless by judicial sentence

when such exercise attacks the rights of a third party, or by

governmental resolution, dictated in terms which the law marks

out, when it offends the rights of society.

Article 5.

No one shall be obliged to give personal services without just

compensation, and without his full consent. The state shall

not permit any contract, pact, or agreement to be carried into

effect which has for its object the diminution, loss, or

irrevocable sacrifice of the liberty of man, whether it be for

the sake of labor, education, or a religious vow. The law,

consequently, may not recognize monastic orders, nor may it

permit their establishment, whatever may be the denomination

or object with which they claim to be formed.

[Footnote: This sentence was introduced into the original

article September 25, 1873, with other less important

amendments.]

Neither may an agreement be permitted in which anyone

stipulates for his proscription or banishment.

Article 6.

The expression of ideas shall not be the object of any

judicial or administrative inquisition, except in case it

attacks morality, the rights of a third party, provokes some

crime or misdemeanor, or disturbs public order.

Article 7.

The liberty to write and to publish writings on any subject

whatsoever is inviolable. No law or authority shall establish

previous censure, nor require security from authors or

printers, nor restrict the liberty of the press, which has no

other limits than respect of private life, morality, and the

public peace. The crimes which are committed by means of the

press shall be judged by the competent tribunals of the

Federation, or by those of the States, those of the Federal

District and the Territory of Lower California, in accordance

with their penal laws.

[Footnote: This article was amended May 15, 1883, by

introducing the last sentence as a substitute for the

following: "The crimes of the press shall be judged by one

jury which attests the fact and by another which applies the

law and designates the punishment."]

Article 8.

The right of petition, exercised in writing in a peaceful and

respectful manner, is inviolable; but in political matters

only citizens of the Republic may exercise it. To every

petition must be returned a written opinion by the authority

to whom it may have been addressed, and the latter is obliged

to make the result known to the petitioner.

Article 9.

No one may be deprived of the right peacefully to assemble or

unite with others for any lawful object whatsoever, but only

citizens of the Republic may do this in order to take part in

the political affairs of the country. No armed assembly has a

right to deliberate.

Article 10.

Every man has a right to possess and carry arms for his

security and legitimate defence. The law shall designate what

arms are prohibited and the punishment which those shall incur

who carry them.

Article 11.

Every man has a right to enter and to go out of the Republic,

to travel through its territory and change his residence,

without the necessity of a letter of security, passport,

safe-conduct, or other similar requisite. The exercise of this

right shall not prejudice the legitimate faculties of the

judicial or administrative authority in cases of criminal or

civil responsibility.

Article 12.

There are not, nor shall there be recognized in the Republic,

titles of nobility, or prerogatives, or hereditary honors.

Only the people, legitimately represented, may decree

recompenses in honor of those who may have rendered or may

render eminent services to the country or to humanity.

Article 13.

In the Mexican Republic no one may be judged by special law

nor by special tribunals. No person or corporation may have

privileges, or enjoy emoluments, which are not compensation

for a public service and are established by law. Martial law

may exist only for crimes and offences which have a definite

connection with military discipline. The law shall determine

with all clearness the cases included in this exception.

Article 14.

No retroactive law shall be enacted. No one may be judged or

sentenced except by laws made prior to the act, and exactly

applicable to it, and by a tribunal which shall have been

previously established by law.

Article 15.

Treaties shall never be made for the extradition of political

offenders, nor for the extradition of those violators of the

public order who may have held in the country where they

committed the offence the position of slaves; nor agreements

or treaties in virtue of which may be altered the guarantees

and rights which this Constitution grants to the man and to

the citizen.

{559}

Article 16.

No one may be molested in his person, family, domicile, papers

and possessions, except in virtue of an order written by the

competent authority, which shall establish and assign the

legal cause for the proceedings. In the case of in flagrante

delicto any person may apprehend the offender and his

accomplices, placing them without delay at the disposal of the

nearest authorities.

Article 17.

No one may be arrested for debts of a purely civil character.

No one may exercise violence in order to reclaim his rights.

The tribunals shall always be prompt to administer justice.

This shall be gratuitous, judicial costs being consequently

abolished.

Article 18.

Imprisonment shall take place only for crimes which deserve

corporal punishment. In any state of the process in which it

shall appear that such a punishment might not be imposed upon

the accused, he shall be set at liberty under bail. In no case

shall the imprisonment or detention be prolonged for default

of payment of fees, or of any furnishing of money whatever.

Article 19.

No detention shall exceed the term of three days, unless

justified by a writ showing cause of imprisonment and other

requisites which the law establishes. The mere lapse of this

term shall render responsible the authority that orders or

consents to it, and the agents, ministers, wardens, or jailers

who execute it. Any maltreatment in the apprehension or in the

confinement of the prisoners, any injury which may be

inflicted without legal ground, any tax or contribution in the

prisons, is an abuse which the laws must correct and the

authorities severally punish.

Article 20.

In every criminal trial the accused shall have the following

guarantees:

I. That the grounds of the proceedings and the name of the

accuser, if there shall be one, shall be made known to him.

II. That his preparatory declaration shall be taken within

forty-eight hours, counting from the time he may be placed at

the disposal of the judge.

III. That he shall be confronted with the witnesses who

testify against him.

IV. That he shall be furnished with the data which he requires

and which appear in the process, in order to prepare for his

defence.

V. That he shall be heard in defence by himself or by counsel,

or by both, as he may desire. In case he should have no one to

defend him, a list of official defenders shall be presented to

him, in order that he may choose one or more who may suit him.

Article 21.

The application of penalties properly so called belongs

exclusively to the judicial authority. The political or

administrative authorities may only impose fines, as

correction, to the extent of five hundred dollars, or

imprisonment to the extent of one month, in the cases and

manner which the law shall expressly determine.

Article 22.

Punishments by mutilation and infamy, by branding, flogging,

the bastinado, torture of whatever kind, excessive fines,

confiscation of property, or any other unusual or

extraordinary penalties, shall be forever prohibited.

Article 23.

In order to abolish the penalty of death, the administrative

power is charged to establish, as soon as possible, a

penitentiary system. In the meantime the penalty of death

shall be abolished for political offences, and shall not be

extended to other cases than treason during foreign war,

highway robbery, arson, parricide, homicide with treachery,

premeditation or advantage, to grave offences of the military

order, and piracy, which the law shall define.

Article 24.

No criminal proceeding may have more than three instances. No

one shall be tried twice for the same offence, whether by the

judgment he be absolved or condemned. The practice of

absolving from the instance is abolished.

Article 25.

Sealed correspondence which circulates by the mails is free

from all registry. The violation of this guarantee is an

offence which the law shall punish severely.

Article 26.

In time of peace no soldier may demand quarters, supplies, or

other real or personal service without the consent of the

proprietor. In time of war he shall do this only in the manner

prescribed by the law.

Article 27.

Private property shall not be appropriated without the consent

of the owner, except for the sake of public use, and with

previous indemnification. The law shall determine the

authority which may make the appropriation and the conditions

under which it may be carried out. No corporation, civil or

ecclesiastical, whatever may be its character, denomination,

or object, shall have legal capacity to acquire in

proprietorship or administer for itself real estate, with the

single exception of edifices destined immediately and directly

to the service and object of the institution.

[Footnote: See Article 3 of Additions to the Constitution.]

Article 28.

There shall be no monopolies, nor places of any kind for the

sale of privileged goods, nor prohibitions under titles of

protection to industry. There shall be excepted only those

relative to the coining of money, to the mails, and to the

privileges which, for a limited time, the law may concede to

inventors or perfectors of some improvement.

Article 29.

In cases of invasion, grave disturbance of the public peace,

or any other cases whatsoever which may place society in great

danger or conflict, only the President of the Republic in

concurrence with the Council of Ministers and with the

approbation of the Congress of the Union, and, in the recess

thereof, of the permanent deputation, may suspend the

guarantees established by this Constitution, with the

exception of those which assure the life of man; but such

suspension shall be made only for a limited time, by means of

general provisions, and without being limited to a determined

person. If the suspension should take place during the session

of Congress, this body shall concede the authorizations which

it may esteem necessary in order that the Executive may meet

properly the situation. If the suspension should take place

during the recess, the permanent deputation shall convoke the

Congress without delay in order that it may make the

authorizations.

Article 30.

Mexicans are--

I. All those born, within or without the Republic, of Mexican

parents.

II. Foreigners who are naturalized in conformity with the laws

of the Federation.

III. Foreigners who acquire real estate in the Republic or

have Mexican children; provided they do not manifest their

resolution to preserve their nationality.

Article 31.

It is an obligation of every Mexican--

I. To defend the independence, the territory, the honor, the

rights and interests of his country.

II. To contribute for the public expenses, as well of the

Federation as of the State and municipality in which he

resides, in the proportional and equitable manner which the

laws may provide.

{560}

Article 32.

Mexicans shall be preferred to foreigners in equal

circumstances, for all employments, charges, or commissions of

appointment by the authorities, in which the condition of

citizenship may not be indispensable. Laws shall be issued to

improve the condition of Mexican laborers, rewarding those who

distinguish themselves in any science or art, stimulating

labor, and founding practical colleges and schools of arts and

trades.

Article 33.

Foreigners are those who do not possess the qualifications

determined in Article 30. They have a right to the guarantees

established by ... [Articles 1-29] of the present

Constitution, except that in all cases the Government has the

right to expel pernicious foreigners. They are under

obligation to contribute to the public expenses in the manner

which the laws may provide, and to obey and respect the

institutions, laws, and authorities of the country, subjecting

themselves to the judgments and sentences of the tribunals,

without power to seek other protection than that which the

laws concede to Mexican citizens.

Article 34.

Citizens of the Republic are all those who, having the quality

of Mexicans, have also the following qualifications:

I. Eighteen years of age if married, or twenty-one if not

married.

II. An honest means of livelihood.

Article 35.

The prerogatives of the citizen are--

I. To vote at popular elections.

II. The privilege of being voted for for any office subject to

popular election, and of being selected for any other

employment or commission, having the qualifications

established by law.

III. To associate to discuss the political affairs of the

country.

IV. To take up arms in the army or in the national guard for

the defence of the Republic and its institutions.

V. To exercise in all cases the right of petition.

Article 36.

Every citizen of the Republic is under the following

obligations:

I. To be inscribed on the municipal roll, stating the property

which he has, or the industry, profession, or labor by which

he subsists.

II. To enlist in the national guard.

III. To vote at popular elections in the district to which he

belongs.

IV. To discharge the duties of the offices of popular election

of the Federation, which in no case shall be gratuitous.

Article 37.

The character of citizen is lost--

I. By naturalization in a foreign country.

II. By serving officially the government of another country or

accepting its decorations, titles, or employments without

previous permission from the Federal Congress; excepting

literary, scientific, and humanitarian titles, which may be

accepted freely.

Article 38.

The law shall prescribe the cases and the form in which may be

lost or suspended the rights of citizenship and the manner in

which they may be regained.

Article 39.

The national sovereignty resides essentially and originally in

the people. All public power emanates from the people, and is

instituted for their benefit. The people have at all times the

inalienable right to alter or modify the form of their

government.

Article 40.

The Mexican people voluntarily constitute themselves a

democratic, federal, representative republic, composed of

States free and sovereign in all that concerns their internal

government, but united in a federation established according

to the principles of this fundamental law.

Article 41.

The people exercise their sovereignty by means of Federal

officers in cases belonging to the Federation, and through

those of the States in all that relates to the internal

affairs of the States within the limits respectively

established by this Federal Constitution, and by the special

Constitutions of the States, which latter shall in no case

contravene the stipulations of the Federal Compact.

Article 42.

The National Territory comprises that of the integral parts of

the Federation and that of the adjacent islands in both

oceans.

Article 43.

The integral parts of the Federation are: the States of

Aguascalientes, Colima, Chiapas, Chihuahua, Durango,

Guanajuato, Guerrero, Jalisco, Mexico, Michoacan, Nuevo Leon

and Coahuila, Oajaca, Puebla, Querétaro, San Luis Potosi,

Sinaloa, Sonora, Tabasco, Tamaulipas, Tlascala, Valle de

Mexico, Veracruz, Yucatan, Zacatecas, and the Territory of

Lower California.

Article 44.

The States of Aguascalientes, Chiapas, Chihuahua, Durango,

Guerrero, Mexico, Puebla, Queretaro, Sinaloa, Sonora,

Tamaulipas, and the Territory of Lower California shall

preserve the limits which they now have.

Article 45.

The States of Colima and Tlascala shall preserve in their new

character of States the limits which they have had as

Territories of the Federation.

Article 46.

The State of the Valley of Mexico shall be formed of the

territory actually composing the Federal District, but the

erection into a State shall only have effect when the supreme

Federal authorities are removed to another place.

Article 47.

The State of Nuevo Leon and Coahuila shall comprise the

territory which has belonged to the two distinct States of

which it is now formed, except the part of the hacienda of

Bonanza, which shall be reincorporated in Zacatecas, on the

same terms in which it was before its incorporation in

Coahuila.

Article 48.

The States of Guanajuato, Jalisco, Michoacan, Oajaca, San Luis

Potosi, Tabasco, Veracruz, Yucatan, and Zacatecas shall

recover the extension and limits which they had on the 31st of

December, 1852, with the alterations the following Article

establishes.

Article 49.

The town of Contepec, which has belonged to Guanajuato, shall

be incorporated in Michoacan. . The municipality of Ahualulco,

which has belonged to Zacatecas, shall be incorporated in San

Luis Potosi. The municipalities of Ojo-Caliente and San

Francisco de los Adames, which have belonged to San Luis, as

well as the towns of Nueva Tlascala and San Andres del Teul,

which have belonged to Jalisco, shall be incorporated in

Zacatecas. The department of Tuxpan shall continue to form a

part of Veracruz. The canton of Huimanguillo, which has

belonged to Veracruz, shall be incorporated in Tabasco.

[Footnote: Besides the twenty-four States which are mentioned

in this section there have been created subsequently,

according to executive decrees issued in accordance with the

Constitution, the four following:

XXV. That of Campeche, separated from Yucatan.

XXVI. That of Coahuila, separated from Nuevo Leon.

XXVII. That of Hidalgo, in territory of the ancient State

of Mexico, which formed the second military district.

XXVIII. That of Morelos, in territory also of the ancient

State of Mexico, which formed the third military district.]

{561}

Article 50.

The supreme power of the Federation is divided for its

exercise into legislative, executive, and judicial. Two or

more of these powers shall never be united in one person or

corporation, nor the legislative power be deposited in one

individual.

Article 51.

The legislative power of the nation is deposited in a general

Congress, which shall be divided into two houses, one of

Deputies and the other of Senators.

[Footnote: The original form of this article was as

follows: "The exercise of the supreme legislative power is

vested in one assembly, which shall be denominated Congress of

the Union."]

Article 52.

The House of Deputies shall be composed of representatives of

the nation, elected in their entire number every two years by

Mexican citizens.

Article 53.

One deputy shall be elected for each forty thousand

inhabitants, or for a fraction which exceeds twenty thousand.

The territory in which the population is less than that

determined in this article shall, nevertheless, elect one

deputy.

Article 54.

For each deputy there shall be elected one alternate.

Article 55.

The election for deputies shall be indirect in the first

degree, and by secret ballot, in the manner which the law

shall prescribe.

Article 56.

In order to be eligible to the position of a deputy it is

required that the candidate be a Mexican citizen in the

enjoyment of his rights; that he be fully twenty-five years of

age on the day of the opening of the session; that he be a

resident of the State or Territory which makes the election,

and that he be not an ecclesiastic. Residence is not lost by

absence in the discharge of any public trust bestowed by

popular election.

Article 57.

The positions of Deputy and of Senator are incompatible with

any Federal commission or office whatsoever for which a salary

is received.

Article 58.

The Deputies and the Senators from the day of their election

to the day on which their trust is concluded, may not accept

any commission or office offered by the Federal Executive, for

which a salary is received, except with the previous license

of the respective house. The same requisites are necessary for

the alternates of Deputies and Senators when in the exercise

of their functions.

A. The Senate is composed of two Senators for each State and

two for the Federal District. The election of Senators shall

be indirect in the first degree. The Legislature of each State

shall declare elected the person who shall have obtained the

absolute majority of the votes cast, or shall elect from among

those who shall have obtained the relative majority in the

manner which the electoral law shall prescribe. For each

Senator there shall be elected an alternate.

B. The Senate shall be renewed one-half every two years. The

Senators named in the second place shall go out at the end of

the first two years, and thereafter the half who have held

longer.

C. The same qualifications are required for a Senator as for a

Deputy, except that of age, which must be at least thirty

years on the day of the opening of the session.

Article 59.

The Deputies and Senators are privileged from arrest for their

opinions manifested in the performance of their duties, and

shall never be liable to be called to account for them.

Article 60.

Each house shall judge of the election of its members, and

shall solve the doubts which may arise regarding them.

Article 61.

The houses may not open their sessions nor perform their

functions without the presence in the Senate of at least

two-thirds, and in the House of Deputies of more than one-half

of the whole number of their members, but those present of one

or the other body must meet on the day indicated by the law

and compel the attendance of absent members under penalties

which the law shall designate.

Article 62.

The Congress shall have each year two periods of ordinary

sessions: the first, which may be prorogued for thirty days,

shall begin on the 16th of September and end on the 15th of

December, and the second, which may be prorogued for fifteen

days, shall begin the 1st of April and end the last day of

May.

Article 63.

At the opening of the sessions of the Congress the President

of the Union shall be present and shall pronounce a discourse

in which he shall set forth the state of the country. The

President of the Congress shall reply in general terms.

Article 64.

Every resolution of the Congress shall have the character of a

law or decree. The laws and decrees shall be communicated to

the Executive, signed by the Presidents of both houses and by

a Secretary of each of them, and shall be promulgated in this

form: "The Congress of the United States of Mexico decrees:"

(Text of the law or decree.)

Article 65.

The right to initiate laws or decrees belongs:

I. To the President of the Union.

II. To the Deputies and Senators of the general Congress.

III. To the Legislatures of the States.

Article 66.

Bills presented by the President of the Republic, by the

Legislatures of the States, or by deputations from the same,

shall pass immediately to a committee. Those which the

Deputies or the Senators may present shall be subjected to the

procedure which the rules of debate may prescribe.

Article 67.

Every bill which shall be rejected in the house where it

originated, before passing to the other house, shall not again

be presented during the sessions of that year.

Article 68.

The second period of sessions shall be destined, in all

preference, to the examination of and action upon the

estimates of the following fiscal year, to passing the

necessary appropriations to cover the same, and to the

examination of the accounts of the past year, which the

Executive shall present.

Article 69.

The last day but one of the first period of sessions the

Executive shall present to the House of Deputies the bill of

appropriations for the next year following and the accounts of

the preceding year. Both shall pass to a committee of five

Representatives appointed on the same day, which shall be

under obligation to examine said documents, and present a

report on them at the second session of the second period.

Article 70.

The formation of the laws and of the decrees may begin

indiscriminately in either of the two houses, with the

exception of bills which treat of loans, taxes, or imposts, or

of the recruiting of troops, all of which must be discussed

first in the House of Deputies.

{562}

Article 71.

Every bill, the consideration of which does not belong

exclusively to one of the houses, shall be discussed

successively in both, the rules of debate being observed with

reference to the form, the intervals, and manner of proceeding

in discussions and voting.

A. A bill having been approved in the house where it

originated, shall pass for its discussion to the other house.

If the latter body should approve it, it will be remitted to

the Executive, who, if he shall have no observations to make,

shall publish it immediately.

B. Every bill shall be considered as approved by the Executive

if not returned with observations to the house where it

originated within ten working days, unless during this term

Congress shall have closed or suspended its sessions, in which

case the return must be made the first working day on which it

shall meet.

C. A bill rejected wholly or in part by the Executive must be

returned with his observations to the house where it

originated. It shall be discussed again by this body, and if

it should be confirmed by an absolute majority of votes, it

shall pass again to the other house. If by this house it

should be sanctioned with the same majority, the bill shall be

a law or decree, and shall be returned to the Executive for

promulgation. The voting on the law or decree shall be by

name.

D. If any bill should be rejected wholly in the house in which

it did not originate, it shall be returned to that in which it

originated with the observations which the former shall have

made upon it. If having been examined anew it should be

approved by the absolute majority of the members present, it

shall be returned to the house which rejected it, which shall

again take it into consideration, and if it should approve it

by the same majority it shall pass to the Executive, to be

treated in accordance with division A; but, if it should

reject it, it shall not be presented again until the following

sessions.

E. If a bill should be rejected only in part, or modified, or

receive additions by the house of revision, the new discussion

in the house where it originated shall treat only of the

rejected part, or of the amendments or additions, without

being able to alter in any manner the articles approved. If

the additions or amendments made by the house of revision

should be approved by the absolute majority of the votes

present in the house where it originated, the whole bill shall

be passed to the Executive, to be treated in accordance with

division A. But if the additions or amendments made by the

house of revision should be rejected by the majority of the

votes in the house where it originated, they shall be returned

to the former, in order that the reasons of the latter may be

taken into consideration; and if by the absolute majority of

the votes present said additions or amendments shall be

rejected in this second revision, the bill, in so far as it

has been approved by both houses, shall be passed to the

Executive, to be treated in accordance with division A; but if

the house of revision should insist, by the absolute majority

of the votes present, on said additions or amendments, the

whole bill shall not be again presented until the following

sessions, unless both houses agree by the absolute majority of

their members present that the law or decree shall be issued

solely with the articles approved, and that the parts added or

amended shall be reserved to be examined and voted in the

following sessions.

F. In the interpretation, amendment, or repeal of the laws or

decrees, the rules established for their formation shall be

observed.

G. Both houses shall reside in the same place, and they shall

not remove to another without first agreeing to the removal

and on the time and manner of making it, designating the same

point for the meeting of both. But if both houses, agreeing to

the removal, should differ as to time, manner, or place, the

Executive shall terminate the difference by choosing one of

the places in question. Neither house shall suspend its

sessions for more than three days without the consent of the

other.

H. When the general Congress meets in extra sessions, it shall

occupy itself exclusively with the object or objects

designated in the summons; and if the special business shall

not have been completed on the day on which the regular

session should open, the extra sessions shall be closed

nevertheless, leaving the points pending to be treated of in

the regular sessions. The Executive of the Union shall not

make observations on the resolutions of the Congress when this

body prorogues its sessions or exercises functions of an

electoral body or a jury.

Article 72.

The Congress has power--

I. To admit new States or Territories into the Federal Union,

incorporating them in the nation.

II. To erect Territories into States when they shall have a

population of eighty thousand inhabitants and the necessary

elements to provide for their political existence.

III. To form new States within the limits of those existing,

it being necessary to this end--

1. That the fraction or fractions which asked to be erected

into a State shall number a population of at least one hundred

and twenty thousand inhabitants.

2. That it shall be proved before Congress that they have

elements sufficient to provide for their political existence.

3. That the Legislatures of the States, the territories of

which are in question, shall have been heard on the expediency

or inexpediency of the establishment of the new State, and

they shall be obliged to make their report within six months,

counted from the day on which the communication relating to it

shall have been remitted to them.

4. That the Executive of the Federation shall likewise be

heard, who shall send his report within seven days, counted

from the date on which he shall have been asked for it.

5. That the establishment of the new State shall have been

voted for by two-thirds of the Deputies and Senators present

in their respective houses.

6. That the resolution of Congress shall have been ratified by

the majority of the Legislatures of the States, after

examining a copy of the proceedings; provided that the

Legislatures of the States whose territory is in question

shall have given their consent.

7. If the Legislatures of the States whose territory is in

question shall not have given their consent, the ratification

mentioned in the preceding clause must be made by two-thirds

of the Legislatures of the other States.

A. The exclusive powers of the House of Deputies are--

I. To constitute itself an Electoral College in order to

exercise the powers which the law may assign to it, in respect

to the election of the Constitutional President of the

Republic, Magistrates of the Supreme Court, and Senators for

the Federal District.

II. To judge and decide upon the resignations which the

President of the Republic or the Magistrates of the Supreme

Court of Justice may make. The same power belongs to it in

treating of licenses solicited by the first.

III. To watch over, by means of an inspecting committee from

its own body, the exact performance of the business of the

chief auditorship.

IV. To appoint the principal officers and other employés of

the same.

V. To constitute itself a jury of accusation, for the high

functionaries of whom Article 103 of this Constitution treats.

VI. To examine the accounts which the Executive must present

annually, to approve the annual estimate of expenses, and to

initiate the taxes which in its judgment ought to be decreed

to cover these expenses.

{563}

B. The exclusive powers of the Senate are--

I. To approve the treaties and diplomatic conventions which

the Executive may make with foreign powers.

II. To ratify the appointments which the President of the

Republic may make of ministers, diplomatic agents,

consuls-general, superior employés of the Treasury,

colonels and other superior officers of the national army

and navy, on the terms which the law shall provide.

III. To authorize the Executive to permit the departure of

national troops beyond the limits of the Republic, the

passage of foreign troops through the national territory,

the station of squadrons of other powers for more than a

month in the waters of the Republic.

IV. To give its consent in order that the Executive may

dispose of the national guard outside of their respective

States or Territories, determining the necessary force.

V. To declare, when the Constitutional legislative and

executive powers of a State shall have disappeared, that

the case has arrived for appointing to it a provisional

Governor, who shall call elections in conformity with the

Constitutional laws of the said State. The appointment of

Governor shall be made by the Federal Executive with the

approval of the Senate, and in its recesses with the

approval of the Permanent Commission. Said functionary

shall not be elected Constitutional Governor at the

elections which are had in virtue of the summons which he

shall issue.

VI. To decide political questions which may arise between

the powers of a State, when any of them may appear with

this purpose in the Senate, or when on account of said

questions Constitutional order shall have been interrupted

during a conflict of arms. In this case the Senate shall

dictate its resolution, being subject to the general

Constitution of the Republic and to that of the State. The

law shall regulate the exercise of this power and that of

the preceding.

VII. To constitute itself a jury of judgment in accordance

with Article 105 of this Constitution.

C. Each of the houses may, without the intervention of the

other--

I. Dictate economic resolutions relative to its internal

regimen.

II. Communicate within itself, and with the Executive of

the Union, by means of committees from its own body.

III. Appoint the employés of its secretaryship, and make

the internal regulations for the same.

IV. Issue summons for extraordinary elections, with the

object of filling the vacancies of their respective

members.

IV. To regulate definitely the limits of the States,

terminating the differences which may arise between them

relative to the demarcation of their respective

territories, except when these difficulties have a

contentious character.

V. To change the residence of the supreme powers of the

Federation.

VI. To establish the internal order of the Federal District

and Territories, taking as a basis that the citizens shall

choose by popular election the political, municipal, and

judicial authorities, and designating the taxes necessary

to cover their local expenditure.

VII. To approve the estimates of the Federal expenditure,

which the Executive must annually present to it, and to

impose the necessary taxes to cover them.

VIII. To give rules under which the Executive may make

loans on the credit of the nation; to approve said loans,

and to recognize and order the payment of the national

debt.

IX. To establish tariffs on foreign commerce, and to

prevent, by means of general laws, onerous restrictions

from being established with reference to the commerce

between the States.

X. To issue codes, obligatory throughout the Republic, of

mines and commerce, comprehending in this last banking

institutions.

XI. To create and suppress public Federal employments and

to establish, augment, or diminish their salaries.

XII. To ratify the appointments which the Executive may

make of ministers, diplomatic agents, and consuls, of the

higher employés of the Treasury, of the colonels and other

superior officers of the national army and navy.

XIII. To approve the treaties, contracts, or diplomatic

conventions which the Executive may make.

XIV. To declare war in view of the data which the Executive

may present to it.

XV. To regulate the manner in which letters of marque may

be issued; to dictate laws according to which must be

declared good or bad the prizes on sea and land, and to

issue laws relating to maritime rights in peace and war.

XVI. To permit or deny the entrance of foreign troops into

the territory of the Republic, and to consent to the

station of squadrons of other powers for more than a month

in the waters of the Republic.

XVII. To permit the departure of national troops beyond the

limits of the Republic.

[Footnote:  Amended by Section B, Clause III., Article 72,

of the law of the 13th of November, 1874.]

XVIII. To raise and maintain the army and navy of the

Union, and to regulate their organization and service.

XIX. To establish regulations with the purpose of

organizing, arming, and disciplining the national guard,

reserving respectively to the citizens who compose it the

appointment of the commanders and officers, and to the

States the power of instructing it in conformity with the

discipline prescribed by said regulations.

XX. To give its consent in order that the Executive may

control the national guard outside of its respective States

and Territories, determining the necessary force.

XXI. To dictate laws on naturalization, colonization, and

citizenship.

XXII. To dictate laws on the general means of communication

and on the post-office and mails.

XXIII. To establish mints, fixing the conditions of their

operation, to determine the value of foreign money, and

adopt a general system of weights and measures.

XXIV. To fix rules to which must be subject the occupation

and sale of public lands and the price of these lands.

XXV. To grant pardons for crimes cognizable by the

tribunals of the Federation.

XXVI. To grant rewards or recompense for eminent services

rendered to the country or humanity.

XXVII. To prorogue for thirty working days the first period

of its ordinary sessions.

XXVIII. To form rules for its internal regulation, to take

the necessary measures to compel the attendance of absent

members, and to correct the faults or omissions of those

present.

XXIX. To appoint and remove freely the employés of its

secretaryship and those of the chief auditorship, which

shall be organized in accordance with the provisions of the

law.

XXX. To make all laws which may be necessary and proper to

render effective the foregoing powers and all others

granted by this Constitution and the authorities of the

Union.

[Footnote: See respecting this Article the additions A, B,

and C to Article 72 of the law of the 13th of November,

already cited.]

{564}

Article 73.

During the recess of Congress there shall be a Permanent

Deputation composed of twenty-nine members, of whom fifteen

shall be Deputies and fourteen Senators, appointed by their

respective houses the evening before the close of the

sessions.

Article 74.

The attributes of the Permanent Deputation are--

I. To give its consent to the use of the national guard in the

cases mentioned in Article 72, Clause XX.

II. To determine by itself, or on the proposal of the

Executive, after hearing him in the first place, the summons

of Congress, or of one house alone, for extra sessions, the

vote of two-thirds of the members present being necessary in

both cases. The summons shall designate the object or objects

of the extra sessions.

III. To approve the appointments which are referred to in

Article 85, Clause III.

IV. To administer the oath of office to the President of the

Republic, and to the Justices of the Supreme Court, in the

cases provided by this Constitution.

[Footnote: See the Amendment of September 25, 1873,

Article 4.]

V. To report upon all the business not disposed of, in order

that the Legislature which follows may immediately take up

such unfinished business.

Article 75.

The exercise of the supreme executive power of the Union is

vested in a single individual, who shall be called "President

of the United States of Mexico."

Article 76.

The election of President shall be indirect in the first

degree, and by secret ballot, in such manner as may be

prescribed by the electoral law.

Article 77.

To be eligible to the position of President, the candidate

must be a Mexican citizen by birth, in the exercise of his

rights, be fully thirty-five years old at the time of the

election, not belong to the ecclesiastical order, and reside

in the country at the time the election is held.

Article 78.

The President shall enter upon the performance of the duties

of his office on the first of December, and shall continue in

office four years, being eligible for the Constitutional

period immediately following; but he shall remain incapable

thereafter to occupy the presidency by a new election until

four years shall have passed, counting from the day on which

he ceased to perform his functions.

Article 79.

In the temporary default of the President of the Republic, and

in the vacancy before the installation of the newly-elected

President, the citizen who may have performed the duties of

President or Vice-President of the Senate, or of the Permanent

Commission in the periods of recess, during the month prior to

that in which said default may have occurred, shall enter upon

the exercise of the executive power of the Union.

A. The President and Vice-President of the Senate and of the

Permanent Commission shall not be reëlected to those offices

until a year after having held them.

B. If the period of sessions of the Senate or of the Permanent

Commission shall begin in the second half of a month, the

default of the President of the Republic shall be covered by

the President or Vice-President who may have acted in the

Senate or in the Permanent Commission during the first half of

the said month.

C. The Senate and the Permanent Commission shall renew, the

last day of each month, their Presidents and Vice-Presidents.

For these offices the Permanent Commission shall elect,

alternatively, in one month two Deputies and in the following

month two Senators.

D. When the office of President of the Republic is vacant, the

functionary who shall take it constitutionally as his

substitute must issue, within the definite term of fifteen

days, the summons to proceed to a new election, which shall be

held within the term of three months, and in accordance with

the provisions of Article 76 of this Constitution. The

provisional President shall not be eligible to the presidency

at the elections which are held to put an end to his

provisional term.

E. If, on account of death or any other reason, the

functionaries who, according to this law, should take the

place of the President of the Republic, might not be able in

any absolute manner to do so, it shall be taken, under

predetermined conditions, by the citizen who may have been

President or Vice-President of the Senate or the Permanent

Commission in the month prior to that in which they discharged

those offices.

F. When the office of President of the Republic shall become

vacant within the last six months of the constitutional

period, the functionary who shall take the place of the

President shall terminate this period.

G. To be eligible to the position of President or

Vice-President of the Senate or of the Permanent Commission,

one must be a Mexican citizen by birth.

H. If the vacancy in the office of President of the Republic

should occur when the Senate and Permanent Commission are

performing their functions in extra sessions, the President of

the Commission shall fill the vacancy, under conditions

indicated in this article.

I. The Vice-President of the Senate or of the Permanent

Commission shall enter upon the performance of the functions

which this Article confers upon them, in the vacancies of the

office of President of the Senate or of the Permanent

Commission, and in the periods only while the impediment

lasts.

J. The newly-elected President shall enter upon the discharge

of his duties, at the latest, sixty days after that of the

election. In case the House of Deputies shall not be in

session, it shall be convened in extra session, in order to

make the computation of votes within the term mentioned.

Article 80.

In the vacancy of the office of President, the period of the

newly-elected President shall be computed from the first of

December of the year prior to that of his election, provided

he may not have taken possession of his office on the date

which Article 78 determines.

Article 81.

The office of President of the Union may not be resigned,

except for grave cause, approved by Congress, before whom the

resignation shall be presented.

Article 82.

If for any reason the election of President shall not have

been made and published by the first of December, on which the

transfer of the office should be made, or the President-elect

shall not have been ready to enter upon the discharge of his

duties, the term of the former President shall end

nevertheless, and the supreme executive power shall be

deposited provisionally in the functionary to whom it belongs

according to the provisions of the reformed Article 79 of this

Constitution.

{565}

Article 83.

The President, on taking possession of his office, shall take

an oath before Congress, and in its recess before the

Permanent Commission, under the following formula: "I swear to

perform loyally and patriotically the duties of President of

the United States of Mexico, according to the Constitution,

and seek in everything for the welfare and prosperity of the

Union."

[Footnote: See the Amendments and Additions of September 25,

1873.]

Article 84.

The President may not remove from the place of the residence

of the Federal powers, nor lay aside the exercise of his

functions, without grave cause, approved by the Congress, and

in its recesses by the Permanent Commission.

Article 85.

The powers and obligations of the President are the following:

I. To promulgate and execute the laws passed by the Congress

of the Union, providing, in the administrative sphere, for

their exact observance.

II. To appoint and remove freely the Secretaries of the

Cabinet, to remove the diplomatic agents and superior employés

of the Treasury, and to appoint and remove freely the other

employés of the Union whose appointment and removal are not

otherwise provided for in the Constitution or in the laws.

III. To appoint ministers, diplomatic agents, consuls-general,

with the approval of Congress, and, in its recess, of the

Permanent Commission.

IV. To appoint, with the approval of Congress, the colonels

and other superior officers of the national army and navy, and

the superior employés of the treasury.

V. To appoint the other officers of the national army and

navy, according to the laws.

VI. To control the permanent armed force by sea and land for

the internal security and external defence of the Federation.

VII. To control the national guard for the same objects within

the limits established by Article 72, Clause XX.

VIII. To declare war in the name of the United States of

Mexico, after the passage of the necessary law by the Congress

of the Union.

IX. To grant letters of marque, subject to bases fixed by the

Congress.

X. To direct diplomatic negotiations and make treaties with

foreign powers, submitting them for the ratification of the

Federal Congress.

XI. To receive ministers and other envoys from foreign powers.

XII. To convoke Congress in extra sessions when the Permanent

Commission shall consent to it.

XIII. To furnish the judicial power with that assistance which

may be necessary for the prompt exercise of its functions.

XIV. To open all classes of ports, to establish maritime and

frontier custom-houses and designate their situation.

XV. To grant, in accordance with the laws, pardons to

criminals sentenced for crimes within the jurisdiction of the

Federal tribunals.

XVI. To grant exclusive privileges, for a limited time and

according to the proper law, to discoverers, inventors, or

perfecters of any branch of industry.

Article 86.

For the dispatch of the business of the administrative

department of the Federation there shall be the number of

Secretaries which the Congress may establish by a law, which

shall provide for the distribution of business and prescribe

what shall be in charge of each Secretary.

Article 87.

To be a Secretary of the Cabinet it is required that one shall

be a Mexican citizen by birth, in the exercise of his rights,

and fully twenty-five years old.

Article 88.

All the regulations, decrees, and orders of the President must

be signed by the Secretary of the Cabinet who is in charge of

the department to which the subject belongs. Without this

requisite they shall not be obeyed.

Article 89.

The Secretaries of the Cabinet, as soon as the sessions of the

first period shall be opened, shall render an account to the

Congress of the state of their respective departments.

Article 90.

The exercise of the judicial power of the Federation is vested

in a Supreme Court of Justice and in the district and circuit

courts.

Article 91.

The Supreme Court of Justice shall be composed of eleven

judges, four supernumeraries, one fiscal, and one

attorney-general.

Article 92.

Each of the members of the Supreme Court of Justice shall

remain in office six years, and his election shall be indirect

in the first degree, under conditions established by the

electoral law.

Article 93.

In order to be elected a member of the Supreme Court of

Justice it is necessary that one be learned in the science of

the law in the judgment of the electors, more than thirty-five

years old, and a Mexican citizen by birth, in the exercise of

his rights.

Article 94.

The members of the Supreme Court of Justice, on entering upon

the exercise of their charge, shall take an oath before

Congress, and, in its recesses, before the Permanent

Commission, in the following form: "Do you swear to perform

loyally and patriotically the charge of Magistrate of the

Supreme Court of Justice, which the people have conferred upon

you in conformity with the Constitution, seeking in everything

the welfare and prosperity of the Union?"

[Footnote: See Additions to the Constitution,

September 25, 1873. ]

Article 95.

A member of the Supreme Court of Justice may resign his office

only for grave cause, approved by the Congress, to whom the

resignation shall be presented. In the recesses of the

Congress the judgment shall be rendered by the Permanent

Commission.

Article 96.

The law shall establish and organize the circuit and district

courts.

Article 97.

It belongs to the Federal tribunals to take cognizance of--

I. All controversies which may arise in regard to the

fulfilment and application of the Federal laws, except in the

case in which the application affects only private interests;

such a case falls within the competence of the local judges

and tribunals of the common order of the States, of the

Federal District, and of the Territory of Lower California.

II. All cases pertaining to maritime law.

III. Those in which the Federation may be a party.

IV. Those that may arise between two or more States.

V. Those that may arise between a State and one or more

citizens of another State.

VI. Civil or criminal cases that may arise under treaties with

foreign powers.

VII. Cases concerning diplomatic agents and consuls..

Article 98.

It belongs to the Supreme Court of Justice, in the first

instance, to take cognizance of controversies which may arise

between one State and another, and of those in which the Union

may be a party.

Article 99.

It belongs also to the Supreme Court of Justice to determine

the questions of jurisdiction which may arise between the

Federal tribunals, between these and those of the States, or

between the courts of one State and those of another.

Article 100.

In the other cases comprehended in Article 97, the Supreme

Court of Justice shall be a court of appeal or, rather, of

last resort, according to the graduation which the law may

make in the jurisdiction of the circuit and district courts.

{566}

Article 101.

The tribunals of the Federation shall decide all questions

which arise--

I. Under laws or acts of whatever authority which violate

individual guarantees.

II. Under laws or acts of the State authority which violate or

restrain the sovereignty of the States.

III. Under laws or acts of the State authority which invade

the sphere of the Federal authority.

Article 102.

All the judgments which the preceding article mentions shall

be had on petition of the aggrieved party, by means of

judicial proceedings and forms which shall be prescribed by

law. The sentence shall be always such as to affect private

individuals only, limiting itself to defend and protect them

in the special case to which the process refers, without

making any general declaration respecting the law or act which

gave rise to it.

Article 103.

The Senators, the Deputies, the members of the Supreme Court

of Justice, and the Secretaries of the Cabinet are responsible

for the common crimes which they may commit during their terms

of office, and for the crimes, misdemeanors, and negligence

into which they may fall in the performance of the duties of

said office. The Governors of the States are likewise

responsible for the infraction of the Constitution and Federal

laws. The President of the Republic is also responsible; but

during the term of his office he may be accused only for the

crimes of treason against the country, express violation of

the Constitution, attack on the freedom of election, and grave

crimes of the common order. The high functionaries of the

Federation shall not enjoy any Constitutional privilege for

the official crimes, misdemeanors, or negligence into which

they may fall in the performance of any employment, office, or

public commission which they may have accepted during the

period for which, in conformity with the law, they shall have

been elected. The same shall happen with respect to those

common crimes which they may commit during the performance of

said employment, office, or commission. In order that the

cause may be initiated when the high functionary shall have

returned to the exercise of his proper functions, proceeding

should be undertaken in accordance with the provision of

Article 104 of this Constitution.

Article 104.

If the crime should be a common one, the House of

Representatives, formed into a grand jury, shall declare, by

an absolute majority of votes, whether there is or is not

ground to proceed against the accused. In the negative case,

there shall be no ground for further proceedings; in the

affirmative, the accused shall be, by the said act, deprived

of his office, and subjected to the action of the ordinary

tribunals.

Article 105.

The houses shall take cognizance of official crimes, the House

of Deputies as a jury of accusation, the Senators as a jury of

judgment. The jury of accusation shall have for its object to

declare, by an absolute majority of votes, whether the accused

is or is not culpable. If the declaration should be

absolutory, the functionary shall continue in the exercise of

his office; if it should be condemnatory, he shall be

immediately deprived of his office, and shall be placed at the

disposal of the Senate. The latter, formed into a jury of

judgment, and, with the presence of the criminal and of the

accuser, if there should be one, shall proceed to apply, by an

absolute majority of votes, the punishment which the law

designates.

Article 106.

A judgment of responsibility for official crimes having been

pronounced, no favor of pardon may be extended to the

offender.

Article 107.

The responsibility for official crimes and misdemeanors may be

required only during the period in which the functionary

remains in office, and one year thereafter.

Article 108.

With respect to demands of the Civil order, there shall be no

privilege or immunity for any public functionary.

Article 109.

The States shall adopt for their internal regimen the popular,

representative, republican form of government, and may provide

in their respective Constitutions for the reelection of the

Governors in accordance with what Article 78 provides for the

President of the Republic.

Article 110.

The States may regulate among themselves, by friendly

agreements, their respective boundaries; but those regulations

shall not be carried into effect without the approval of the

Congress of the Union.

Article 111.

The States may not in any case--

1. Form alliances, treaties, or coalitions with another State,

or with foreign powers, excepting the coalition which the

frontier States may make for offensive or defensive war

against the Indians.

II. Grant letters of marque or reprisal.

III. Coin money, or emit paper money or stamped paper.

Article 112.

Neither may any State, without the consent of the Congress of

the Union:

I. Establish tonnage duties, or any port duty, or impose taxes

or duties upon importations or exportations.

II. Have at any time permanent troops or vessels of war,

III. Make war by itself on any foreign power except in cases

of invasion or of such imminent peril as to admit of no delay.

In these cases the State shall give notice immediately to the

President of the Republic.

Article 113.

Each State is under obligation to deliver without delay the

criminals of other States to the authority that claims them.

Article 114.

The Governors of the States are obliged to publish and cause

to be obeyed the Federal laws.

Article 115.

In each State of the Federation entire faith and credit shall

be given to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings

of all the other States. The Congress may, by means of general

laws, prescribe the manner of proving said acts, records, and

proceedings, and the effect thereof.

Article 116.

The powers of the Union are bound to protect the States

against all invasion or external violence. In case of

insurrection or internal disturbance they shall give them like

protection, provided the Legislature of the State, or the

Executive, if the Legislature is not in session, shall request

it.

Article 117.

The powers which are not expressly granted by this

Constitution to the Federal authorities are understood to be

reserved to the States.

Article 118.

No person may at the same time hold two Federal elective

offices; but if elected to two, he may choose which of them he

will fill.

Article 119.

No payment shall be made which is not comprehended in the

budget or determined by a subsequent law.

Article 120.

The President of the Republic, the members of the Supreme

Court of Justice, the Deputies, and other public officers of

the Federation, who are chosen by popular election, shall

receive a compensation for their services, which shall be

determined by law and paid by the Federal Treasury. This

compensation may not be renounced, and any law which augments

or diminishes it shall not have effect during the period for

which a functionary holds the office.

{567}

Article 121.

Every public officer, without any exception, before taking

possession of his office, shall take an oath to maintain this

Constitution and the laws which emanate from it.

[Footnote: See the Additions of September 25, 1873.]

Article 122.

In time of peace no military authority may exercise more

functions than those which have close connection with military

discipline. There shall be fixed and permanent military

commands only in the castles, fortresses, and magazines which

are immediately under the government of the Union; or in

encampments, barracks, or depots which may be established

outside of towns for stationing troops.

Article 123.

It belongs exclusively to the Federal authorities to exercise,

in matters of religious worship and external discipline, the

intervention which the laws may designate.

Article 124.

The States shall not impose any duty for the simple passage of

goods in the internal commerce. The Government of the Union

alone may decree transit duties, but only with respect to

foreign goods which cross the country by international or

interoceanic lines, without being on the national territory

more time than is necessary to traverse it and depart to the

foreign country. They shall not prohibit, either directly or

indirectly, the entrance to their territory, or the departure

from it, of any merchandise, except on police grounds; nor

burden the articles of national production on their departure

for a foreign country or for another State. The exemptions

from duties which they concede shall be general; they may not

be decreed in favor of the products of specified origin. The

quota of the import for a given amount of merchandise shall be

the same, whatever may have been its origin, and no heavier

burden may be assigned to it than that which the similar

products of the political entity in which the import is

decreed bear. The national merchandise shall not be submitted

to definite route nor to inspection or registry on the ways,

nor any fiscal document be demanded for its internal

circulation. Nor shall they burden foreign merchandise with a

greater quota than that which may have been permitted them by

the Federal law to receive.

Article 125.

The forts, military quarters, magazines, and other edifices

necessary to the government of the Union shall be under the

immediate inspection of the Federal authorities.

Article 126.

This Constitution, the laws of the Congress of the Union which

emanate from it, and all the treaties made or which shall be

made by the President of the Republic, with the approval of

Congress, shall be the supreme law of the whole Union. The

judges of each State shall be guided by said Constitution,

law, and treaties in spite of provisions to the contrary which

may appear in the Constitutions or laws of the States.

Article 127.

The present Constitution may be added to or reformed. In order

that additions or alterations may become part of the

Constitution, it is required that the Congress of the Union,

by a vote of two-thirds of the members present, shall agree to

the alterations or additions, and that these shall be approved

by the majority of the Legislatures of the States. The

Congress of the Union shall count the votes of the

Legislatures and make the declaration that the reforms or

additions have been approved.

Article 128.

This Constitution shall not lose its force and vigor even if

its observance be interrupted by a rebellion. In case that by

any public disturbance a government contrary to the principles

which it sanctions shall be established, as soon as the people

recover their liberty its observance shall be reestablished,

and in accordance with it and the laws which shall have been

issued in virtue of it, shall be judged not only those who

shall have figured in the government emanating from the

rebellion, but also those who shall have cooperated with it.

Additions.

Article 1.

The State and the Church are independent of one another. The

Congress may not pass laws establishing or prohibiting any

religion.

Article 2.

Marriage is a civil contract. This and the other acts relating

to the civil state of persons belong to the exclusive

jurisdiction of the functionaries and authorities of the civil

order, within limits provided by the laws, and they shall have

the force and validity which the same attribute to them.

Article 3.

No religious institution may acquire real estate or capital

fixed upon it, with the single exception established in

Article 27 of this Constitution.

Article 4.

The simple promise to speak the truth and to comply with the

obligations which have been incurred, shall be substituted for

the religious oath, with its effects and penalties.

----------CONSTITUTION OF MEXICO: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF NETHERLANDS KINGDOM.

After 1830, this became the Kingdom of Holland.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832, and 1830-1884.

----------NETHERLANDS: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY.

"On May 17, 1814,  ... a constitution was granted to Norway.

The Fundamental Law of the constitution (Grundlöv), which

almost every peasant farmer now-a-days has framed and hung up

in the chief room of his house, bears the date the 4th of

November 1814."

C. F. Keary, Norway and the Norwegians,  chapter 13.

The following the text of the constitution as granted in 1814:

Title I.

Article 1.

The kingdom of Norway is a free, independent, undivisible, and

inalienable state, united to Sweden under the same king. The

form of its government is limited, hereditary, and

monarchical.

{568}

Article 2.

The Lutheran evangelical religion shall continue to be the

ruling religion of the kingdom; those of the inhabitants which

profess it are bound to bring up their children in its tenets;

Jesuits and monastic orders shall not be prohibited in the

kingdom. The admission of Jews into the kingdom shall always

be, as formerly, prohibited.

Title II.

Article 1.

The executive power is declared to be in the person of the

king.

Article 2.

The king shall always profess the evangelical Lutheran

religion, which he shall maintain and protect.

Article 3.

The person of the king is sacred: he can neither be blamed or

accused.

Article 4.

The succession is lineal, and collateral, such as it is

determined by the order of succession decreed by the general

estates of Sweden, and sanctioned by the king in the Act of

the 26th September 1810, of which a translation is annexed to

this Constitution. Of the number of legitimate heirs, is

comprehended the child in its mother's womb, which, as soon as

it shall be born, after the death of its father, takes the

place which is due to him in the line of succession. When a

Prince, heir of the re-united crowns of Norway and Sweden,

shall be born, his name, and the day of his birth shall be

announced at the first Storthing, and inscribed in the

registers.

Article 5.

Should there not be found any prince, a legitimate heir to the

throne, the king can propose his successor at the Storthing of

Norway, and at the same time to the states general of Sweden.

As soon as the king shall have made the proposition, the

representatives of the two nations shall choose from among

them a committee, invested with the right of determining the

election, in case the king's proposition should not, by the

plurality of voices, be approved of separately by the

representatives of each of the countries. The number of

members of this committee, shall be composed of an equal

number of Norwegians and Swedes, so that the step to follow in

the election shall be regulated by a law which the king shall

propose at the same time to the next Storthing, and the states

general of Sweden. They shall draw by lot one out of the

committee for its member.

Article 6.

The Storthing of Norway, and the states general of Sweden

shall concert to fix by a law the king's majority; if they

cannot agree, a committee, taken from the representatives of

the two nations, shall decide it in the manner established by

article 5th, title 2nd. As soon as the king shall have

attained the years of majority fixed by the law, he shall

publicly declare that he is of age.

[Footnote: Storthing is the national assembly, or general

estates of the kingdom.]

[Footnote: A law of the Storthing, 13th July 1815, and

sanctioned by the king, declared that the king is major on

arriving at the age of eighteen years.]

Article 7.

When the king comes of age he shall take into his hands the

reins of government, and make the following oath to the

Storthing: "I swear, on my soul and conscience, to govern the

kingdom of Norway conformably to its constitution and laws."

If the Storthing is not then assembled, this oath shall be

deposited in writing in the council, and solemnly repeated by

the king at the first Storthing, either vivâ voce or by

writing, by the person whom he shall have appointed to this

effect.

Article 8.

The coronation of the king shall take place when he is of age,

in the cathedral of Drontheim, at the time and with those

ceremonies that shall be fixed by himself.

Article 9.

The King shall pass some time in Norway yearly, unless this is

prevented by urgent circumstances.

Article 10.

The king shall exclusively choose a council of Norwegians,

citizens, who shall have attained the seventieth year of their

age. This council shall be composed at least of a minister of

state, and seven other members. In like manner the king can

create a viceroy or a government. The king shall arrange the

affairs between the members of the council, in such manner as

he shall consider expedient. Besides these ordinary members of

council, the king, or in his absence the viceroy (or the

government jointly with the ordinary members of council) may

on particular occasions, call other Norwegians, citizens, to

sit there, provided they are not members of the Storthing. The

father and son, or two brothers, shall not, at the same time,

have a seat in the council.

Article 11.

The king shall appoint a governor of the kingdom in his

absence, and on failure it shall be governed by the viceroy or

a governor, with five at least of the members of council. They

shall govern the kingdom in the name and behalf of the king;

and they shall observe inviolably, as much the principles

contained in this fundamental law as those relative precepts

the king shall lay down in his instructions. They shall make a

humble report to the king upon those affairs they have

decided. All matters shall be decided by plurality of votes.

If the votes happen to be equal, the viceroy or governor, or

in their absence the first member of council, shall have two.

Article 12.

The prince royal or his eldest son can be viceroy; but this

can only occur when they have attained the majority of the

king. In the case of a governor, either a Norwegian or a Swede

may be nominated. The viceroy shall remain in the kingdom, and

shall not be allowed to reside in a foreign one beyond three

months each year. When the king shall be present, the

viceroy's functions shall cease. If there is no viceroy, but

only a governor, the functions of the latter shall also cease,

in which event he is only the first member of council.

Article 13.

During the residence of the king in Sweden, he shall always

have near him the minister of state of Norway, and two of the

members of the Norwegian council, when they shall be annually

changed. These are charged with similar duties, and the same

constitutional responsibility attaches to them as to the

sitting council in Norway; and it is only in their presence

that state affairs shall be decided by the king. All petitions

addressed to the king by Norwegian citizens ought, first, to

be transmitted to the Norwegian council, that they may be duly

considered previously to decisions being pronounced. In

general, no affairs ought to be decided before the council has

expressed an opinion, in case it should be met with important

objections. The minister of state of Norway ought to report

the affairs, and he shall be responsible for expedition in the

resolutions which shall have been taken.

Article 14.

The king shall regulate public worship and its rites, as well

as all assemblies that have religion for their object, so that

ministers of religion may observe their forms prescribed to

them.

{569}

Article 15.

The king can give and abolish ordinances which respect

commerce, the custom-house, manufactures, and police. They

shall not, however, be contrary to the constitution nor the

laws adopted by the Storthing. They shall have provisional

force until the next Storthing.

Article 16.

The king shall in general regulate the taxes imposed by the

Storthing. The public treasurer of Norway shall remain in

Norway, and the revenues shall only be employed towards the

expenses of Norway.

Article 17.

The king shall superintend the manner in which the domains and

crown property of the state are employed and governed, in the

manner fixed by the Storthing, and which shall be most

advantageous to the country.

Article 18.

The king in council has the right to pardon criminals when the

supreme tribunal has pronounced its opinion. The criminal has

the choice of receiving pardon from the king or of submitting

to the punishment to which he is condemned. In the causes

which the Odelsthing would have ordered to be carried to the

Rigsret, there can be no other pardon but that which shall

liberate from a capital punishment.

Article 19.

The king, after having heard his Norwegian council, shall

dispose of all the civil, ecclesiastic, and military

employments. Those who assist in the functions shall swear

obedience and fidelity to the constitution and to the king.

The princes of the royal family cannot be invested with any

civil employment; yet the prince royal, or his eldest son, may

be nominated viceroy.

Article 20.

The governor of the kingdom, the minister of state, other

members of council, and those employed in the functions

connected with these offices, the envoys and consuls, superior

magistrates, civil and ecclesiastic commanders of regiments,

and other military bodies, governors of fortresses, and

commanders-in-chief of ships of war, shall, without previous

arrest, be deposed by the king and his Norwegian council. As

to the pension to be granted to those employed they shall be

decided by the first Storthing. In the mean time, they shall

enjoy two-third parts of their former salary. The others

employed can only be suspended by the king, and they shall

afterwards be brought before the tribunals, but cannot be

deposed excepting by order of an arrest, and the king cannot

make them change their situations contrary to their will.

Article 21.

The king can confer orders of knighthood on whomsoever he

chooses, in reward of distinguished services, which shall be

published; but he can confer no other rank, with the title,

than that which is attached to every employment. An order of

knighthood does not liberate the person on whom it is

conferred from those duties common to all citizens, and

particular titles are not conferred in order to obtain

situations in the state. Such persons shall preserve the title

and rank attached to those situations which they have

occupied. No person can, for the future, obtain personal,

mixed, or hereditary privileges.

Article 22.

The king elects and dismisses, whenever he thinks proper, all

the officers attached to his court.

Article 23.

The king is commander-in-chief of all the forces, by sea and

land, in the kingdom, and these cannot be increased or

diminished without the consent of the Storthing. They will not

be ceded to the service of any foreign power, and troops

belonging to a foreign power (except auxiliary troops in case

of a hostile invasion,) cannot enter the country without the

consent of the Storthing. During peace, the Norwegian troops

shall be stationed in Norway, and not in Sweden.

Notwithstanding this the king may have in Sweden a Norwegian

guard, composed of volunteers, and may for a short time, not

exceeding six weeks in a year, assemble troops in the environs

of the two countries, for exercising; but in case there are

more than 3,000 men, composing the army of one of the two

countries, they cannot in time of peace enter the other.

[Footnote: The law of the Storthing, 5th July 1816, bears,

that troops of the line shall be employed beyond the frontiers

of the kingdom, and the interpretation given by it to that law

is, that troops of the line shall be employed beyond the

frontiers of the two kingdoms.]

The Norwegian army and gun-boats shall not be employed without

the consent of the Storthing. The Norwegian fleet shall have

dry docks, and during peace its stations and harbours in

Norway. Ships of war of both countries shall be supplied with

the seamen of the other, so long as they shall voluntarily

engage to serve. The landwehr, and other Norwegian forces,

which are not calculated among the number of troops, of the

line, shall never be employed beyond the frontiers of the

kingdom of Norway.

Article 24.

The king has the right of assembling troops, commencing war,

making peace, concluding and dissolving treaties, sending

ministers to, and receiving those of, foreign courts. When he

begins war he ought to advise the council of Norway, consult

it, and order it to prepare an address on the state of the

kingdom, relative to its finances, and proper means of

defence. On this the king shall convoke the minister of state

of Norway, and those of the council of Sweden, at an

extraordinary assembly, when he shall explain all those

relative circumstances that ought to be taken into

consideration; with a representation of the Norwegian council,

and a similar one on the part of Sweden, upon the state of the

kingdom, shall then be presented. The king shall then require

advice upon these objects; and each shall be inserted in a

register, under the responsibility imposed by the

constitution, when the king shall then adopt that resolution

which he judges most, proper for the benefit of the state.

Article 25.

On this occasion all the members of council must be present,

if not prevented by some lawful cause, and no resolution ought

to be adopted unless one half of the members are present. In

Norwegian affairs, which, according to the fifteenth article,

are decided in Sweden, no resolution shall be taken unless the

minister of state of Norway and one of the members of council,

or two members, are present.

Article 26.

The representations respecting employments, and other

important acts, excepting those of a diplomatic and military

nature, properly so called, shall be referred to the council

by him who is one of the members in the department charged

with it, who shall accordingly draw up the resolution adopted

in council.

Article 27.

If any member of council is prevented from appearing, and

referring the affairs which belong to his peculiar department,

he shall be replaced in this office by one of the others

appointed to this purpose, either by the king, if personally

present, and if not, by him who has precedence in the council,

jointly with the other members composing it. Should several of

these be prevented from appearing, so that only one half of

the ordinary number is present, the other employed in the

offices shall in like manner have right to sit in council; and

in that event it shall be afterwards referred to the king, who

decides if they ought to continue to exercise this office.

{570}

Article 28.

The council shall keep a register of all affairs that may come

under its consideration. Every individual who sits in it shall

be at liberty to give his opinion freely, which the king is

obliged to hear; but it is reserved to his majesty to adopt

resolutions after he has consulted his own mind. If a member

of council finds that the king's resolution is contrary to the

form of government, the laws of the kingdom, or injurious to

the state, he shall consider it his duty to oppose it, and

record his opinion in the register accordingly; but he who

remains silent shall be presumed to have agreed with the king,

and shall be responsible for it, even in the case of being

referred to at a future period; and the Odelsthing is

empowered to bring him before the Rigsret.

Article 29.

All the orders issued by the king (military affairs excepted)

shall be countersigned by the Norwegian minister of state.

Article 30.

Resolutions made in absence of the king, by the council in

Norway, shall be publicly proclaimed and signed by the

viceroy, or the governor and council, and countersigned by him

who shall have referred them, and he is further responsible

for the accuracy and dispatch with the register in which the

resolution is entered.

Article 31.

All representations relative to the affairs of this country,

as well as writings concerning them, must be in the Norwegian

language.

Article 32.

The heir-apparent to the throne, if a son of the reigning

king, shall have the title of prince royal, the other

legitimate heirs to the crown shall be culled princes, and the

king's daughters princesses.

Article 33.

As soon as the heir shall have attained the age of eighteen,

he shall have a right to sit in council, without, however,

having a vote, or any responsibility.

Article 34.

No prince of the blood shall marry without permission of the

king, and in case of contravention, he shall forfeit his right

to the crown of Norway.

Article 35.

The princes and princesses of the royal family, shall not, so

far as respects their persons, be bound to appear before other

judges, but before the king or whomsoever he shall have

appointed for that purpose.

Article 36.

The minister of state of Norway, as well as the two members of

council who are near the king, shall have a seat and

deliberative voice in the Swedish council, where objects

relative to the two kingdoms shall be treated of. In affairs

of this nature the advice of the council ought also to be

understood, unless these require quick dispatch, so as not to

allow time.

Article 37.

If the king happens to die, and the heir to the throne is

under age, the council of Norway, and that of Sweden, shall

assemble, and mutually call a convocation of the Storthing in

Norway and Diet of Sweden.

Article 38.

Although the representatives of the two kingdoms should have

assembled, and regulated the administration during the king's

minority, a council composed of an equal number of Norwegian

and Swedish members shall govern the kingdoms, and follow

their fundamental reciprocal laws. The minister of state of

Norway who sits in this council, shall draw by ballot in order

to decide on which of its members the preference shall happen

to fall.

Article 39.

The regulations contained in the two last articles shall be

always equally adopted after the constitution of Sweden. It

belongs to the Swedish council, in this quality, to be at the

head of government.

Article 40.

With respect to more particular and necessary affairs that

might occur in cases under the three former articles, the king

shall propose to the first Storthing in Norway, and at the

first Diet in Sweden, a law having for its basis the principle

of a perfect equality existing between the two kingdoms.

Article 41.

The election of guardians to be at the head of government

during the king's minority, shall be made after the same rules

and manner formerly prescribed in the second title, Article

5th, concerning the election of an heir to the throne.

Article 42.

The individuals who in the cases under the 38th and 39th

articles, are at the head of government, shall be, the

Norwegians at the Storthing of Norway, and shall take the

following oath: "I swear, on my soul and conscience, to govern

the kingdom conformably to its constitution and laws;" and the

Swedes shall also make a similar oath. If there is not a

Storthing or Diet, it shall be deposited in writing in the

council, and afterwards repeated at the first of these when

they happen to assemble.

Article 43.

As soon as the governments have ceased, they shall be restored

to the king, and the Storthing.

Article 44.

If the Storthing is not convoked, agreeably to what is

expressed in the 38th and 39th articles, the supreme tribunal

shall consider it as an imperious duty, at the expiration of

four weeks, to call a meeting.

Article 45.

The charge of the education of the king, in case his father

may not have left in writing instructions regarding it, shall

be regulated in the manner laid down under the 5th and 41st

articles. It is held to be an invariable rule, that the king

during his minority shall learn the Norwegian language.

Article 46.

If the masculine line of the royal family is extinct, and

there has not been elected a successor to the throne, the

election of a new dynasty shall be proceeded in, and after the

manner prescribed under the 5th article. In the mean time the

executive power shall be exercised agreeably to the 41st

article.

Title III.

Article 1.

Legislative power is exercised by the Storthing, which is

constituted of two houses, namely, the Lagthing and

Odelsthing.

Article 2.

None shall have a right to vote but Norwegians, who have

attained twenty·five years, and resided in the country during

five years.

1. Those who are exercising, or who have exercised functions.

2. Possess land in the country, which has been let for more

than five years.

3. Are burgesses of some city, or possess either in it, or

some village, a house, or property of the value of at least

three hundred bank crowns in silver.

{571}

Article 3.

There shall be drawn up in cities by the magistrates, and in

every parish by the public authority and the priest, a

register of all the inhabitants who are voters. They shall

also note in it without delay, those changes which may

successively take place. Before being inscribed in the

register, everyone shall take an oath, before the tribunal, of

fidelity to the constitution.

4. Right of voting is suspended in the following cases:

1. By the accusation of crime before a tribunal;

2. By not attaining the proper age;

3. By insolvency or bankruptcy, until creditors have

obtained their payment in whole, unless it can be proved

that the former has arisen from fire, or other unforeseen

events.

5. The right of voting is forfeited definitively:

1. By condemnation to the house of correction, slavery, or

punishment for defamatory language;

2. By acceptance of the service of a foreign power, without

the consent of government.

3. By obtaining the right of citizen in a foreign country.

4. By conviction of having purchased and sold votes, and

having voted in more than one electoral assembly.

6. The electoral assemblies and districts are held every three

years, and shall finish before the end of the month of

December.

7. Electoral assemblies shall be held for the country, at the

manor-house of the parish, the church, town-hall, or some

other fit place. In the country they shall be directed by the

first minister and assistants; and in towns, by magistrates

and sheriffs; election shall be made in the order appointed by

the registers. Disputes concerning the right of voting shall

be decided by the directors of the assembly, from whose

judgment an appeal may be made to the Storthing.

8. Before proceeding to the election, the constitution shall

be read with a loud voice in the cities, by the first

magistrate, and in the country by the curate.

9. In cities, an elector shall be chosen by fifty eligible

inhabitants. They shall assemble eight days after, in the

place appointed by the magistrate, and choose, either from

amongst themselves, or from others who are eligible in the

department of their election, a fourth of their number to sit

at the Storthing, that is after the manner of three to six in

choosing one; seven to ten in electing two; eleven to fourteen

in choosing three, and fifteen to eighteen in electing four;

which is the greatest number permitted to a city to send. If

these consist of less than 150 eligible inhabitants, they

shall send the electors to the nearest city, to vote

conjointly with the electors of the former, when the two shall

only be considered as forming one district.

[Footnote: A law passed 8th February 1816, contains this

amendment. Twenty-five electors and more shall not elect

more than three representatives, which shall be, ad

interim, the greatest number which the bailiwick can send:

and, consequently, out of which the number of

representatives in the county, which are sixty-one, shall

be diminished from fifty to fifty-three.]

10. In each parish in the country the eligible inhabitants

shall choose in proportion to their number electors in the

following manner; that is to say, a hundred may choose one;

two to three hundred, three; and so on in the same proportion.

[Footnote: If future Storthings discover the number of

representatives of towns from an increase of population

should amount to thirty, the same Storthing shall have

right to augment of new the number of representatives of

the country, in the manner fixed by the principles of the

constitution, which shall be held as a rule in future.]

Electors shall assemble a month after, in the place appointed

by the bailiff, and choose, either from amongst themselves or

the others of the bailiwick eligible, a tenth of their own

number to sit at the Storthing, so that five to fourteen may

choose one; fifteen to twenty-four may choose two of them;

twenty-five to thirty-four, three; thirty-five and beyond it,

four. This is the greatest number.

11. The powers contained in the 9th and 10th articles shall

have their proper force and effect until next Storthing. If it

is found that the representatives of cities constitute more or

less than one-third of those of the kingdom, the Storthing, as

a rule for the future, shall have right to change these powers

in such a manner that representatives of the cities may join

with those of the country, as one to two; and the total number

of representatives ought not to be under seventy-five, nor

above one hundred.

12. Those eligible, who are in the country, and are prevented

from attending by sickness, military service, or other proper

reasons, can transmit their votes in writing to those who

direct the electoral assemblies, before their termination.

13. No person can be chosen a representative, unless he is

thirty years of age, and has resided ten years in the country.

14. The members of council, those employed in their offices,

officers of the court, and its pensioners, shall not be chosen

as representatives.

15. Individuals chosen to be representatives, are obliged to

accept of the election, unless prevented by motives considered

lawful by the electors, whose judgment may be submitted to the

decision of the Storthing. A person who has appeared more than

once as representative at an ordinary Storthing, is not

obliged to accept of the election for the next ordinary

Storthing. If legal reasons prevent a representative from

appearing at the Storthing, the person who after him has most

votes shall take his place.

16. As soon as representatives have been elected, they shall

receive a writing in the country from the superior magistrate,

and in the cities from the magistrate, also from all the

electors, as a proof that they have been elected in the manner

prescribed by the constitution. The Storthing shall judge of

the legality of this authority.

17. All representatives have a right to claim an

indemnification in travelling to and returning from the

Storthing; as well as subsistence during the period they shall

have remained there.

18. During the journey, and return of representatives, as well

as the time they may have attended the Storthing, they are

exempted from arrest; unless they are seized in some flagrant

and public act, and out of the Storthing they shall not be

responsible for the opinions they may have declared in it.

Everyone is bound to conform himself to the order established

in it.

19. Representatives, chosen in the manner above declared,

compose the Storthing of the kingdom of Norway.

20. The opening of the Storthing shall be made the first

lawful day in the month of February, every three years, in the

capital of the kingdom, unless the king, in extraordinary

circumstances, by foreign invasion or contagious disease,

fixes on some other city of the kingdom. Such change ought

then to be early announced.

21. In extraordinary cases, the king has the right of

assembling the Storthing, without respect to the ordinary

time. The king will then cause to be issued a proclamation,

which is to be read in all the principal churches six weeks at

least previous to the day fixed for the assembling of members

of the Storthing at the place appointed.

{572}

22. Such extraordinary Storthing may be dissolved by the king

when he shall judge fit.

23. Members of the Storthing shall continue in the exercise of

their office during three consecutive years, as much during an

extraordinary as any ordinary Storthing that might be held

during this time.

24. If an extraordinary Storthing is held at a time when the

ordinary Storthing ought to assemble, the functions of the

first will cease, as soon as the second shall have met.

25. The extraordinary Storthing, no more than the ordinary,

can be held if two-thirds of the members do not happen to be

present.

26. As soon as the Storthing shall be organized, the king, or

the person who shall be appointed by him for that purpose,

shall open it by an address, in which he is to describe the

state of the kingdom, and those objects to which he directs

the attention of the Storthing. No deliberation ought to take

place in the king's presence. The Storthing shall choose from

its members one-fourth part to form the Lagthing, and the

other three-fourths to constitute the Odelsthing. Each of

these houses shall have its private meetings, and nominate its

president and secretary.

27. It belongs to the Storthing,--

1. To make and abolish laws, establish imposts, taxes,

custom-houses, and other public acts, which shall, however,

only exist until the 1st of July of that year, when a new

Storthing shall be assembled, unless this last is expressly

renewed by them.

2. To make loans, by means of the credit of the state.

3. To watch over the finances of the state.

4. To grant sums necessary for its expenses.

5. To fix the yearly grant for the maintenance of the king

and viceroy, and also appendages of the royal family; which

ought not, however, to consist in landed property.

6. To exhibit the register of the sitting council in

Norway, and all the reports, and public documents (the

affairs of military command excepted), and certified

copies, or extracts of the registers kept by the ministers

of state and members of council near the king, or the

public documents, which shall have been produced.

7. To communicate whatever treaties the king shall have

concluded in the name of the state with foreign powers,

excepting secret articles, provided these are not in

contradiction with the public articles.

8. To require all individuals to appear before the

Storthing on affairs of state, the king and royal family

excepted. This is not, however, applicable to the princes

of the royal family, as they are invested with other

offices than that of viceroy.

9. To examine the lists of provisional pensions; and to

make such alterations as shall be judged necessary.

10. To name five revisers, who are annually to examine the

accounts of the state, and publish printed extracts of

these, which are to be remitted to the revisers also every

year before the 1st of July. 11. To naturalize foreigners.

28. Laws ought first to be proposed to the Odelsthing, either

by its own members or the government, through one of the

members of council. If the proposition is accepted, it shall

be sent to the Lagthing, who approve or reject it; and in the

last case return it accompanied with remarks. These shall be

weighed by the Odelsthing, which sets the proposed law aside,

or remits it to the Lagthing, with or without alterations.

When a law shall have been twice proposed by the Odelsthing to

the Lagthing, and the latter shall have rejected it a second

time, the Storthing shall assemble, when two-thirds of the

votes shall decide upon it. Three days at least ought to pass

between each of those deliberations.

29. When a resolution proposed by the Odelsthing shall be

approved by the Lagthing, or by the Storthing alone, a

deputation of these two houses to the Storthing shall present

it to the king if he is present, and if not, to the viceroy,

or Norwegian council, and require it may receive the royal

sanction.

30. Should the king approve of the resolution, he subscribes

to it, and from that period it is declared to pass into a

public law. If he disapproves he returns it to the Odelsthing,

declaring that at this time he does not give it his sanction.

31. In this event, the Storthing, then assembled, ought to

submit the resolution to the king, who may proceed in it in

the same manner if the first ordinary Storthing presents again

to him the same resolution. But if, after reconsideration, it

is still adopted by the two houses of the third ordinary

Storthing, and afterwards submitted to the king, who shall

have been intreated not to withhold his sanction to a

resolution that the Storthing, after the most mature

deliberations, believes to be useful; it shall acquire the

strength of a law, even should it not receive the king's

signature before the closing of the Storthing.

32. The Storthing shall sit as long as it shall be judged

necessary, but not beyond three months, without the king's

permission. When the business is finished, or after it has

assembled for the time fixed, it is dissolved by the king. His

Majesty gives, at the same time, his sanction to the decrees

not already decided, either in corroborating or rejecting

them. All those not expressly sanctioned are held to be

rejected by him.

33. Laws are to be drawn up in the Norwegian language, and

(those mentioned in 31st article excepted) in name of the

king, under the seal of the kingdom, and in these terms:--"We,

&c. Be it known, that there has been submitted to us a decree

of the Storthing (of such a date) thus expressed (follows the

resolution); We have accepted and sanctioned as law the said

decree, in giving it our signature, and seal of the kingdom."

34. The king's sanction is not necessary to the resolutions of

the Storthing, by which the legislative body,--

1. Declares itself organized as the Storthing, according to

the constitution.

2. Regulates its internal police.

3. Accepts or rejects writs of present members.

4. Confirms or rejects judgments relative to disputes

respecting elections.

5. Naturalizes foreigners.

6. And in short, the resolution by which the Odelsthing

orders some member of council to appear before the

tribunals.

35. The Storthing can demand the advice of the supreme

tribunal in judicial matters.

36. The Storthing will hold its sittings with open doors, and

its acts shall be printed and published, excepting in cases

where a contrary measure shall have been decided by the

plurality of votes.

37. Whoever molests the liberty and safety of the Storthing,

renders himself guilty of an act of high treason towards the

country.

{573}

Title IV.

Article 1.

The members of the Lagthing and supreme tribunal composing the

Rigsret, judge in the first and last instance of the affairs

entered upon by the Odelsthing, either against the members of

council or supreme tribunal for crimes committed in the

exercise of their offices, or against the members of Storthing

for acts committed by them in a similar capacity. The

president of the Lagthing has the precedence in the Rigsret.

2. The accused can, without declaring his motive for so doing,

refuse, even a third part of the members of the Rigsret,

provided, however, that the number of persons who compose this

tribunal be not reduced to less than fifteen.

3. The supreme tribunal shall judge in the last instance, and

ought not to be composed of a lesser number than the resident

and six assessors.

4. In time of peace the supreme tribunal, with two superior

officers appointed by the king, constitutes a tribunal of the

second and last resort in all military affairs which respect

life, honour, and loss of liberty for a time beyond the space

of three months.

5. The arrests of the supreme tribunal shall not in any case

be called upon to be submitted to revisal.

6. No person shall be named member of the supreme tribunal, if

he has not attained at least thirty years of age.

Title V.

Article 1.

Employments in the states shall be conferred only on Norwegian

citizens, who profess the Evangelical Lutheran religion--have

sworn fidelity to the constitution and king, speak the

language of the country, and are,--

1. Either born in the kingdom of parents who were then

subjects of the state.

2. Or born in a foreign country, their father and mother

being Norwegians, and at that period not the subjects of

another state.

3. Or, who on the 17th May, 1814, had a permanent residence

in the kingdom, and did not refuse to take an oath to

maintain the independence of Norway.

4. Or who in future shall remain ten years in the kingdom.

5. Or who have been naturalized by the Storthing.

Foreigners, however, may be nominated to these official

situations in the university and colleges, as well as to

those of physicians, and consuls in a foreign country. In

order to succeed to an office in the superior tribunal, the

person must be thirty years old; and to fill a place in the

inferior magistracy,--a judge of the tribunal of first

instance, or a public receiver, he must be twenty-five.

2. Norway does not acknowledge herself owing any other debt

than that of her own.

3. A new general code, of a civil and criminal nature,

shall first be published; or, if that is impracticable, at

the second ordinary Storthing. Meantime, the laws of the

state, as at present existing, shall preserve their effect,

since they are not contrary to this fundamental law, or

provisional ordinances published in the interval. Permanent

taxes shall continue to be levied until next Storthing.

4. No protecting dispensation, letter of respite, or

restitutions, shall be granted after the new general code

shall be published.

5. No persons can be judged but in conformity to the law, or

be punished until a tribunal shall have taken cognizance of

the charges directed against them. Torture shall never take

place.

6. Laws shall have no retro-active effect.

7. Fees due to officers of justice are not to be combined with

rents payable to the public treasury.

8. Arrest ought not to take place excepting in cases and in

the manner fixed by law. Illegal arrests, and unlawful delays,

render him who occasions them responsible to the person

arrested. Government is not authorized to employ military

force against the members of the state, but under the forms

prescribed by the laws, unless an assembly which disturbs the

public tranquillity does not instantly disperse after the

articles of the code concerning sedition shall have been read

aloud three times by the civil authorities.

9. The liberty of the press shall be established. No person

can be punished for a writing he has ordered to be printed or

published, whatever may be the contents of it, unless he has,

by himself or others, wilfully declared, or prompted others

to, disobedience of the laws, contempt for religion, and

constitutional powers, and resistance to their operations; or

has advanced false and defamatory accusations against others.

It is permitted to everyone to speak freely his opinion on the

administration of the state, or on any other object whatever.

10. New and permanent restrictions on the freedom of industry

are not to be granted in future to anyone.

11. Domiciliary visits are prohibited, excepting in the cases

of criminals.

12. Refuge will not be granted to those who shall be

bankrupts.

13. No person can in any case forfeit his landed property, and

fortune.

14. If the interest of the state requires that anyone should

sacrifice his moveable or immovable property for the public

benefit, he shall be fully indemnified by the public treasury.

15. The capital, as well as the revenues of the domains of the

church, can be applied only for the interests of the clergy,

and the prosperity of public instruction. The property of

benevolent institutions shall be employed only for their

profit.

16. The right of the power of redemption called Odelsret*, and

that of possession, called Afædesret (father's right), shall

exist. Particular regulations, which will render these of

utility to the states and agriculture, shall be determined by

the first or second Storthing.

[Footnote: In virtue of the right of "Odelsret," members

of a family to whom certain lands originally pertained, can

reclaim and retake possession of the same, even after the lapse

of centuries, provided these lands are representative of

the title of the family; that is, if for every ten years

successively they shall have judicially made reservation of

their right. This custom, injurious perhaps to the progress of

agriculture, does, however, attach the peasants to their

native soil.]

17. No county, barony, majorat or "fidei commis"  shall be

created for the future.

[Footnote: "fidei commis"--Entail.]

18. Every citizen of the state, without regard to birth or

fortune, shall be equally obliged, during a particular period,

to defend his country. [Footnote:  Every person is obliged to

serve from twenty-one to twenty-three, and not after.] The

application of this principle and its restrictions, as well as

the question of ascertaining to what point it is of benefit to

the country, that this obligation should cease at the age of

twenty-five,--shall be abandoned to the decision of the first

ordinary Storthing, after they shall have been discharged by a

committee; in the meantime, vigorous efforts shall preserve

their effect.

{574}

19. Norway shall retain her own language, her own finances and

coin: institutions which shall be determined upon by laws.

20. Norway has the right of having her own flag of trade and

war, which shall be an union flag.

21. If experience should show the necessity of changing some

part of this fundamental law, a proposition to this purpose

shall be made to an ordinary Storthing, published and printed;

and it only pertains to the next ordinary Storthing to decide

if the change proposed ought to be effectual or not. Such

alteration, however, ought never to be contrary to the

principles of this fundamental law; and should only have for

its object those modifications in which particular regulations

do not alter the spirit of the constitution. Two-thirds of the

Storthing ought to agree upon such a change.

Christiana, 4th November, 1814.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (NORWAY): A. D. 1814-1815.

----------CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF PLYMOUTH COLONY

(Compact of the Pilgrim Fathers).

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.

CONSTITUTION OF POLAND (The old).

See POLAND: A. D. 1573, and 1578-1652.

CONSTITUTION OF POLAND: (of 1891).

See POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792.

----------CONSTITUTION OF POLAND: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF PRUSSIA.

The following text of the Constitution granted by Frederick

William, King of Prussia, on the 31st of January, 1850, with

subsequent alterations, is a translation made by Mr. Charles

Lowe, and published in the appendix to his Life of Prince

Bismarck, 1885.

We, Frederick William, &c., hereby proclaim and give to know

that, whereas the Constitution of the Prussian State,

promulgated by us on the 5th December, 1848, subject to

revision in the ordinary course of legislation, and recognised

by both Chambers of our Kingdom, has been submitted to the

prescribed revision; we have finally established that

Constitution in agreement with both Chambers. Now, therefore,

we promulgate, as a fundamental law of the State, as

follows:--

Article 1.

All parts of the Monarchy in its present extent form the

Prussian State Territory.

Article 2.

The limits of this State Territory can only be altered by law.

Article 3.

The Constitution and the laws determine under what conditions

the quality and civil rights of a Prussian may be acquired,

exercised, and forfeited.

Article 4.

All Prussians are equal before the law. Class privileges there

are none. Public offices, subject to the conditions imposed by

law, are equally accessible to all who are competent to hold

them.

Article 5.

Personal freedom is guaranteed. The forms and conditions under

which any limitation thereof, especially arrest, is

permissible, will be determined by law.

Article 6.

The domicile is inviolable. Intrusion and search therein, as

well as the seizing of letters and papers, are only allowed in

legally settled cases.

Article 7.

No one may be deprived of his lawful judge. Exceptional

tribunals and extraordinary commissions are inadmissible.

Article 8.

Punishments can only be threatened or inflicted according to

the law.

Article 9.

Property is inviolable. It can only be taken or curtailed from

reasons of public weal and expediency, and in return for

statutory compensation which, in urgent cases at least, shall

be fixed beforehand.

Article 10.

Civil death and confiscation of property, as punishments, are

not possible.

Article 11.

Freedom of emigration can only be limited by the State, with

reference to military service. Migration fees may not be

levied.

Article 12.

Freedom of religious confession, of meeting in religious

societies (Art. 30 and 31), and of the common exercise of

religion in private and public, is guaranteed. The enjoyment

of civil and political rights is independent of religious

belief, yet the duties of a citizen or a subject may not be

impaired by the exercise of religious liberty.

Article 13.

Religious and clerical societies, which have no corporate

rights, can only acquire those rights by special laws.

Article 14.

The Christian religion is taken as the basis of those State

institutions which are connected with the exercise of

religion--all religious liberty guaranteed by Art. 12

notwithstanding.

Article 15.

[Footnote: Affected by the Falk laws of 1875, and by

the act of 1887 which repealed them.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.]

The Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches, as well as every

other religious society, regulate and administer their own

affairs in an independent manner, and remain in possession and

enjoyment of the institutions, foundations, and moneys

intended for their purposes of public worship, education, and

charity.

Article 16.

[Footnote: See Article 15.]

Intercourse between religious societies and their superiors

shall be unobstructed. The making public of Church ordinances

is only subject to those restrictions imposed on all other

publications.

Article 17.

A special law will be passed with respect to Church patronage,

and to the conditions on which it may be abolished.

Article 18.

[Footnote:  See Article 15.]

Abolished is the right of nominating, proposing, electing, and

confirming, in the matter of appointments to ecclesiastical

posts, in so far as it belongs to the State, and is not based

on patronage or special legal titles.

Article 19.

Civil marriage will be introduced in accordance with a special

law, which shall also regulate the keeping of a civil

register.

Article 20.

Science and its doctrines are free.

Article 21.

The education of youth shall be sufficiently cared for by

public schools. Parents and their substitutes may not leave

their children or wards without that education prescribed for

the public folk-schools.

{585}

Article 22.

Every one shall be at liberty to give instruction, and

establish institutions for doing so, providing he shall have

given proof of his moral, scientific, and technical capacity

to the State authorities concerned.

Article 23.

All public and private institutions of an educational kind are

under the supervision of authorities appointed by the State.

Public teachers have the rights and duties of State servants.

Article 24.

[Footnote: We cannot translate "Volkschule" better

than by "folk-school."]

In the establishment of public folk-schools, confessional

differences shall receive the greatest possible consideration.

Religious instruction in the folk-schools will be

superintended by the religious societies concerned. Charge of

the other (external) affairs of the folk-schools belongs to

the Parish (Commune). With the statutory co-operation of the

Commune, the State shall appoint teachers in the public

folk-schools from the number of those qualified (for such

posts).

Article 25.

The means for establishing, maintaining, and enlarging the

public folk-schools shall be provided by the Communes, which

may, however, be assisted by the State in proven cases of

parochial inability. The obligations of third persons--based

on special legal titles--remain in force. The State,

therefore, guarantees to teachers in folk-schools a steady

income suitable to local circumstances. In public folk-schools

education shall be imparted free of charge.

Article 26.

A special law will regulate all matters of education.

Article 27.

Every Prussian is entitled to express his opinion freely by

word, writing, print, or artistic representation. Censorship

may not be introduced; every other restriction on freedom of

the Press will only be imposed by law.

Article 28.

Offences committed by word, writing, print, or artistic

representation will be punished in accordance with the general

penal code.

Article 29.

All Prussians are entitled to meet in closed rooms, peacefully

and unarmed, without previous permission from the authorities.

But this provision does not apply to open-air meetings, which

are subject to the law with respect to previous permission

from the authorities.

Article 30.

All Prussians have the right to assemble (in societies) for

such purposes as do not contravene the penal laws. The law

will regulate, with special regard to the preservation of

public security, the exercise of the right guaranteed by this

and the preceding article.

Article 31.

The law shall determine the conditions on which corporate

rights may be granted or refused.

Article 32.

The right of petitioning belongs to all Prussians. Petitions

under a collective name are only permitted to authorities and

corporations.

Article 33.

The privacy of letters is inviolable. The necessary

restrictions of this right, in cases of war and of criminal

investigation, will be determined by law.

Article 34.

All Prussians are bound to bear arms. The extent and manner of

this duty will be fixed by law.

Article 35.

The army comprises all sections of the standing army and the

Landwehr (territorial forces). In the event of war, the King

can call out the Landsturm in accordance with the law.

Article 36.

The armed force (of the nation) can only be employed for the

suppression of internal troubles, and the execution of the

laws, in the cases and manner specified by statute, and on the

requisition of the civil authorities. In the latter respect

exceptions will have to be determined by law.

Article 37.

The military judiciary of the army is restricted to penal

matters, and will be regulated by law. Provisions with regard

to military discipline will remain the subject of special

ordinances.

Article 38.

The armed force (of the nation) may not deliberate either when

on or off duty; nor may it otherwise assemble than when

commanded to do so. Assemblies and meetings of the Landwehr

for the purpose of discussing military institutions, commands

and ordinances, are forbidden even when it is not called out.

Article 39.

The provisions of Arts. 5, 6, 29, 30, and 32 will only apply

to the army in so far as they do not conflict with military

laws and rules of discipline.

Article 40.

The establishment of feudal tenures is forbidden. The Feudal

Union still existing with respect to surviving fiefs shall be

dissolved by law.

Article 41.

The provisions of Art. 40 do not apply to Crown fiefs or to

non-State fiefs.

Article 42.

Abolished without compensation, in accordance with special

laws passed, are:

1. The exercise or transfer of judicial power connected with

the possession of certain lands, together with the dues and

exemptions accruing from this right;

2. The obligations arising from patriarchal jurisdiction,

vassalage, and former tax and trading institutions. And with

these rights are also abolished the counter-services and

burdens hitherto therewith connected.

Article 43.

The person of the King is inviolable.

Article 44.

The King's Ministers are responsible. All Government acts

(documentary) of the King require for their validity the

approval of a Minister, who thereby assumes responsibility for

them.

Article 45.

The King alone is invested with executive power. He appoints

and dismisses Ministers. He orders the promulgation of laws,

and issues the necessary ordinances for their execution.

Article 46.

The King is Commander-in-Chief of the army.

Article 47.

The King fills all posts in the army, as well as in other

branches of the State service, in so far as not otherwise

ordained by law.

Article 48.

The King has the right to declare war and make peace, and to

conclude other treaties with foreign governments. The latter

require for their validity the assent of the Chambers in so

far as they are commercial treaties, or impose burdens on the

State, or obligations on its individual subjects.

Article 49.

The King has the right to pardon, and to mitigate punishment.

But in favour of a Minister condemned for his official acts,

this right can only be exercised on the motion of that Chamber

whence his indictment emanated. Only by special law can the

King suppress inquiries already instituted.

{576}

Article 50.

The King may confer orders and other distinctions, not

carrying with them privileges. He exercises the right of

coinage in accordance with the law.

Article 51.

The King convokes the Chambers, and closes their sessions. He

may dissolve both at once, or only one at a time. In such a

case, however, the electors must be assembled within a period

of 60 days, and the Chambers summoned within a period of 90

days respectively after the dissolution.

Article 52.

The King can adjourn the Chambers. But without their assent

this adjournment may not exceed the space of 30 days, nor be

repeated during the same session.

Article 53.

The Crown, according to the laws of the Royal House, is

hereditary in the male line of that House in accordance with

the law of primogeniture and agnatic succession.

Article 54.

The King attains his majority on completing his 18th year. In

presence of the united Chambers he will take the oath to

observe the Constitution of the Monarchy steadfastly and

inviolably, and to rule in accordance with it and the laws.

Article 55.

Without the consent of both Chambers the King cannot also be

ruler of foreign realms (Reiche).

Article 56.

If the King is a minor, or is otherwise lastingly prevented

from ruling himself, the Regency will be undertaken by that

agnate (Art. 53) who has attained his majority and stands

nearest the Crown. He has immediately to convoke the Chambers,

which, in united session, will decide as to the necessity of

the Regency.

Article 57.

If there be no agnate of age, and if no legal provision has

previously been made for such a contingency, the Ministry of

State will convoke the Chambers, which shall then elect a

Regent in united session. And until the assumption of the

Regency by him, the Ministry of State will conduct the

Government.

Article 58.

The Regent will exercise the powers invested in the King in

the latter's name; and, after institution of the Regency, he

will take an oath before the united Chambers to observe the

Constitution of the Monarchy steadfastly and inviolably, and

to rule in accordance with it and the laws. Until this oath is

taken, the whole Ministry of State for the time being will

remain responsible for all acts of the Government.

Article 59.

To the Crown Trust Fund appertains the annuity drawn from the

income of the forests and domains.

Article 60.

The Ministers, as well as the State officials appointed to

represent them, have access to each Chamber, and must at all

times be listened to at request. Each Chamber can demand the

presence of the Ministers. The Ministers are only entitled to

vote in one or other of the Chambers when members of it.

Article 61.

On the resolution of a Chamber the Ministers may be impeached

for the crime of infringing the Constitution, of bribery, and

of treason. The decision of such a case lies with the Supreme

Tribunal of the Monarchy sitting in United Senates. As long as

two Supreme Tribunals co-exist, they shall unite for the above

purpose. Further details as to matters of responsibility,

(criminal) procedure (thereupon), and punishments, are

reserved for a special law.

Article 62.

The legislative power will be exercised in common by the King

and by two Chambers. Every law requires the assent of the King

and the two Chambers. Money bills and budgets shall first be

laid before the Second Chamber; and the latter (i. e.,

budgets) shall either be wholly approved by the First Chamber,

or rejected altogether.

Article 63.

In the event only of its being urgently necessary to maintain

public security, or deal with an unusual state of distress

when the Chambers are not in session, ordinances, which do not

contravene the Constitution, may be issued with the force of

law, on the responsibility of the whole Ministry. But these

must be laid for approval before the Chambers at their next

meeting.

Article 64.

The King, as well as each Chamber, has the right of proposing

laws. Bills that have been rejected by one of the Chambers, or

by the King, cannot be re-introduced in the same session.

Articles 65-68.

The First Chamber is formed by royal ordinance, which can only

be altered by a law to be issued with the approval of the

Chambers. The First Chamber is composed of members appointed

by the King, with hereditary rights, or only for life.

Article 69.

The Second Chamber consists of 430 members. The electoral

districts are determined by law. They may consist of one or

more Circles (Arrondissements), or of one or more of the

larger towns.

[Footnote: Originally 350 only--a number which, in 1851, was

increased by 2, for the Principality of Hohenzollern, and in

1867 by 80 for the annexed provinces.]

Article 70.

Every Prussian who has completed his 25th year (i. e.,

attained his majority), and is capable of taking part in the

elections of the Commune where he is domiciled, is entitled to

act as a primary voter (Urwähler). Anyone who is entitled to

take part in the election of several Communes, can only

exercise his right as primary voter in one Commune.

Article 71.

For every 250 souls of the population, one (secondary) elector

(Wahlmann) shall be chosen. The primary voters fall into three

classes, in proportion to the amount of direct taxes they

pay--and in such a manner as that each class will represent a

third of the sum-total of the taxes paid by the primary

voters. This sum-total is reckoned:--

(a) by Parishes, in case the Commune does not form of itself a

primary electoral district.

(b) by (Government) Districts (Bezirke), in case the primary

electoral district consists of several Communes.

The first class consists of those primary voters, highest in

the scale of taxation, who pay a third of the total. The

second class consists of those primary voters, next highest in

the scale, whose taxes form a second third of the whole; and

the third class is made up of the remaining tax-payers (lowest

in the scale) who contribute the other third of the whole.

Each class votes apart, and for a third of the secondary

electors. These classes may be divided into several voting

sections, none of which, however, must include more than 500

primary voters. The secondary voters are elected in each class

from the number of the primary voters in their district,

without regard to the classes.

Article 72.

The deputies are elected by the secondary voters. Details will

be regulated by an electoral law, which must also make the

necessary provision for those cities where flour and slaughter

duties are levied instead of direct taxes.

{577}

Article 73.

The legislative period of the Second Chamber is fixed at three

years.

Article 74.

Eligible as deputy to the Second Chamber is every Prussian who

has completed his thirtieth year, has forfeited none of his

civil rights in consequence of a valid judicial sentence, and

has been a Prussian subject for three years. The president and

members of the Supreme Chamber of Accounts cannot sit in

either House of the Diet (Landtag).

Article 75.

After the lapse of a legislative period the Chambers will be

elected anew, and the same in the event of dissolution. In

both cases, previous members are re-eligible.

Article 76.

Both Houses of the Diet of the Monarchy shall be regularly

convened by the King in the period from the beginning of

November in each year till the middle of the following

January, and otherwise as often as circumstances require.

Article 77.

The Chambers will be opened and closed by the King in person,

or by a Minister appointed by him to do so, at a combined

sitting of the Chambers. Both Chambers shall be simultaneously

convened, opened, adjourned, and closed. If one Chamber is

dissolved, the other shall be at the same time prorogued.

Article 78.

Each Chamber will examine the credentials of its members, and

decide thereupon. It will regulate its own order of business

and discipline by special ordinances, and elect its president,

vice-presidents, and office-bearers. Civil servants require no

leave of absence in order to enter the Chamber. If a member of

the Chamber accepts a salaried office of the State, or is

promoted in the service of the State to a post involving

higher rank or increase of pay, he shall lose his seat and

vote in the Chamber, and can only recover his place in it by

re-election. No one can be member of both Chambers.

Article 79.

The sittings of both Chambers are public. On the motion of its

president, or of ten members, each Chamber may meet in private

sitting--at which this motion will then have to be discussed.

Article 80.

Neither of the Chambers can pass a resolution unless there be

present a majority of the legal number of its members. Each

Chamber passes its resolutions by absolute majority of votes,

subject to any exceptions that may be determined by the order

of business for elections.

Article 81.

Each Chamber has the separate right of presenting addresses to

the King. No one may in person present to the Chambers, or to

one of them, a petition or address. Each Chamber can transmit

the communications made to it to the Ministers, and demand of

them an answer to any grievances thus conveyed.

Article 82.

Each Chamber is entitled to appoint commissions of inquiry

into facts--for its own information.

Article 83.

The members of both Chambers are representatives of the whole

people. They vote according to their simple convictions, and

are not bound by commissions or instructions.

Article 84.

For their votes in the Chamber they can never be called to

account, and for the opinions they express therein they can

only be called to account within the Chamber, in virtue of the

order of business. No member of a Chamber can, without its

assent, be had up for examination, or be arrested during the

Parliamentary session for any penal offence, unless he be

taken in the act, or in the course of the following day. A

similar assent shall be necessary in the case of arrest for

debts. All criminal proceedings against a member of the

Chamber, and all arrests for preliminary examination, or civil

arrest, shall be suspended during the Parliamentary session on

demand from the Chamber concerned.

Article 85.

The members of the Second Chamber shall receive out of the

State Treasury travelling expenses and daily fees, according

to a statutory scale; and renunciation thereof shall be

inadmissible.

Article 86.

The judicial power will be exercised in the name of the King,

by independent tribunals subject to no other authority but

that of the law. Judgment shall be executed in the name of the

King.

Article 87.

The judges will be appointed for life by the King, or in his

name. They can only be removed or temporarily suspended from

office by judicial sentence, and for reasons foreseen by the

law. Temporary suspension from office (not ensuing on the

strength of a law), and involuntary transfer to another place,

or to the retired list, can only take place from the causes

and in the form mentioned by law, and in virtue of a judicial

sentence. But these provisions do not apply to cases of

transfer, rendered necessary by changes in the organisation of

the courts or their districts.

Article 88.

(abolished).

Article 89.

The organisation of the tribunals will only be determined by

law.

Article 90.

To the judicial office only those can be appointed who have

qualified themselves for it as prescribed by law.

Article 91.

Courts for special kinds of affairs, and, in particular,

tribunals for trade and commerce, shall be established by

statute in those places where local needs may require them.

The organisation and jurisdiction of such courts, as well as

their procedure and the appointment of their members, the

special status of the latter, and the duration of their

office, will be determined by law.

Article 92.

In Prussia there shall only be one supreme tribunal.

Article 93.

The proceedings of the civil and criminal courts shall be

public. But the public may be excluded by an openly declared

resolution of the court, when order or good morals may seem

endangered (by their admittance). In other cases publicity of

proceedings can only be limited by law.

Article 94.

In criminal cases the guilt of the accused shall be determined

by jurymen, in so far as exceptions are not determined by a

law issued with the previous assent of the Chambers. The

formation of a jury-court shall be regulated by a law.

Article 95.

By a law issued with the previous assent of the Chambers,

there may be established a special court whereof the

jurisdiction shall include the crimes of high treason, as well

as those crimes against the internal and external security of

the State, which may be assigned to it by law.

Article 96.

The competence of the courts and of the administrative

authorities shall be determined by law. Conflicts of authority

between the courts and the administrative authorities shall be

settled by a tribunal appointed by law.

{578}

Article 97.

A law shall determine the conditions on which public, civil,

and military officials may be sued for wrongs committed by

them in exceeding their functions. But the previous assent of

official superiors need not be requested.

Article 98.

The special legal status (Rechtsverhältnisse) of State

officials (including advocates and solicitors) not belonging

to the judicial class, shall be determined by a law, which,

without restricting the Government in the choice of its

executive agents, will grant civil servants proper protection

against arbitrary dismissal from their posts or diminution of

their pay.

Article 99.

All income and expenditure of the State must be pre-estimated

for every year, and be presented in the Budget, which shall be

annually fixed by a law.

Article 100.

Taxes and dues for the State Treasury may only be raised in so

far as they shall have been included in the Budget or ordained

by special laws.

Article 101.

In the matter of taxes there must be no privilege of persons.

Existing tax-laws shall be subjected to a revision, and all

such privileges abolished.

Article 102.

State and Communal officers can only levy dues on the strength

of a law.

Article 103.

The contracting of loans for the State Treasury can only be

effected on the strength of a law; and the same holds good of

guarantees involving a burden to the State.

Article 104.

Budget transgressions require subsequent approval by the

Chambers. The Budget will be examined and audited by the

Supreme Chamber of Accounts. The general Budget accounts of

every year, including tabular statistics of the National Debt,

shall, with the comments of the Supreme Chamber of Accounts,

be laid before the Chambers for the purpose of exonerating the

Government. A special law will regulate the establishment and

functions of the Supreme Chamber of Accounts.

Article 105.

The representation and administration of the Communes,

Arrondissements and Provinces of the Prussian State, will be

determined in detail by special laws.

Article 106.

Laws and ordinances become binding after having been published

in the form prescribed by law. The examination of the validity

of properly promulgated Royal ordinances is not within the

competence of the authorities, but of the Chambers.

Article 107.

The Constitution may be altered by ordinary legislative means;

and such alteration shall merely require the usual absolute

majority in both Chambers on two divisions (of the House),

between which there must elapse a period of at least

twenty-one days.

Article 108.

The members of both Chambers, and all State officials, shall

take the oath of fealty and obedience to the King, and swear

conscientiously to observe the Constitution. The army will not

take the oath to the Constitution.

Article 109.

Existing taxes and dues will continue to be raised; and all

provisions of existing statute-books, single laws, and

ordinances, which do not contravene the present Constitution,

will remain in force until altered by law.

Article 110.

All authorities holding appointments in virtue of existing

laws will continue their activity pending the issue of organic

laws affecting them.

Article 111.

In the event of war or revolution, and pressing danger to

public security therefrom ensuing, Articles 5, 6, 7, 27, 28,

29, 30, and 36 of the Constitution may be suspended for a

certain time, and in certain districts--the details to be

determined by law.

Article 112.

Until issue of the law contemplated in Article 26, educational

matters will be controlled by the laws at present in force.

Article 113.

Prior to the revision of the criminal code, a special law will

deal with offences committed by word, writing, print, or

artistic representation.

Article 114

(abolished).

Article 115.

Until issue of the electoral law contemplated in Article 72,

the ordinance of 30th May, 1849, touching the return of

deputies to the Second Chamber, will remain in force; and with

this ordinance is associated the provisional electoral law for

elections to the Second Chamber in the Hohenzollern

Principalities of 30th April, 1851.

Article 116.

The two supreme tribunals still existing shall be combined

into one-to be organised by a special law.

Article 117.

The claims of State officials appointed before the

promulgation of the Constitution shall be taken in to special

consideration by the Civil Servant Law.

Article 118.

Should changes in the present Constitution be rendered

necessary by the German Federal Constitution to be drawn up on

the basis of the Draft of 26th May, 1849, such alterations

will be decreed by the King; and the ordinances to this effect

laid before the Chambers, at their first meeting. The Chambers

will then have to decide whether the changes thus

provisionally ordained harmonise with the Federal Constitution

of Germany.

Article 119.

The Royal oath mentioned in Article 54, as well as the oath

prescribed to be taken by both Chambers and all State

officials, will have to be tendered immediately after the

legislative revision of the present Constitution (Articles 62

and 108).

In witness whereof we have hereunto set our signature and

seal.

Given at Charlottenburg, the 31st January, 1850.

(Signed) FRIEDRICH WILHELM.

In connection with Article 44 the course of domestic and

parliamentary politics drew forth the following Declaratory

Rescript from the German Emperor and King of Prussia, in

1882:--

"The right of the King to conduct the Government and policy of

Prussia according to his own discretion is limited by the

Constitution (of January 31, 1850), but not abolished. The

Government acts (documentary) of the King require the

counter-signature of a Minister, and, as was also the case

before the Constitution was issued, have to be represented by

the King's Ministers; but they nevertheless remain Government

acts of the King, from whose decisions they result, and who

thereby constitutionally expresses his will and pleasure. It

is therefore not admissible, and leads to obscuration of the

constitutional rights of the King, when their exercise is so

spoken of as if they emanated from the Ministers for the time

being responsible for them, and not from the King himself. The

Constitution of Prussia is the expression of the monarchical

tradition of this country, whose development is based on the

living and actual relations of its Kings to the people. These

relations, moreover, do not admit of being transferred to the

Ministers appointed by the King, for they attach to the person

of the King. Their preservation, too, is a political necessity

for Prussia. It is, therefore, my will that both in Prussia

and in the Legislative Bodies of the realm (or Reich), there

may be no doubt left as to my own constitutional right and

that of my successors to personally conduct the policy of my

Government; and that the theory shall always be gainsaid that

the [doctrine of the] inviolability of the person of the King,

which has always existed in Prussia, and is enunciated by

Article 43 of the Constitution, or the necessity of a

responsible counter-signature of my Government acts, deprives

them of the character of Royal and independent decisions. It

is the duty of my Ministers to support my constitutional

rights by protecting them from doubt and obscuration, and I

expect the same from all State servants (Beamten) who have

taken to me the official oath. I am far from wishing to impair

the freedom of elections, but in the case of those officials

who are intrusted with the execution of my Government acts,

and may, therefore, in conformity with the disciplinary law

forfeit their situations, the duty solemnly undertaken by

their oath of service also applies to the representation by

them of the policy of my Government during election times. The

faithful performance of this duty I shall thankfully

acknowledge, and I expect from all officials that, in view of

their oath of allegiance, they will refrain from all agitation

against my Government also during elections.

Berlin, January 4, 1882.

WILHELM. VON BISMARCK. To the Ministry of State."

----------CONSTITUTION OF PRUSSIA: End----------

{579}

CONSTITUTION OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

See ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14, and A. D. 284-305.

CONSTITUTION OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC.

See ROME: B. C. 509, to B. C. 286;

also COMITIA CENTURIATA;

COMITIA CURIATA;

CONSULS, ROMAN;

CONSULAR TRIBUNES;

SENATE, ROMAN;

PLEBEIANS.

CONSTITUTION OF SOLON.

See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

CONSTITUTION OF SPAIN (1812).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

(1869). See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.

(The Early Kingdoms.) See CORTES.

CONSTITUTION OF SULLA.

See ROME: B. C. 88-78.

----------End----------

CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN.

"Four fundamental laws account for the present political

constitution of Sweden: the law concerning the form of

government (regerings-formen) dated June 6, 1809; the law on

representation (riksdags-ordningen), June 22, 1866; the order

of succession (successions-ordningen), September 26, 1810; and the

law on the liberty of the press (tryckfrihets-forordningen),

July 16, 1812. The union with Norway is regulated by the act

of union (riks-akten), Aug. 6, 1815. ... The representation of

the nation, since the law of June 22, 1866, rests not as

formerly on the division of the nation into four orders, but

on election only. Two chambers, having equal authority,

compose the diet. The members of the first chamber are elected

for nine years by the 'landstingen' (species of provincial

assemblies) and by the 'stadsfullmäktige' (municipal

counsellors) of cities which do not sit in the 'landsting.'"

Lalor's Cyclopedia of Political Science,

volume 3, pages 834-835.

"The First Chamber consists (1892) of 147 members, or one

deputy for every 30,000 of the population. The election of the

members takes place by the 'Landstings,' or provincial

representations, 25 in number, and the municipal corporations

of the towns, not already represented in the 'Landstings,'

Stockholm, Göteberg, Malmö and Norrköping. All members of the

First Chamber must be above 35 years of age, and must have

possessed for at least three years previous to the election

either real property to the taxed value of 80,000 kroner, or

4,444 l., or an annual income of 4,000 kroner, or 223 l. They

are elected for the term of nine years, and obtain no payment

for their services. The Second Chamber consists (Autumn 1892)

of 228 members, of whom 76 are elected by the towns and 146 by

the rural districts, one representative being returned for

every 10,000 of the population of towns, one for every

'Domsaga,' or rural district, of under 40,000 inhabitants, and

two for rural districts of over 40,000 inhabitants. All

natives of Sweden, aged 21, possessing real property to the

taxed value of 1,000 kroner, or 56 l., or farming, for a

period of not less than five years, landed property to the

taxed value of 6,000 kroner, or 333 l., or paying income tax

on an annual income of 800 kroner, or 45 l., are electors; and

all natives, aged 25, possessing, and having possessed at

least one year previous to the election, the same

qualifications, may be elected members of the Second Chamber.

The number of qualified electors to the Second Chamber in 1890

was 288,096, or 6.0 of the population; only 110,896, or 38.5

of the electors actually voted. In the smaller towns and

country districts the election may either be direct or

indirect, according to the wish of the majority. The election

is for the term of three years, and the members obtain

salaries for their services, at the rate of 1,200 kroner, or

67 l., for each session of four months, besides travelling

expenses. ... The members of both Chambers are elected by

ballot, both in town and country."

Statesman's Year-book, 1893, page 965.

"The Diet, or Riksdag, assembles every year, in ordinary

session, on the 15th of January, or the day following, if the

15th is a holiday. It may be convoked in extraordinary session

by the king. In case of the decease, absence, or illness of

the king, the Diet may be convoked extraordinarily by the

Council of State, or even, if this latter neglects to do so,

by the tribunals of second instance. The king may dissolve the

two chambers simultaneously, or one of them alone, during the

ordinary sessions, but the new Diet assembles after the three

months of the dissolution, and can only be dissolved again

four months after resuming its sitting. The king dissolves the

extraordinary session when he deems proper. ... The Diet

divides the right of initiative with the king: the consent of

the synod is necessary for ecclesiastical Laws.  ... Every

three years the Diet names a commission of twenty-four members

(twelve from each chamber), charged with the duty of electing

six persons who are commissioned under the presidency of the

Procureur general of the Diet to watch over the liberty of the

press."

G. Demombynes, Constitutions Européennes,

volume 1, pages 84-90.

{580}

The following is the text of the Constitution as adopted in

1809, the subsequent modifications of which are indicated

above:

Form of government adopted by the King and the Estates of the

Swedish Realm, at Stockholm, on the 6th of June, 1809;

together with the Alterations afterwards introduced.

We Charles, by the Grace of God, King of the Swedes, the

Goths, and the Vandals, &c. &e. &e. Heir to Norway, Duke of

Sleswick-Holstein; Stormarn, and Ditmarsen, Count of Oldenburg

and Delmenhorst, &c. &c. &c. make known, that having unlimited

confidence in the estates of the realm, charged them with

drawing up a new form of government, as the perpetual

groundwork of the prosperity and independence of our common

native land, We do hereby perform a dear and pleasing duty in

promulgating the fundamental law (which has been) upon mature

deliberation, framed and adopted by the estates of the realm,

and presented unto Us this day, together with their free and

unanimous offer of the Swedish crown. Having with deep emotion

and an affectionate interest in the prosperity of a nation

which has afforded Us so striking a proof of confidence and

attachment, complied with their request, We trust to our

endeavors to promote its happiness, as the reciprocal rights

and duties of the monarch and the subjects have been marked so

distinctly, that, without encroachment on the sacred nature

and power of majesty, the constitutional liberty of the people

is protected. We do therefore hereby adopt, sanction, and

ratify this form of government, such as it follows here:--

We the underwritten representatives of the Swedish realm,

counts, barons, bishops, knights, nobles, clergymen, burghers,

and peasants, assembled at a general Diet, in behalf of

ourselves and our brethren at home, Do hereby make known,

that, having by the late change of government, to which we,

the deputies of the Swedish people, gave our unanimous assent,

exercised our rights of drawing up a new and improved

constitution, we have, in repealing those fundamental laws,

which down to this day have been in force more or less;

viz.,--The Form of Government of the 21st of August 1772, the

Act of Union and Security, of the 21st of February and the 3d

of April 1789, the Ordinance of Diet, of the 24th of January

1617, as well as all those laws, acts, statutes, and

resolutions comprehended under the denomination of fundamental

laws;--We have Resolved to adopt for the kingdom of Sweden and

its dependencies the following constitution, which from

henceforth shall be the chief fundamental law of the realm,

reserving to Ourselves, before the expiration of the present

Diet, to consider the other fundamental laws, mentioned in the

85th article of this constitution.

Article 1.

The kingdom of Sweden shall be governed by a king, who shall

be hereditary in that order of succession which the estates

will further hereafter determine.

Article 2.

The king shall profess the pure evangelical faith, such as is

contained and declared m the Augsburgian Confession, and

explained in the Decree of the Diet at Upsala in the year

1593.

Article 3.

The majesty of the king shall be held sacred and inviolable;

and his actions shall not be subject to any censure.

Article 4.

The king shall govern the realm alone, in the manner

determined by this constitution. In certain cases, however,

(to be specified) he shall take the opinion of a council of

state, which shall be constituted of well-informed,

experienced, honest, and generally-esteemed native Swedes,

noblemen and commoners, who profess the pure evangelical

faith.

Article 5.

The council of state shall consist of nine members, viz., the

minister of state and justice, who shall always be a member of

the king's supreme court of judicature, the minister of state

for foreign affairs, six counsellors of state, three of whom

at least must have held civil offices, and the chancellor of

the court, or aulic chancellor. The secretaries of state shall

have a seat and vote in the council, when they have to report

matters there, and in cases that belong to their respective

departments. Father and son, or two brothers, shall not be

permitted to be constant members of the council of state.

Article 6.

The secretaries of state shall be four, viz.--One for

military affairs; a second for public economy, mining, and all

other affairs connected with the civil and interior

administration; a third for the finances of the realm, inland

and foreign commerce, manufactures, &c.; and the fourth, for

affairs relating to religion, public education, and charities.

Article 7.

All affairs of government shall be laid before the king, and

decided in a council of state: those of a ministerial nature,

however, excepted, concerning the relations of the realm with

foreign powers, and matters of military command, which the

king decides in his capacity of commander-in-chief of the land

and naval forces.

Article 8.

The king can make no decision in matters in which the council

of state are to be heard, unless at least three counsellors of

state, and the secretary of state whom it concerns, or his

deputy-secretary, are present.--All the members of the council

shall, upon due notice, attend all deliberations deemed of

importance, and which concern the general administration of

the affairs of the kingdom; such as questions for adopting new

statutes, repealing or altering those in existence,

introducing new institutions in the different branches of the

administration, &c.

Article 9.

Minutes shall be kept of all matters which shall come before

the king in his council of state. The ministers of state, the

counsellors of state, the aulic chancellor, and the

secretaries of state or deputy-secretaries, shall be

peremptorily bound to deliver their opinions: it is, however,

the prerogative of the king to decide. Should it, however,

unexpectedly occur, that the decisions of the king are

evidently contrary to the constitution and the common law of

the realm, it shall in that case be the duty of the members of

the council of state to make spirited remonstrances against

such decision or resolution. Unless a different opinion has

been recorded in the minutes (for then the counsellors present

shall be considered as having advised the king to the adopted

measure), the members of the council shall be responsible for

their advices, as enacted in the 106th article.

{581}

Article 10.

Necessary informations having been demanded and obtained from

the proper boards, authorities, and functionaries, the affairs

for deliberation shall be prepared by the secretary of state

and eight skilful and impartial men, consisting of four nobles

and four commoners, in order to their being laid before the

king in the council of state.--The secretary, as well as all

the other members of this committee (which are nominated by

the king) for preparing the general affairs of the kingdom,

shall upon all occasions, when so met, deliver their opinions

to the minutes, which shall afterwards be reported to the king

and the council of state.

Article 11.

As to the management of the ministerial affairs, they may be

prepared and conducted in the manner which appears most

suitable to the king. It appertains to the minister for

foreign affairs to lay such matters before him in the presence

of the aulic chancellor, or some other member of the council,

if the chancellor cannot attend. In the absence of the

minister of state this duty devolves upon the aulic

chancellor, or any other member of the council of state, whom

his majesty may appoint. After having ascertained the opinions

of these official persons entered in the minutes, and for

which they shall be responsible, the king shall pronounce his

decision in their presence. It shall be the duty of the aulic

chancellor to keep the minutes on these occasions. The king

shall communicate to the council of state the information on

these topics as may be necessary, in order that they may have

a general knowledge even of this branch of the administration.

Article 12.

The king can enter into treaties and alliances with foreign

powers, after having ascertained, as enacted in the preceding

article, the opinion of the minister of state for foreign

affairs, and of the aulic chancellor.

Article 13.

When the king is at liberty to commence war, or conclude

peace, he shall convoke an extraordinary council of state; the

ministers of state, the counsellors of state, the aulic

chancellor, and the secretaries of state; and, after having

explained to them the circumstances which require their

consideration, he shall desire their opinions thereon, which

each of them shall individually deliver, on the responsibility

defined in the 107th article. The king shall thereafter have a

right to adopt the resolutions, or make such decision as may

appear to him most beneficial for the kingdom.

Article 14.

The king shall have the supreme command of the military forces

by sea and land.

Article 15.

The king shall decide in all matters of military command, in

the presence of that minister or officer to whom he has

entrusted the general management thereof. It shall be the duty

of this person to give his opinion, under responsibility, upon

the resolutions taken by the king, and in case of these being

contrary to his advice, he shall be bound to enter his

objections and counsel in the minutes, which the king must

confirm by his own signature. Should this minister or official

person find the resolutions of the king to be of a dangerous

tendency, or founded on mistaken or erroneous principles, he

shall advise his majesty to convoke two or more military

officers of a superior rank into a council of war. The king

shall, however, be at liberty to comply with or to reject this

proposition for a council of war; and if approved of, he may

take what notice he pleases of the opinions of such council,

which shall, however, be entered in the minutes.

Article 16.

The king shall promote the exercise of justice and right, and

prevent partiality and injustice. He shall not deprive any

subject of life, honour, liberty, and property, without

previous trial and sentence, and in that order which the laws

of the country prescribe. He shall not disturb, or cause to be

disturbed, the peace of any individual in his house. He shall

not banish any from one place to another, nor constrain, or

cause to be constrained, the conscience of any; but shall

protect everyone in the free exercise of his religion,

provided he does not thereby disturb the tranquillity of

society, or occasion public offence. The king shall cause

everyone to be tried in that court to which he properly

belongs.

Article 17.

The king's prerogative of justice shall be invested in twelve

men, learned in the law, six nobles, and six commoners, who

have shown knowledge, experience, and integrity in judicial

matters. They shall be styled counsellors of justice, and

constitute the king's supreme court of justice.

Article 18.

The supreme court of justice shall take cognizance of

petitions to the king for cancelling sentences which have

obtained legal force, and granting extension of time in

lawsuits, when it has been, through some circumstances,

forfeited.

Article 19.

If information be sought by judges or courts of justice

concerning the proper interpretation of the law, the

explanation thus required shall be given by the said supreme

court.

Article 20.

In time of peace, all cases referred from the courts martial

shall be decided in the supreme court of justice. Two military

officers of a superior degree, to be nominated by the king,

shall, with the responsibility of judges, attend and have a

vote in such cases in the supreme court. The number of judges

may not, however, exceed eight. In time of war, all such cases

shall be tried as enacted by the articles of war.

Article 21.

The king, should he think fit to attend, shall have right to

two votes in causes decided by the supreme court. All

questions concerning explanations of the law shall be reported

to him, and his suffrages counted, even though he should not

have attended the deliberations of the court.

Article 22.

Causes of minor importance may be decided in the supreme court

by five members, or even four, if they are all of one opinion;

but in causes of greater consequence seven counsellors, at

least, must attend. More than eight members of the supreme

court, or four noblemen and four commoners, may not be at one

time in active service.

Article 23.

All the decrees of the supreme court of justice shall issue in

the king's name, and under his hand and seal.

Article 24.

The cases shall be prepared in the "king's inferior court for

revision of judiciary affairs," in order to be laid before, or

produced in the supreme court.

Article 25.

In criminal cases the king has a right to grant pardon, to

mitigate capital punishment, and to restore property forfeited

to the crown. In applications, however, of this kind, the

supreme court shall be heard, and the king give his decision

in the council of state.

Article 26.

When matters of justice are laid before the council of state,

the minister of state and justice, and, at least, two

counsellors of state, two members of the supreme court, and

the chancellor of justice shall attend, who must all deliver

their opinions to the minutes, according to the general

instruction for the members of the council of state, quoted in

the 91st article.

{582}

Article 21.

The king shall nominate, as chancellor of justice, a

juris-consult, an able and impartial man, who has previously

held the office of a judge. It shall be his chief duty, as the

highest legal officer or attorney general of the king, to

prosecute, either personally or through the officers or

fiscals under him, in all such cases as concern the public

safety and the rights of the crown, on the king's behalf, to

superintend the administration of justice, and to take

cognizance of, and correct, errors committed by judges or

other legal officers in the discharge of their official

duties.

Article 28.

The king, in his council of state, has a right to appoint

native Swedes to all such offices and places within the

kingdom for which the king's commissions are granted. The

proper authorities shall, however, send in the names of the

candidates to be put in nomination for such employments. The

king may, likewise, appoint foreigners of eminent talents to

military offices, without, however, entrusting to them the

command of the fortresses of the realm. In preferments the

king shall only consider the merits and the abilities of the

candidates, without any regard to their birth. Ministers and

counsellors of state and of justice, secretaries of state,

judges, and all other civil officers, must always be of the

pure evangelical faith.

Article 29.

The archbishop and bishops shall be elected as formerly, and

the king nominates one of the three candidates proposed to

him.

Article 30.

The king appoints, as formerly, the incumbents of rectories in

the gift of the crown. As to the consistorial benefices, the

parishioners shall be maintained in their usual right of

election.

Article 31.

Citizens, who are freemen of towns, shall enjoy their

privilege as heretofore, of proposing to the king three

candidates for the office of burgomaster or mayor, one of whom

the king selects. The aldermen and secretaries of the

magistracy of Stockholm shall be elected in the same manner.

Article 32.

The king appoints envoys to foreign courts and the officers of

the embassies, in the presence of the minister of state for

foreign affairs and the aulic chancellor.

Article 33.

When offices, for which candidates are proposed, are to be

filled up, the members of the council of state shall deliver

their opinions on the qualifications and merits of the

applicants. They shall also have right to make respectful

remonstrances against the nomination of the king respecting

other offices.

Article 34.

The new functionaries created by this constitution, viz.--the

ministers and counsellors of state and counsellors of justice,

shall be paid by the crown, and may not hold any other civil

offices. The two ministers of state are the highest

functionaries of the realm. The counsellors of state shall

hold the rank of generals, and the counsellors of justice that

of lieutenant-generals.

Article 35.

The minister of state for foreign affairs, the counsellors of

state, the presidents of the public boards, the grand governor

of Stockholm, the deputy governor, and the chief magistrate of

police in the city, the aulic chancellor, the chancellor of

justice, the secretaries of state, the governors or

lord-lieutenants of provinces, field marshals, generals and

admirals of all degrees, adjutant generals, adjutant in chief,

adjutants of the staff, the governors of fortresses, captain

lieutenants, and officers of the king's life guards, colonels

of the regiments, and officers second in command in the foot

and horse guards, lieutenant-colonels in the brigade of the

life regiments, chiefs of the artillery of the royal

engineers, ministers, envoys, and commercial agents with

foreign powers, and official persons employed in the king's

cabinet for the foreign correspondence, and at the embassies,

as holding places of trust, can be removed by the king, when

he considers it necessary for the benefit of the realm. The

king shall, however, signify his determination in the council

of state, the members whereof shall be bound to make

respectful remonstrances, if they see it expedient.

Article 36.

Judges, and all other official persons, not included in the

preceding article, cannot be suspended from their situations

without legal trial, nor be translated or removed to other

places, without having themselves applied for these.

Article 31.

The king has power to confer dignities on those who have

served their country with fidelity, bravery, virtue, and zeal.

He may also promote to the order of counts and barons,

persons, who by eminent merits have deserved such an honour.

Nobility and the dignity of a count and baron, granted from

this time, shall no longer devolve to any other than the

individual himself thus created a noble, and after him, to the

oldest of his male issue in a direct descending line, and this

branch of the family being extinct, to the nearest male

descendant of the ancestor.

Article 38.

All despatches and orders emanating from the king, excepting

such as concern military affairs, shall be countersigned by

the secretary who has submitted them to the council, and is

responsible for their being conformable to the minutes. Should

the secretary find any of the decisions made by the king to be

contrary to the spirit of the constitution, he shall make his

remonstrances respecting the same, in the council of state.

Should the king still persist in his determination, it shall

then be the duty of the secretary to refuse his countersign,

and resign his place, which he may not resume until the

estates of the realm shall have examined and approved of his

conduct. He shall, however, in the mean time, receive his

salary, and all the fees of his office as formerly.

Article 39.

If the king wishes to go abroad, he shall communicate his

resolution to the council of state, in a full assembly, and

take the opinion of all its members, as enacted in the ninth

article. During the absence of the king he may not interfere

with the government, or exercise the regal power, which shall

be carried on, in his name, by the council of state; the

council of state cannot, however, confer dignities or create

counts, barons, and knights; and all officers appointed by the

council shall only hold their places ad interim.

Article 40.

Should the king be in such a state of health as to be

incapable of attending to the affairs of the kingdom, the

council of state shall conduct the administration, as enacted

in the preceding article.

Article 41.

The king shall be of age after having completed eighteen

years. Should the king die before the heir of the crown has

attained this age, the government shall be conducted by the

council of state, acting with regal power and authority, in

the name of the king, until the estates of the realm shall

have appointed a provisional government or regency; and the

council of state is enjoined strictly to conform to the

enactments of this constitution.

{583}

Article 42.

Should the melancholy event take place, that the whole royal

family became extinct on the male side, the council of state

shall exercise the government with regal power and authority,

until the estates have chosen another royal house, and the new

king has taken upon himself the government. All occurrences or

things having reference to the four last articles, shall be

determined by the whole council of state and the secretaries

of state.

Article 43.

When the king takes the field of battle, or repairs to distant

parts of the kingdom, he shall constitute four of the members

of the council of state to exercise the government in those

affairs which he is pleased to prescribe.

Article 44.

No prince of the royal family shall be permitted to marry

without having obtained the consent of the king, and in the

contrary case shall forfeit his right of inheritance to the

kingdom, both for himself and descendants.

Article 45.

Neither the crown prince, or any other prince of the royal

family, shall have any appanage or civil place. The princes of

the blood may, however, bear titles of dukedoms and

principalities, as heretofore, but without any claims upon

those provinces.

Article 46.

The kingdom shall remain divided, as heretofore, into

governments, under the usual provincial administrations. No

governor-general shall, from this time, be appointed within

the kingdom.

Article 47.

The courts of justice, superior as well as inferior, shall

administer justice according to the laws and statutes of the

realm. The provincial governors, and all other public

functionaries, shall exercise the offices entrusted to them

according to existing regulations; they shall obey the orders

of the king, and be responsible to him if any act is done

contrary to law.

Article 48.

The court of the king is under his own management, and he may

at his own pleasure appoint or discharge all his officers and

attendants there.

Article 49.

The estates of the realm shall meet every fifth year. In the

decree of every Diet the day shall be fixed for the next

meeting of the estates. The king may, however, convoke the

estates to an extraordinary Diet before that time.

Article 50.

The Diets shall be held in the capital, except when the

invasion of an enemy, or some other important impediment, may

render it dangerous for the safety of the representatives.

Article 51.

When the king or council convokes the estates, the period for

the commencement of the Diet shall be subsequent to the

thirtieth, and within the fiftieth day, to reckon from that

day when the summons has been proclaimed in the churches of

the capital.

Article 52.

The king names the speakers of the nobles, the burghers and

the peasants: the archbishop is, at all times, the constant

speaker of the clergy.

Article 53.

The estates of the realm shall, immediately after the opening

of the Diet, elect the different committees, which are to

prepare the affairs intended for their consideration. Such

committees shall consist in,

a constitutional committee, which shall take cognizance of

questions concerning proposed alterations in the

fundamental laws, report thereupon to the representatives,

and examine the minutes held in the council of state;

a committee of finances, which shall examine and report

upon the state and management of the revenues;

a committee of taxation, for regulating the taxes;

a committee of the bank for inquiring into the

administration of the affairs of the national bank;

a law committee for digesting propositions concerning

improvements in the civil, criminal, and ecclesiastical

laws;

a committee of public grievances and matters of economy, to

attend to the defects in public institutions, suggest

alterations, &c.

Article 54.

Should the king desire a special committee for deliberating

with him on such matters as do not come within the cognizance

of any of the other committees, and are to be kept secret, the

estates shall select it. This committee shall, however, have

no right to adopt any resolutions, but only to give their

opinion on matters referred to them by the king.

Article 55.

The representatives of the realm shall not discuss any subject

in the presence of the king, nor can any other committee than

the one mentioned in the above article hold their

deliberations before him.

Article 56.

General questions started at the meetings or the orders of the

estates, cannot be immediately discussed or decided, but shall

be referred to the proper committees, which are to give their

opinion thereupon. The propositions or report of the

committees shall, in the first instance, without any

alteration or amendment, be referred to the estates at the

general meetings of all the orders. If at these meetings,

observations should be made which may prevent the adoption of

the proposed measure, these objections shall be communicated

to the committee, in order to its being examined and revised.

A proposition thus prepared having been again referred to the

estates, it shall remain with them to adopt it, with or

without alterations, or to reject it altogether. Questions

concerning alterations in the fundamental laws, shall be thus

treated:

If the constitutional committee approves of the suggestion

of one of the representatives, or the committee reports in

favour of or against a measure proposed by the king, the

opinion of the committee shall be referred to the estates,

who may discuss the topic, but not come to any resolution

during that Diet.

If at the general meetings of the orders no observations

are made against the opinion of the committee, the question

shall be postponed till the Diet following, and then be

decided solely by yes or no, as enacted in the 75th article

of the ordinance of Diet.

If, on the contrary, objections are urged at the general

meetings of the orders against the opinion of the

committee, these shall be referred back for its

reconsideration. If all the orders be of one opinion, the

question shall be postponed for final decision, as enacted

above. Should again a particular order differ from the

other orders, twenty members shall be elected from among

every order, and added to the committee, for adjusting the

differences. The question being thus prepared, shall be

decided at the following Diet.

Article 57.

The ancient right of the Swedish people, of imposing taxes on

themselves, shall be exercised by the estates only at a

general Diet.

Article 58.

The king shall at every Diet lay before the committee of

finances the state of the revenues in all their branches.

Should the crown have obtained subsidies through treaties with

foreign powers, these shall be explained in the usual way.

{584}

Article 59.

The king shall refer to the decision of this committee to

determine what the government may require beyond the ordinary

taxation, to be raised by an extraordinary grant.

Article 60.

No taxes of any description whatever can be increased without

the express consent of the estates. The king may not farm or

let on lease the revenues of state, for the sake of profit to

himself and the crown; nor grant monopolies to private

individuals, or corporations.

Article 61.

All taxes shall be paid to the end of that term for which they

have been imposed. Should, however, the estates meet before

the expiration of that term, new regulations shall take place.

Article 62.

The funds required by government having been ascertained by

the committee of finances, it shall rest with the estates

whether to assign proportionate means, and also to determine

how the various sums granted shall be appropriated.

Article 63.

Besides these means, two adequate sums shall be voted and set

apart for the disposal of the king, after he has consulted the

council of state,--for the defence of the kingdom, or some

other important object;--the other sum to be deposited in the

national bank, in case of war, after the king has ascertained

the opinion of the council and convened the estates. The seal

of the order for this latter sum may not be broken, nor the

money be paid by the commissioners of the bank, till the

summons to Diet shall have been duly proclaimed in the

churches of the capital.

Article 64.

The ordinary revenues of the land, as well as the

extraordinary grants which may be voted by the estates, shall

be at the disposal of the king for the civil list and other

specified purposes.

Article 65.

The above means may not be applied but for the assigned

purposes, and the council of state shall be responsible if

they permit any deviation in this respect, without entering

their remonstrances in the minutes, and pointing out what the

constitution in this case ordains.

Article 66.

The funds of amortissement or national debt, shall remain, as

heretofore, under the superintendence and direction of the

estates, who have guaranteed or come under a responsibility

for the national debt; and after having received the report of

the committee of finances on the affairs of that

establishment, the estates will provide, through a special

grant, the requisite means for paying the capital as well as

the interest of this debt, in order that the credit of the

kingdom may be maintained.

Article 67.

The deputy of the king shall not attend the meetings of the

directors or commissioners of the funds of amortissement, on

any other occasion than when the directors are disposed to

take his opinion.

Article 68.

The means assigned for paying off the national debt shall not,

under any pretence or condition, be appropriated to other

purposes.

Article 69.

Should the estates, or any particular order, entertain doubts

either in allowing the grant proposed by the committee of

finances, or as to the participation in the taxes, or the

principles of the management of the funds of amortissement,

these doubts shall be communicated to the committee for their

further consideration.--If the committee cannot coincide in

the opinions of the estates, or a single order, it shall

depute some members to explain circumstances. Should this

order still persist in its opinion, the question shall be

decided by the resolution of three orders. If two orders be of

one, and the other two of a different opinion, thirty new

members of every order shall be added to the committee--the

committee shall then vote conjointly, and not by orders, with

folded billets, for adopting, or rejecting, unconditionally

the proposition of the committee.

Article 70.

The committee of taxation shall at every Diet suggest general

principles for dividing the future taxes, and the amount

having been fixed, the committee shall also propose how these

are to be paid, referring their proposition to the

consideration and decision of the states.

Article 71.

Should a difference of opinion arise between the orders, as to

these principles and the mode of applying them, and dividing

the taxes; or, what hardly can be presumed, any order decline

participating in the proposed taxation, the order, which may

thus desire some alteration, shall communicate their views to

the other representatives, and suggest in what mode this

alteration may be effected without frustrating the general

object. The committee of taxation having again reported

thereon to the estates, they, the estates, shall decide the

question at issue. If three orders object to the proposition

of the committee, it shall be rejected. If, again, three

orders oppose the demands of a single order, or if two be of

an opinion contrary to that of the other two, the question

shall be referred to the committee of finances, with an

additional number of members, as enacted in the above article.

If the majority of this committee assent to the proposition of

the committee of taxation, in those points concerning which

the representatives have disagreed, the proposition shall be

considered as the general resolution of the estates. Should

it, on the contrary, be negatived by a majority of votes, or

be rejected by three orders, the committee of taxation shall

propose other principles for levying and dividing the taxes.

Article 72.

The national bank shall remain, as formerly, under the

superintendence and guarantee of the estates, and the

management of directors selected from among all the orders,

according to existing regulations. The states alone can issue

bank-notes, which are to be recognized as the circulating

medium of the realm.

Article 73.

No troops, new taxes or imposts, either in money or kind, can

be levied without the voluntary consent of the estates, in the

usual order, as aforesaid.

Article 74.

The king shall have no right to demand or levy any other aid

for carrying on war, than that contribution of provisions

which may be necessary for the maintenance of the troops

during their march through a province. These contributions

shall, however, be immediately paid out of the treasury,

according to the fixed price-current of provisions, with an

augmentation of a moiety, according to this valuation. Such

contributions may not be demanded for troops which have been

quartered in a place, or are employed in military operations,

in which case they shall be supplied with provisions from the

magazines.

Article 75.

The annual estimation of such rentes as are paid in kind shall

be fixed by deputies elected from among all the orders of the

estates.

Article 76.

The king cannot, without the consent of the estates, contract

loans within or without the kingdom, nor burthen the land with

any new debts.

{585}

Article 77.

He cannot also, without the consent of the estates, vend,

pledge, mortgage, or in any other way alienate domains, farms,

forests, parks, preserves of game, meadows, pasture-land,

fisheries, and other appurtenances of the crown. These shall

be managed according to the instructions of the estates.

Article 78.

No part of the kingdom can be alienated through sale,

mortgage, donation, or in any other way whatever.

Article 79.

No alteration can be effected in the standard value of the

coin, either for enhancing or deteriorating it, without the

consent of the estates.

Article 80.

The land and naval forces of the realm shall remain on the

same footing, till the king and the estates may think proper

to introduce some other principles. No regular troops can be

raised, without the mutual consent of the king and the

estates.

Article 81.

This form of government and the other fundamental laws cannot

be altered or repealed, without the unanimous consent of the

king and the estates. Questions to this effect cannot be

brought forward at the meetings of the orders, but must be

referred to the constitutional committee, whose province it is

to suggest such alterations in the fundamental laws, as may be

deemed necessary, useful, and practicable. The estates may not

decide on such proposed alterations at the same Diet. If all

the orders agree about the alteration, it shall be submitted

to the king, through the speakers, for obtaining his royal

sanction, After having ascertained the opinion of the council,

the king shall take his resolution, and communicate to the

estates either his approbation or reasons for refusing it. In

the event of the king proposing any alteration in the

fundamental laws, he shall, after having taken the opinion of

the council, deliver his proposition to the estates, who

shall, without discussing it, again refer it to the

constitutional committee. If the committee coincide in the

proposition of the king, the question shall remain till next

Diet. If again the committee is averse to the proposition of

the king, the estates may either reject it immediately or

adjourn it to the following Diet. In the case of all the

orders approving of the proposition, they shall request that a

day be appointed to declare their consent in the presence of

his majesty, or signify their disapprobation through their

speakers.

Article 82.

What the estates have thus unanimously resolved and the king

sanctioned, concerning alterations in the fundamental laws, or

the king has proposed and the estates approved of, shall for

the future have the force and effect of a fundamental law.

Article 83.

No explanation of the fundamental laws may be established by

any other mode or order, than that prescribed by the two

preceding articles. Laws shall be applied according to their

literal sense.

Article 84.

When the constitutional committee find no reason for approving

of the proposition, made by a representative concerning

alterations or explanations of the fundamental laws, it shall

be the duty of the committee to communicate to him, at his

request, their opinion, which the proposer of the resolution

may publish, with his own motion, and under the usual

responsibility of authors.

Article 85.

As fundamental laws of the present form of government, there

shall be considered the ordinance of Diet, the order of

succession, and the act concerning universal liberty of the

press.

Article 86.

By the liberty of the press is understood the right of every

Swedish subject to publish his writings, without any

impediment from the government, and without being responsible

for them, except before a court of justice, or liable to

punishment, unless their contents be contrary to a clear law,

made for the preservation of public peace. The minutes, or

protocols, or the proceedings, may be published in any case,

excepting the minutes kept in the council of state and before

the king in ministerial affairs, and those matters of military

command; nor may the records of the bank, and the office of

the funds of amortissement, or national debt, be printed.

Article 87.

The estates, together with the king, have the right to make

new and repeal old laws. In this view such questions must be

proposed at the general meetings of the orders of the estates,

and shall be decided by them, after having taken the opinion

of the law committee, as laid down in the 56th article. The

proposition shall be submitted, through the speakers, to the

king, who, after having ascertained the opinion of the council

of state and supreme court, shall declare either his royal

approbation, or motives for withholding it. Should the king

desire to propose any alteration in the laws, he shall, after

having consulted the council of state and supreme court, refer

his proposition, together with their opinion, to the

deliberation of the states, who, after having received the

report of the law committee, shall decide on the point. In all

such questions the resolution of three orders shall be

considered as the resolution of the estates of the realm. If

two orders are opposed to the other two, the proposition is

negatived, and the law is to remain as formerly.

Article 88.

The same course, or mode of proceeding, shall be observed in

explaining the civil, criminal, and ecclesiastical laws, as in

making these. Explanations concerning the proper sense of the

law given by the supreme court in the name of the king, in the

interval between the Diets, may be rejected by the states, and

shall not afterwards be valid, or cited by the courts of

judicature.

Article 89.

At the general meetings of the orders of the estates,

questions may be proposed for altering, explaining, repealing,

and issuing acts concerning public economy; and the principles

of public institutions of any kind may be discussed. These

questions shall afterwards be referred to the committee of

public grievances and economical affairs, and then be

submitted to the decision of the king, in a council of state.

When the king is pleased to invite the estates to deliberate

with him on questions concerning the general administration,

the same course shall be adopted as is prescribed for

questions concerning the laws.

Article 90.

During the deliberations of the orders, or their committees,

no questions shall be proposed but in the way expressly

prescribed by this fundamental law, concerning either

appointing or removing of officers, decisions and resolutions

of the government and courts of law, and the conduct of

private individuals and corporations.

Article 91.

When the king, in such cases as those mentioned in the 39th

article, is absent from the kingdom longer than twelve months,

the council shall convoke the estates to a general Diet, and

cause the summons to be proclaimed within fifteen days from

the above time, in the churches of the capital, and speedily

afterwards in the other parts of the kingdom. If the king,

after being informed thereof, does not return to the kingdom,

the estates shall adopt such measures as they deem most

beneficial for the country.

{586}

Article 92.

The same shall be enacted in case of any disease or ill health

of the king, which might prevent him from attending to the

affairs of the kingdom for more than twelve months.

Article 93.

When the heir of the crown, at the decease of the king, is

under age, the council of state shall issue summons to the

representatives to meet. The estates of the realm shall have

the right, without regard to the will of a deceased king

concerning the administration, to appoint one or several

guardians, to rule in the king's name, according to this

fundamental law, till the king becomes of age.

Article 94.

Should it ever happen that the royal family become extinct in

the male line, the council of state shall convene the estates,

to elect another royal family to rule conformably to this

fundamental law.

Article 95.

Should, contrary to expectation, the council of state fail to

convoke the estates, in the cases prescribed by the 91st, 93d,

and 94th articles, it shall be the positive duty of the

directors of the house of nobles, the chapters throughout the

kingdom, the magistrates in the capital, and the governors in

the provinces, to give public notice thereof, in order that

elections of deputies to the Diet may forthwith take place,

and the estates assemble to protect their privileges and

rights of the kingdom. Such a Diet shall be opened on the

fiftieth day from that period when the council of state had

proclaimed the summons in the churches of the capital.

Article 96.

The estates shall at every Diet appoint an officer,

distinguished for integrity and learning in the law, to watch

over, as their deputy, the conduct of the judges and other

official men, and who shall, in legal order and at the proper

court, arraign those who in the performance of their offices

have betrayed negligence and partiality, or else have

committed any illegal act. He shall, however, be liable to the

same responsibility as the law prescribes for public

prosecutors in general.

Article 97.

This deputy or attorney-general of the estates shall be chosen

by twelve electors out of every order.

Article 98.

The electors shall at the same time they choose the said

attorney-general, elect a person possessing equal or similar

qualities to succeed him, in case of his death before the next

Diet.

Article 99.

The attorney-general may, whenever he pleases, attend the

sessions of all the superior and inferior courts, and the

public offices, and shall have free access to their records

and minutes; and the king's officers shall be bound to give

him every assistance.

Article 100.

The attorney-general shall at every Diet present a report of

the performance of his office, explaining the state of the

administration of justice in the land, noticing the defects in

the existing laws, and suggesting new improvements. He shall

also, at the end of each year, publish a general statement

concerning these.

Article 101.

Should the supreme court, or any of its members, from

interest, partiality, or negligence, judge so wrong that an

individual, contrary to law and evidence, did lose or might

have lost life, liberty, honour, or property, the

attorney-general shall be bound, and the chancellor of justice

authorised, to arraign the guilty, according to the laws of

the realm, in the court after mentioned.

Article 102.

This court is to be denominated the court of justice for the

realm, and shall be formed by the president in the superior

court of Swea, the presidents of all the public boards, four

senior members of the council of state, the highest commander

of the troops within the capital, and the commander of the

squadron of the fleet stationed at the capital, two of the

senior members of the superior court of Swea, and the senior

member of all the public boards. Should any of the officers

mentioned above decline attending this court, he shall be

legally responsible for such a neglect of duty. After trial,

the judgment shall be publicly announced: no one can alter

such a sentence. The king may, however, extend pardon to the

guilty, but not admitting him any more into the service of the

kingdom.

Article 103.

The estates shall at every Diet nominate a jury of twelve

members from out of each order, for deciding if the members of

the supreme court of justice have deserved to fill their

important places, or if any member, without having been

legally convicted for the faults mentioned in the above

articles, yet ought to be removed from office.

Article 104.

The estates shall not resolve themselves into a court of

justice, nor enter into any special examination of the

decrees, verdicts, resolutions of the supreme court.

Article 105.

The constitutional committee shall have right to demand the

minutes of the council of state, except those which concern

ministerial or foreign affairs, and matters of military

command, which may only be communicated as far as these have a

reference to generally known events, specified by the

committee.

Article 106.

Should the committee find from these minutes that any member

of the council of state has openly acted against the clear

dictates of the constitution, or advised any infringement

either of the same or of the other laws of the realm, or that

he had omitted to remonstrate against such a violation, or

caused and promoted it by wilfully concealing any information,

the committee shall order the attorney-general to institute

the proper proceedings against the guilty.

Article 107.

If the constitutional committee should find that any or all

the members of the council of state have not consulted the

real interest of the kingdom, or that any of the secretaries

of state have not performed his or their official duties with

impartiality, activity, and skill, the committee shall report

it to the estates, who, if they deem it necessary, may signify

to the king their wish of having those removed, who may thus

have given dissatisfaction. Questions to this effect may be

brought forward at the general meetings of the orders, and

even be proposed by any of the committees. These cannot,

however, be decided until the constitutional committee have

delivered their opinion.

Article 108.

The estates shall at every Diet appoint six individuals, two

of whom must be learned in the law, besides the

attorney-general, to watch over the liberty of the press.

These deputies shall be bound to give their opinion as to the

legality of publications, if such be requested by the authors.

These deputies shall be chosen by six electors out of every

order.

{587}

Article 109.

Diets may not last longer than three months from the time that

the king has informed the representatives of the state of the

revenues. Should, however, the estates at the expiration of

that time not have concluded their deliberations, they may

demand the Diet to be prolonged for another month, which the

king shall not refuse. If again, contrary to expectation, the

estates at the expiration of this term have not regulated the

civil list, the king shall dissolve the Diet, and taxation

continue in its former state till the next meeting of

representatives.

Article 110.

No representative shall be responsible for any opinion uttered

at meetings of the orders, or of the committees, unless by the

express permission of at least five-sixths of his own order:

nor can a representative be banished from the Diet. Should any

individual or body, either civil or military, endeavour to

offer violence to the estates, or to any individual

representative, or presume to interrupt and disturb their

deliberations, it shall be considered as an act of treason,

and it rests with the estates to take legal cognizance of such

an offence.

Article 111.

Should any representative, after having announced himself as

such, be insulted, either at the Diet or on his way to or from

the same, it shall be punished as a violation of the peace of

the king.

Article 112.

No official person may exercise his official authority (his

authority in that capacity) to influence the elections of

deputies to the Diet, under pain of losing his place.

Article 113.

Individuals elected for regulating the taxation shall not be

responsible for their lawful deeds in this their capacity.

Article 114.

The king shall leave the estates in undisturbed possession of

their liberties, privileges, and immunities. Modifications

which the prosperity of the realm may demand can only be done

with the general concurrence and consent of the estates and

the sanction of the king. Nor can any new privileges be

granted to one order, without the consent of the other, and

the sanction of the sovereign.

This we have confirmed by our names and seals, on the sixth

day of the month of June, in the year after the birth of our

Lord one thousand eight hundred and nine.

On behalf of the Nobles, M. Ankarsvard.

On behalf of the Clergy, Jac. Ax. Lindblom.

On behalf of the Burghers, H. N. Schwan.

On behalf of the Peasantry, Lars Olsson, Speakers.

The above form of government we have not only acknowledged

Ourselves, but do also command all our faithful subjects to

obey it; in confirmation of which, we have thereto affixed our

manual signature and the seal of the realm. In the city of our

royal residence, Stockholm, on the sixth day of the month of

June, in the year after the birth of our Lord one thousand

eight hundred and nine.

CHARLES.

----------CONSTITUTION OF SWEDEN: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF THE SWISS CONFEDERATION.

After the Sonderbund secession and war of 1847 (see

SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848), the task of drawing up a

Constitution for the Confederacy was confided to a committee

of fourteen members, and the work was finished on the 14th of

April, 1848. "The project was submitted to the Cantons, and

accepted at once by thirteen and a half; others joined during

the summer, and the new Constitution was finally promulgated

with the assent of all on the 12th September. Hence arose the

seventh and last phase of the Confederation, by the adoption

of a Federal Constitution for the whole of Switzerland, being

the first which was entirely the work of Swiss, without any

foreign influence, although its authors had studied that of

the United States. ... It was natural that, as in process of

time commerce and industry were developed, and as the

differences between the legislation of the various Cantons

became more apparent, a revision of the first really Swiss

Confederation should be necessary. This was proposed both in

1871 and 1872, but the partisans of a further centralization,

though successful in the Chambers, were defeated upon an

appeal to the popular vote on the 12th of May 1872, by a

majority of between five and six thousand, and by thirteen

Cantons to nine. The question was, however, by no means

settled, and in 1874 a new project of revision more acceptable

to the partisans of cantonal independence, was adopted by the

people, the numbers being 340,199, to 198,013. The Cantons

were about two to one in favour of the revision, 14½ declaring

for and 7½ against it. This Constitution bears date the 29th

May, 1874, and has since been added to and altered in certain

particulars."

Sir F. O. Adams and C. D. Cunningham,

The Swiss Confederation, chapter 1.

"Since 1848, ... Switzerland has been a federal state,

consisting of a central authority, the Bund, and 19 entire and

six half states, the Cantons; to foreign powers she presents

an united front, while her internal policy allows to each

Canton a large amount of independence. ... The basis of all

legislative division is the Commune or Gemeinde; corresponding

in some slight degree to the English Parish. The Commune in

its legislative and administrative aspect or

'Einwohnergemeinde' is composed of all the inhabitants of a

Commune. It is self-governing and has the control of the local

police; it also administers all matters connected with

pauperism, education, sanitary and funeral regulations, the

fire brigade, the maintenance of public peace and

trusteeships. ... At the head of the Commune is the

Gemeinderath, or Communal Council, whose members are elected

from the inhabitants for a fixed period. It is presided over

by an Ammann, or Mayor, or President. ... Above the Commune on

the ascending scale comes the Canton. ... Each of the 19

Cantons and 6 half Cantons is a sovereign state, whose

privileges are nevertheless limited by the Federal

Constitution, particularly as regards legal and military

matters; the Constitution also defines the extent of each

Canton, and no portion of a Canton is allowed to secede and

join itself to another Canton. ... Legislative power is in the

hands of the 'Volk'; in the political sense of the word the

'Volk' consists of all the Swiss living in the Canton, who

have passed their 20th year and are not under disability from

crime or bankruptcy.

{588}

The voting on the part of the people deals mostly with

alterations in the cantonal constitution, treaties, laws,

decisions of the First Council involving expenditures of Frs.

100,000 and upward, and other decisions which the Council

considers advisable to subject to the public vote, which also

determines the adoption of propositions for the creation of

new laws, or the alteration or abolition of old ones, when

such a plebiscite is demanded by a petition signed by 5,000

voters. ... The First Council (Grosse Rath) is the highest

political and administrative power of the Canton. It

corresponds to the 'Chamber' of other countries. Every 1,300

inhabitants of an electoral circuit send one member. ... The

Kleine Rath or special council (corresponding to the

'Ministerium' of other continental countries) is composed of

three members and has three proxies. It is chosen by the First

Council for a period of two years. It superintends all

cantonal institutions and controls the various public boards.

... The populations of the 22 sovereign Cantons constitute

together the Swiss Confederation."

P. Hauri, Sketch of the Constitution of Switzerland

(in Strickland's The Engadine).

The following text of the Federal Constitution of the Swiss

Confederation is a translation from parallel French and German

texts, by Professor Albert Bushnell Hart, of Harvard College.

It appeared originally in "Old South Leaflets," No. 18, and is

now reprinted under permission from Professor Hart, who has

most kindly revised his translation throughout and introduced

the later amendments, to July, 1893.

In the Name of Almighty God.

The Swiss Confederation, desiring to confirm the alliance of

the Confederates, to maintain and to promote the unity,

strength, and honor of the Swiss nation, has adopted the

Federal Constitution following:

Chapter I. General Provisions.

ARTICLE 1.

The peoples of the twenty-two sovereign Cantons of

Switzerland, united by this present alliance, viz.: Zurich,

Bern, Luzern, Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden (Upper and Lower),

Glarus, Zug, Freiburg, Solothurn, Basel (urban and rural),

Schaffhausen, Appenzell (the two Rhodes), St. Gallen, Grisons,

Aargau, Thurgau, Ticino, Vaud, Valais, Neuchâtel, and Geneva,

form in their entirety the Swiss Confederation.

ARTICLE 2.

The purpose of the Confederation is, to secure the

independence of the country against foreign nations, to

maintain peace and order within, to protect the liberty and

the rights of the Confederates, and to foster their common

welfare.

ARTICLE 3.

The Cantons are sovereign, so far as their sovereignty is not

limited by the Federal Constitution; and, as such, they

exercise all the rights which are not delegated to the federal

government.

ARTICLE 4.

All Swiss are equal before the law. In Switzerland there are

neither political dependents, nor privileges of place, birth,

persons, or families.

ARTICLE 5.

The Confederation guarantees to the Cantons their territory,

their sovereignty, within the limits fixed by Article 3, their

Constitutions, the liberty and rights of the people, the

constitutional rights of citizens, and the rights and powers

which the people have conferred on those in authority.

ARTICLE 6.

The Cantons are bound to ask of the Confederation the guaranty

of their Constitutions. This guaranty is accorded, provided:

(a) that the Constitutions contain nothing contrary to the

provisions of the Federal Constitution.

(b) That they assure the exercise of political rights,

according to republican forms, representative or democratic.

(c) That they have been ratified by the people, and may be

amended whenever the majority of all the citizens demand it.

ARTICLE 7.

All separate alliances and all treaties of a political

character between the Cantons are forbidden. On the other hand

the Cantons have the right to make conventions among

themselves upon legislative, administrative or judicial

subjects; in all cases they shall bring such conventions to

the attention of the federal officials, who are authorized to

prevent their execution, if they contain anything contrary to

the Confederation, or to the rights of other Cantons. Should

such not be the case, the covenanting Cantons are authorized

to require the cooperation of the federal officials in

carrying out the convention.

ARTICLE 8.

The Confederation has the sole right of declaring war, of

making peace, and of concluding alliances and treaties with

foreign powers, particularly treaties relating to tariffs and

commerce.

ARTICLE 9.

By exception the Cantons preserve the right of concluding

treaties with foreign powers, respecting the administration of

public property, and border and police intercourse; but such

treaties shall contain nothing contrary to the Confederation

or to the rights of other Cantons.

ARTICLE 10.

Official intercourse between Cantons and foreign governments,

or their representatives, shall take place through the Federal

Council. Nevertheless, the Cantons may correspond directly

with the inferior officials and officers of a foreign State,

in regard to the subjects enumerated in the preceding article.

ARTICLE 11.

No military capitulations shall be made.

ARTICLE 12.

No members of the departments of the federal government, civil

and military officials of the Confederation, or federal

representatives or commissioners, shall receive from any

foreign government any pension, salary, title, gift, or

decoration. Such persons, already in possession of pensions,

titles, or decorations, must renounce the enjoyment of

pensions and the bearing of titles and decorations during

their term of office. Nevertheless, inferior officials may be

authorized by the Federal Council to continue in the receipt

of pensions. No decoration or title conferred by a foreign

government shall be borne in the federal army. No officer,

non-commissioned officer, or soldier shall accept such

distinction.

ARTICLE 13.

The Confederation has no right to keep up a standing army. No

Canton or Half-Canton shall, without the permission of the

federal government keep up a standing force of more than three

hundred men; the mounted police [gendarmerie] is not included

in this number.

ARTICLE 14.

In case of differences arising between Cantons, the States

shall abstain from violence and from arming themselves; they

shall submit to the decision to be taken upon such differences

by the Confederation.

ARTICLE 15.

In case of sudden danger of foreign attack, the authorities of

the Cantons threatened shall request the aid of other members

of the Confederation and shall immediately notify the federal

government; the subsequent action of the latter shall not

thereby be precluded. The Cantons summoned are bound to give

aid. The expenses shall be borne by the Confederation.

{589}

Article 16.

In case of internal disturbance, or if the danger is

threatened by another Canton, the authorities of the Canton

threatened shall give immediate notice to the Federal Council,

in order that that body may take the measures necessary,

within the limits of its power (Article 102, §§ 3, 10, 11), or

may summon the Federal Assembly. In extreme cases the

authorities of the Canton are authorized, while giving

immediate notice to the Federal Council, to ask the aid of

other Cantons, which are bound to afford such aid. If the

executive of the Canton is unable to call for aid, the federal

authority having the power may, and if the safety of

Switzerland is endangered shall, intervene without

requisition. In case of federal intervention, the federal

authorities shall take care that the provisions of Article 5

be observed. The expenses shall be borne by the Canton asking

aid or occasioning federal intervention, except when the

Federal Assembly otherwise decides on account of special

circumstances.

Article 17.

In the cases mentioned in Articles 15 and 16, every Canton is

bound to afford undisturbed passage for the troops. The troops

shall immediately be placed under federal command.

Article 18.

Every Swiss is bound to perform military service. Soldiers who

lose their lives or suffer permanent injury to their health,

in consequence of federal service, are entitled to aid from

the Confederation for themselves or their families, in case of

need. Each soldier shall receive without expense his first

equipment, clothing, and arms. The weapon remains in the hands

of the soldier, under conditions which shall be prescribed by

federal legislation. The Confederation shall enact uniform

provisions as to an exemption tax.

Article 19.

The federal army is composed:

(a) Of the cantonal military corps.

(b) Of all Swiss who do not belong to such military corps, but

are nevertheless liable to military service.

The Confederation exercises control over the army and the

material of war provided by law. In cases of danger, the

Confederation has also the exclusive and direct control of men

not included in the federal army, and of all other military

resources of the Cantons. The Cantons have authority over the

military forces of their territory, so far as this right is

not limited by the Federal Constitution or laws.

Article 20.

The laws on the organization of the army are passed by the

Confederation. The enforcement of military laws in the Cantons

is intrusted to the cantonal officials, within limits which

shall be fixed by federal legislation, and under the

supervision of the Confederation. Military instruction of

every kind pertains to the Confederation. The same applies to

the arming of troops. The furnishing and maintenance of

clothing and equipment is within the power of the Cantons; but

the Cantons shall be credited with the expenses therefor,

according to a regulation to be established by federal

legislation.

Article 21.

So far as military reasons do not prevent, bodies of troops

shall be formed out of the soldiers of the same Cantons. The

composition of these bodies of troops, the maintenance of

their effective strength, the appointment and promotion of

officers of these bodies of troops, belong to the Cantons,

subject to general provisions which shall be established by

the Confederation.

Article 22.

On payment of a reasonable indemnity, the Confederation has

the right to use or acquire drill-grounds and buildings

intended for military purposes, within the Cantons, together

with the appurtenances thereof. The terms of the indemnity

shall be settled by federal legislation.

Article 23.

The Confederation may construct at its own expense, or may aid

by subsidies, public works which concern Switzerland or a

considerable part of the country. For this purpose it may

expropriate property, on payment of a reasonable indemnity.

Further enactments upon this matter shall be made by federal

legislation. The Federal Assembly may forbid public works

which endanger the military interests of the Confederation.

Article 24.

The Confederation has the right of superintendence over dike

and forest police in the upper mountain regions. It may

cooperate in the straightening and embankment of torrents as

well as in the afforesting of the districts in which they

rise. It may prescribe the regulations necessary to assure the

maintenance of these works, and the preservation of existing

forests.

Article 25.

The Confederation has power to make legislative enactments for

the regulation of the right of fishing and hunting,

particularly with a view to the preservation of the large game

in the mountains, as well as for the protection of birds

useful to agriculture and forestry.

Article 26.

Legislation upon the construction and operation of railroads

is in the province of the Confederation.

Article 27.

The Confederation has the right to establish, besides the

existing Polytechnic School, a Federal University and other

institutions of higher instruction, or to subsidize

institutions of such nature. The Cantons provide for primary

instruction, which shall be sufficient, and shall be placed

exclusively under the direction of the secular authority. It

is compulsory and, in the public schools, free. The public

schools shall be such that they may be frequented by the

adherents of all religious sects, without any offense to their

freedom of conscience or of belief. The Confederation shall

take the necessary measures against such Cantons as shall not

fulfill these duties.

Article 28.

The customs are in the province of the Confederation. It may

levy export and import duties.

Article 29.

The collection of the federal customs shall be regulated

according to the following principles:

1. Duties ou imports:

(a) Materials necessary for the manufactures and agriculture

of the country shall be taxed as low as possible.

(b) It shall be the same with the necessities of life.

(c) Luxuries shall be subjected to the highest duties.

Unless there are imperative reasons to the contrary, these

principles shall be observed also in the conclusion of

treaties of commerce with foreign powers.

2. The duties on exports shall also be as low as possible.

3. The customs legislation shall include suitable provisions

for the continuance of commercial and market intercourse

across the frontier. The above provisions do not prevent the

Confederation from making temporary exceptional provisions,

under extraordinary circumstances.

{590}

Article 30.

The proceeds of the customs belong to the Confederation. The

indemnity ceases which hitherto has been paid to the Cantons

for the redemption of customs, for road and bridge tolls,

customs duties and other like dues. By exception, and on

account of their international alpine roads, the Cantons of

Uri, Grisons, Ticino, and Valais receive an annual indemnity,

which, considering all the circumstances, is fixed as follows:

Uri, 80,000 francs. Grisons, 200,000 francs. Ticino, 200,000

francs. Valais, 50,000 francs. The Cantons of Uri and Ticino

shall receive in addition, for clearing the snow from the

Saint Gotthard road, an annual indemnity of 40,000 francs, so

long as that road shall not be replaced by a railroad.

Article 31.

The freedom of trade and of industry is guaranteed throughout

the whole extent of the Confederation. The following subjects

are excepted:

(a) The salt and gunpowder monopoly, the federal customs,

import duties on wines and other spirituous liquors, and other

taxes on consumption expressly permitted by the Confederation,

according to article 32.

(b) [Added by Amendment of December 22, 1885.] The

manufacture and sale of alcohol, under Article 32 (ii).

(c) [Added by Amendment of December 22, 1885.] Drinking

places, and the retail trade in spirituous liquors; but

nevertheless the Cantons may by legislation subject the

business of keeping drinking places, and the retail trade in

spirituous liquors, to such restrictions as are required for

the public welfare.

(d) [Originally (b)] Measures of sanitary police against

epidemics and cattle diseases.

(e) [Originally (c)] Provisions in regard to the exercise of

trades and manufactures, in regard to taxes imposed thereon,

and in regard to the police of the roads. These provisions

shall not contain anything contrary to the principle of

freedom of trade and manufacture.

Article 32.

The Cantons are authorized to collect the import duties on

wines and other spirituous liquors, provided in Article 31

(a), always under the following restrictions:

(a) The collection of these import duties shall in no wise

impede transportation: commerce shall be obstructed as little

as possible and shall not be burdened with any other dues.

(b) If the articles imported for consumption are reexported

from the Canton, the duties paid on importation shall be

refunded, without further charges.

(c) Products of Swiss origin shall be less burdened than those

of foreign countries.

(d) The existing import duties on wines and other spirituous

liquors of Swiss origin shall not be increased by the Cantons

which already levy them. Such duties shall not be established

upon such articles by Cantons which do not at present collect

them.

(e) The laws and ordinances of the Cantons on the collection

of import duties shall, before their going into effect, be

submitted to the federal government for approval, in order

that it may, if necessary, cause the enforcement of the

preceding provisions. All the import duties now levied by the

Cantons, as well as the similar duties levied by the Communes,

shall cease without indemnity, at the end of the year 1890.

Article 32 (ii).

[Amendment of December 22, 1885.]

The Confederation is authorized by legislation to make

regulations for the manufacture and sale of alcohol. In this

legislation those products which are intended for exportation,

or which have been subjected to a process excluding them from

use as a beverage, shall be subjected to no tax. Distillation

of wine, fruit, and their by-products, of gentian root,

juniper berries, and similar products, is not subject to

federal legislation as to manufacture or tax. After the

cessation of the import duties on spirituous liquors, provided

for in Article 32 of the Constitution, the trade in liquors

not distilled shall not be subjected by the Cantons to any

special taxes or to other limitations than those necessary for

protection against adulterated or noxious beverages.

Nevertheless, the powers of the Cantons, defined in Article

31, are retained over the keeping of drinking places, and the

sale at retail of quantities less than two liters. The net

proceeds resulting from taxation on the sale of alcohol belong

to the Cantons in which the tax is levied. The net proceeds to

the Confederation from the internal manufacture of alcohol,

and the corresponding addition to the duty on imported

alcohol, are divided among all the Cantons, in proportion to

the actual population as ascertained from time to time by the

next preceding federal census. Out of the receipts therefrom

the Cantons must expend not less than one tenth in combating

drunkenness in its causes and effects. [For additional

articles of this Amendment see Temporary Provisions, Article

6, at the end of this Constitution. ]

Article 33.

The Cantons may require proofs of competency from those who

desire to practice a liberal profession. Provision shall be

made by federal legislation by which such persons may obtain

certificates of competency which shall be valid throughout the

Confederation..

Article 34.

The Confederation has power to enact uniform provisions as to

the labor of children in factories, and as to the duration of

labor fixed for adults therein, and as to the protection of

workmen against the operation of unhealthy and dangerous

manufactures. The transactions of emigration agents and of

organizations for insurance, not instituted by the State, are

subject to federal supervision and legislation.

Article 34 (ii).

[Amendment of December 17, 1890.]

The Confederation shall by law provide for insurance against

sickness and accident, with due regard for existing

sick-benefit funds. The Confederation may require

participation therein, either by all persons or by particular

classes of the population.

Article 35.

The opening of gaming houses is forbidden. Those which now

exist shall be closed December 31, 1877. The concessions which may

have been granted or renewed since the beginning of the year

1871 are declared invalid. The Confederation may also take

necessary measures concerning lotteries.

Article 36.

The posts and telegraphs in all Switzerland are controlled by

the Confederation. The proceeds of the posts and telegraphs

belong to the federal treasury. The rates shall, for all parts

of Switzerland, be fixed according to the same principle and

as fairly as possible. Inviolable secrecy of letters and

telegrams is guaranteed.

Article 37.

The Confederation exercises general oversight over those roads

and bridges in the maintenance of which it is interested. The

sums due to the Cantons mentioned in Article 30, on account of

their international alpine roads, shall be retained by the

federal government if such roads are not kept by them in

suitable condition.

{591}

Article 38.

The Confederation exercises all the exclusive rights

pertaining to coinage. It has the sole right of coining money.

It establishes the monetary system, and may enact provisions,

if necessary, for the rate of exchange of foreign coins.

[Article 39.

(Abrogated by the article following it).

The Confederation has the power to make by law general

provisions for the issue and redemption of bank notes. But it

shall not create any monopoly for the issue of bank notes, nor

make such notes a legal tender.]

Article 39.

[Substitute for former Article 39, adopted October 18,

1891.] The Confederation has the exclusive power to issue bank

notes and other like currency. The Confederation may exercise

the exclusive power over the issue of bank notes through a

National Bank carried on under a special department of

administration; or it may assign the right to a central joint

stock bank hereafter to be created, which shall be

administered under the coöperation and supervision of the

Confederation; but the privilege to take over the bank, by

paying a compensation, shall be retained. The bank possessed

of the exclusive right to issue notes shall have for its chief

function to regulate the circulation of money in Switzerland

and to facilitate exchange. To the Cantons shall be paid at

least two-thirds of the net profits of the bank beyond a

reasonable interest or a reasonable dividend to the

stockholders, and the necessary transfers to the reserve fund.

The bank and its branches shall not be subjected to taxation

by the Cantons. The Confederation shall not make bank notes

and other like currency legal tender, except in urgent need in

time of war. The principal office of the bank and the details

of its organization, as well as in general the carrying into

effect this article, shall be determined by federal law.

Article 40.

The Confederation fixes the standard of weights and measures.

The Cantons, under the supervision of the Confederation,

[shall] enforce the laws relating thereto.

Article 41.

The manufacture and the sale of gunpowder throughout

Switzerland pertain exclusively to the Confederation. Powders

used for blasting and not suitable for shooting are not

included in the monopoly.

Article 42.

The expenditures of the Confederation are met as follows:

(a) Out of the income from federal property.

(b) Out of the proceeds of the federal customs levied at the

Swiss frontier.

(c) Out of the proceeds of the posts and telegraphs.

(d) Out of the proceeds of the powder monopoly.

(e) Out of half of the gross receipts from the tax on military

exemptions levied by the Cantons.

(f) Out of the contributions of the Cantons, which shall be

determined by federal legislation, with special reference to

their wealth and taxable resources.

Article  43.

Every citizen of a Canton is a Swiss citizen. As such he may

participate, in the place where he is domiciled, in all

federal elections and popular votes, after having duly proven

his qualification as a voter. No person can exercise political

rights in more than one Canton. The Swiss settled as a citizen

outside his native Canton enjoys in the place where he is

domiciled, all the rights of the citizens of the Canton,

including all the rights of the communal citizen.

Participation in municipal and corporate property, and the

right to vote upon purely municipal affairs, are excepted from

such rights, unless the Canton by legislation has otherwise

provided. In cantonal and communal affairs, he gains the right

to vote after a residence of three months. Cantonal laws

relating to the right of Swiss citizens to settle outside the

Cantons in which they were born, and to vote on communal

questions, are submitted for the approval of the Federal

Council.

Article 44.

No Canton shall expel from its territory one of its own

citizens, nor deprive him of his rights, whether acquired by

birth or settlement. [Origine ou cité.] Federal legislation

shall fix the conditions upon which foreigners may be

naturalized, as well as those upon which a Swiss may give up

his citizenship in order to obtain naturalization in a foreign

country.

Article 45.

Every Swiss citizen has the right to settle anywhere in Swiss

territory, on condition of submitting a certificate of origin,

or a similar document. By exception, settlement may be refused

to or withdrawn from, those who, in consequence of a penal

conviction, are not entitled to civil rights. In addition,

settlement may be withdrawn from those who have been

repeatedly punished for serious offenses, and also from those

who permanently come upon the charge of public charity, and to

whom their Commune or Canton of origin, as the case may be,

refuses sufficient succor, after they have been officially

asked to grant it. In the Cantons where the poor are relieved

in their place of residence the permission to settle, if it

relates to citizens of the Canton, may be coupled with the

condition that they shall be able to work, and that they shall

not, in their former domicile in the Canton of origin, have

permanently become a charge on public charity. Every expulsion

on account of poverty must be approved by the government of

the Canton of domicile, and previously announced to the

government of the Canton of origin. A Canton in which a Swiss

establishes his domicile may not require security, nor impose

any special obligations for such establishment. In like manner

the Communes cannot require from Swiss domiciled in their

territory other contributions than those which they require

from their own subjects. A federal law shall establish the

maximum fee to be paid the Chancery for a permit to settle.

Article 46.

Persons settled in Switzerland are, as a rule, subjected to

the jurisdiction and legislation of their domicile, in all

that pertains to their personal status and property rights.

The Confederation shall by law make the provisions necessary

for the application of this principle and for the prevention

of double taxation of a citizen.

Article 47.

A federal law shall establish the distinction between

settlement and temporary residence, and shall at the same time

make the regulations to which Swiss temporary residents shall

be subjected as to their political rights and their civil

rights.

Article 48.

A federal law shall provide for the regulation of the expenses

of the illness and burial of indigent persons amenable to one

Canton, who have fallen ill or died in another Canton.

{592}

Article  49.

Freedom of conscience and belief is inviolable. No person can

be constrained to take part in a religious society, to attend

religious instruction, to perform a religious rite, or to

incur penalties of any kind whatever on account of religious

opinion. The person who exercises the parent's or guardian's

authority has the right, conformably to the principles above

stated, to regulate the religious education of children up to

the age of sixteen completed years. The exercise of civil or

political rights shall not be abridged by any provisions or

conditions whatever of an ecclesiastical or religious kind. No

person shall, on account of a religious belief, release

himself from the accomplishment of a civil duty. No person is

bound to pay taxes of which the proceeds are specifically

appropriated to the actual expenses of the worship of a

religious body to which he does not belong. The details of the

carrying out of this principle are reserved for federal

legislation.

Article 50.

The free exercise of religious worship is guaranteed within

the limits compatible with public order and good morals. The

Cantons and the Confederation may take suitable measures for

the preservation of public order and of peace between the

members of different religious bodies, and also against

encroachments of ecclesiastical authorities upon the rights of

citizens and of the State. Contests in public and private law,

which arise out of the formation or the division of religious

bodies, may be brought by appeal before the competent federal

authorities. No bishopric shall be created upon Swiss

territory without the consent of the Confederation.

Article 51.

The order of the Jesuits, and the societies affiliated with

them, shall not be received into any part of Switzerland; and

all action in church and school is forbidden to its members.

This prohibition may be extended also, by federal ordinance,

to other religious orders, the action of which is dangerous to

the state or disturbs the peace between sects.

Article 52.

The foundation of new convents or religious orders, and the

reestablishment of those which have been suppressed, are

forbidden.

Article 53.

The civil status and the keeping of records thereof is subject

to the civil authority. The Confederation shall by law enact

detailed provisions upon this subject. The control of places o

burial is subject to the civil authority. It shall take care

that every deceased person may be decently interred.

Article 54.

The right of marriage is placed under the protection of the

Confederation. No limitation upon marriage shall be based upon

sectarian grounds, nor upon the poverty of either of the

contractants, nor on their conduct, nor on any other

consideration of good order. A marriage contracted in a Canton

or in a foreign country, conformably to the law which is there

in force, shall be recognized as valid throughout the

Confederation. By marriage the wife acquires the citizenship

of her husband. Children born before the marriage are made

legitimate by the subsequent marriage of their parents. No tax

upon admission or similar tax shall be levied upon either

party to a marriage.

Article 55.

The freedom of the press is guaranteed. Nevertheless the

Cantons by law enact the measures necessary for the

suppression of abuses. Such laws are submitted for the

approval of the Federal Council. The Confederation may enact

penalties for the suppression of press offenses directed

against it or its authorities.

Article 56.

Citizens have the right of forming associations, provided that

there be in the purpose of such associations, or in the means

which they employ, nothing unlawful or dangerous to the state.

The Cantons by law take the measures necessary for the

suppression of abuses.

Article 57.

The right of petition is guaranteed.

Article 58.

No person shall be deprived of his constitutional judge.

Therefore no extraordinary tribunal shall be established.

Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is abolished.

Article 59.

Suits for personal claims against a solvent debtor having a

domicile in Switzerland, must be brought before the judge of

his domicile; in consequence, his property outside the Canton

in which he is domiciled may not be attached in suits for

personal claims. Nevertheless, with reference to foreigners,

the provisions of international treaties shall not thereby be

affected. Imprisonment for debt is abolished.

Article 60.

All the Cantons are bound to treat the citizens of the other

confederated States like those of their own State in

legislation and in all judicial proceedings.

Article 61.

Civil judgments definitely pronounced in any Canton may be

executed anywhere in Switzerland.

Article 62.

The exit duty on property [traite foraine] is abolished in the

interior of Switzerland, as well as the right of redemption

[droit de retrait] by citizens of one Canton against those of

other confederated States.

Article  63.

The exit duty on property is abolished as respects foreign

countries, provided reciprocity be observed.

Article 64.

The Confederation has power to make laws:

On legal competency.

On all legal questions relating to commerce and to

transactions affecting chattels (law of commercial

obligations, including commercial law and law of exchange).

On literary and artistic copyright.

On the protection of new patterns and forms, and of inventions

which are represented in models and are capable of industrial

application. [Amendment of December 20, 1887.]

On the legal collection of debts and on bankruptcy. The

administration of justice remains with the Cantons, save as

affected by the powers of the Federal Court.

Article 65.

[(Abrogated by Amendment of June 20, 1879.) The

death penalty is abolished; nevertheless the provisions of

military law in time of war shall be observed. Corporal

punishment is abolished.]

Article 65.

[Amendment of June 20,1879.]

No death penalty shall be pronounced for a political crime.

Corporal punishment is abolished.

Article 66.

The Confederation by law fixes the limits within which a Swiss

citizen may be deprived of his political rights.

Article 67.

The Confederation by law provides for the extradition of

accused persons from one Canton to another; nevertheless,

extradition shall not be made obligatory for political

offenses and offenses of the press.

Article 68.

Measures are taken by federal law for the incorporation of

persons without country (Heimathlosen), and for the prevention

of new cases of that nature.

Article 69.

Legislation concerning measures of sanitary police against

epidemic and cattle diseases, causing a common danger, is

included in the powers of the Confederation.

Article 70.

The Confederation has power to expel from its territory

foreigners who endanger the internal or external safety of

Switzerland.

{593}

Chapter II.

Article 71.

With the reservation of the rights of the people and of the

Cantons (Articles 89 and 121), the supreme authority of the

Confederation is exercised by the Federal Assembly, [Assemblée

fédérale; Bundesversammlung] which consists of two sections or

councils, to wit:

(A) The National Council.

(B) The Council of States.

Article 72.

The National Council [Conseil National; Nationalrath] is

composed of representatives of the Swiss people, chosen in the

ratio of one member for each 20,000 persons of the total

population. Fractions of upwards of 10,000 persons are

reckoned as 20,000. Every Canton, and in the divided Cantons

every Half-Canton, chooses at least one representative.

Article 73.

The elections for the National Council are direct. They are

held in federal electoral districts, which in no case shall be

formed out of parts of different Cantons.

Article 74.

Every Swiss who has completed twenty years of age, and who in

addition is not excluded from the rights of a voter by the

legislation of the Canton in which he is domiciled, has the

right to vote in elections and popular votes. Nevertheless,

the Confederation by law may establish uniform regulations for

the exercise of such right.

Article 75.

Every lay Swiss citizen who has the right to vote is eligible

for membership in the National Council.

Article 76.

The National Council is chosen for three years, and entirely

renewed at each general election.

Article 77.

Representatives to the Council of States, members of the

Federal Council, and officials appointed by that Council,

shall not at the same time be members of the National Council.

Article 78.

The National Council chooses out of its own number, for each

regular or extraordinary session, a President and a

Vice-President. A member who has held the office of President

during a regular session is ineligible either as President, or

Vice-President at the next regular session. The same member

may not be Vice-President during two consecutive regular

sessions. When the votes are equally divided the President has

a casting vote; in elections he votes in the same manner as

other members.

Article 79.

The members of the National Council receive a compensation out

of the federal treasury.

Article 80.

The Council of States [Conseil des États; Ständerath] consists

of forty-four representatives of the Cantons. Each Canton

appoints two representatives; in the divided Cantons, each

Half-State chooses one.

Article 81.

The members of the National Council and those of the Federal

Council may not be representatives in the Council of States.

Article 82.

The Council of States chooses out of its own number for each

regular or extraordinary session a President and a

Vice-President. Neither the President nor the Vice-President

can be chosen from among the representatives of the Canton

from which the President has been chosen for the regular

session next preceding. Representatives of the same Canton

cannot occupy the position of Vice-President during two

consecutive regular sessions. When the votes are equally

divided the President has a casting vote; in elections he

votes in the same manner as the other members.

Article 83.

Representatives in the Council of States receive a

compensation from the Cantons.

Article 84.

The National Council and the Council of States consider all

the subjects which the present Constitution places within the

competence of the Confederation, and which are not assigned to

any other federal authority.

Article 85.

The subjects within the competence of the two Councils are

particularly the following:

1. Laws on the organization of and election of federal

authorities.

2. Laws and ordinances on subjects which by the Constitution

are placed within the federal competence.

3. The salary and compensation of members of the federal

governing bodies and of the Federal Chancery; the creation of

federal offices and the determination of salaries therefor.

4. The election of the Federal Council, of the Federal Court,

and of the Chancellor, and also of the Commander-in-chief of

the federal army. The Confederation may by law assign to the

Federal Assembly other powers of election or of confirmation.

5. Alliances and treaties with foreign powers, and also the

approval of treaties made by the Cantons between themselves or

with foreign powers; nevertheless the treaties made by the

Cantons shall be brought before the Federal Assembly only in

case the Federal Council or another Canton protests.

6. Measures for external safety and also for the maintenance

of the independence and neutrality of Switzerland; the

declaration of war and the conclusion of peace.

7. The guaranty of the Constitution and of the territory of

the Cantons; intervention in consequence of such guaranty;

measures for the internal safety of Switzerland, for the

maintenance of peace and order; amnesty and pardon.

8. Measures for the preservation of the Constitution, for

carrying out the guaranty of the cantonal constitutions, and

for fulfilling federal obligations.

9. The power of controlling the federal army.

10. The determination of the annual budget, the audit of

public accounts, and federal ordinances authorizing loans.

11. The superintendence of federal administration and of

federal courts.

12. Protests against the decisions of the Federal Council upon

administrative conflicts. (Article 113.)

13. Conflicts of jurisdiction between federal authorities.

14. The amendment of the federal Constitution.

Article 86.

The two Councils assemble annually in regular session upon a

day to be fixed by the standing orders. They are convened in

extra session by the Federal Council upon the request either

of one fourth of the members of the National Council, or of

five Cantons.

Article 87.

In either Council a quorum is a majority of the total number

of its members.

Article 88.

In the National Council and in the Council of States a

majority of those voting is required.

Article 89.

Federal laws, enactments, and resolutions shall be passed only

by the agreement of the two Councils. Federal laws shall be

submitted for acceptance or rejection by the people, if the

demand is made by 30,000 voters or by eight Cantons. The same

principle applies to federal resolutions which have a general

application, and which are not of an urgent nature.

Article 90.

The Confederation shall by law establish the forms and

intervals to be observed in popular votes.

{594}

Article 91.

Members of either Council vote without instructions.

Article 92.

Each Council takes action separately. But in the case of the

elections specified in Article 85, § 4, of pardons, or of

deciding a  conflict of jurisdiction (Art. 85, § 13), the two

Councils meet in joint session, under the direction of the

President of the National Council, and a decision is made by

the majority of the members of both Councils present and

voting.

Article 93.

Measures may originate in either Council, and may be

introduced by any of their members. The Cantons may by

correspondence exercise the same right.

Article 94.

As a rule, the sittings of the Councils are public.

Article 95.

The supreme direction and executive authority of the

Confederation is exercised by a Federal Council [Conseil

fédéral; Bundesrath], composed of seven members.

Article 96.

The members of the Federal Council are chosen for three years

by the Councils in joint session from among all the Swiss

citizens eligible to the National Council. But not more than

one member of the Federal Council shall be chosen from the

same Canton. The Federal Council is chosen anew after each

election of the National Council. Vacancies which occur in the

course of the three years are filled at the first ensuing

session of the Federal Assembly, for the remainder of the term

of office.

Article 97.

The members of the Federal Council shall not, during their

term of office, occupy any other office, either in the service

of the Confederation or in a Canton, or follow any other

pursuit, or exercise a profession.

Article 98.

The Federal Council is presided over by the President of the

Confederation. There is a Vice-President. The President of the

Confederation and the Vice-President of the Federal Council

are chosen for one year by the Federal Assembly from among the

members of the Council. The retiring President shall not be

chosen as President or Vice-President for the year ensuing.

The same member shall not hold the office of Vice-President

during two consecutive years.

Article 99.

The President of the Confederation and the other members of

the Federal Council receive an annual salary from the federal

treasury.

Article 100.

A quorum of the Federal Council consists of four members.

Article 101.

The members of the Federal Council have the right to speak but

not to vote in either house of the Federal Assembly, and also

the right to make motions on the subject under consideration.

Article 102.

The powers and the duties of the Federal Council, within the

limits of this Constitution, are particularly the following:

1. It conducts federal affairs, conformably to the laws and

resolutions of the Confederation.

2. It takes care that the Constitution, federal laws and

ordinances, and also the provisions of federal concordats, be

observed; upon its own initiative or upon complaint, it takes

measures necessary to cause these instruments to be observed,

unless the consideration of redress be among the subjects

which should be brought before the Federal Court, according to

Article 113.

3. It takes care that the guaranty of the cantonal

constitutions be observed.

4. It introduces bills or resolutions into the Federal

Assembly, and gives its opinion upon the proposals submitted

to it by the Councils or the Cantons.

5. It executes the laws and resolutions of the Confederation

and the judgments of the Federal Court, and also the

compromises or decisions in arbitration upon disputes between

Cantons.

6. It makes those appointments which are not assigned to the

Federal Assembly, Federal Court, or other authority.

7. It examines the treaties made by Cantons with each other,

or with foreign powers, and approves them, if proper. (Article

85, § 5.)

8. It watches over the external interests of the

Confederation, particularly the maintenance of its

international relations, and is, in general, intrusted with

foreign relations.

9. It watches over the external safety of Switzerland, over

the maintenance of independence and neutrality.

10. It watches over the internal safety of the Confederation,

over the maintenance of peace and order.

11. In cases of urgency, and when the Federal Assembly is not

in session, the Federal Council has power to raise the

necessary troops and to employ them, with the reservation that

it shall immediately summon the Councils if the number of

troops exceeds two thousand men, or if they remain in arms

more than three weeks.

12. It administers the military establishment of the

Confederation, and all other branches of administration

committed to the Confederation.

13. It examines such laws and ordinances of the Cantons as

must be submitted for its approval; it exercises supervision

over such departments of the cantonal administration as are

placed under its control.

14. It administers the finances of the Confederation,

introduces the budget, and submits accounts of receipts and

expenses.

15. It supervises the conduct of an the officials and

employees of the federal administration.

16. It submits to the Federal Assembly at each regular session

an account of its administration and a report of the condition

of the Confederation, internal as well as external, and calls

attention to the measures which it deems desirable for the

promotion of the general welfare. It also makes special

reports when the Federal Assembly or either Council requires

it.

Article 103.

The business of the Federal Council is distributed by

departments among its members. This distribution has the

purpose only of facilitating the examination and despatch of

business; decisions emanate from the Federal Council as a

single authority.

Article 104.

The Federal Council and its departments have power to call in

experts on special subjects.

Article 105.

A Federal Chancery [Chancellerie fédérale; Bundeskanzlei], at

the head of which is placed the Chancellor of the

Confederation, conducts the secretary's business for the

Federal Assembly and the Federal Council. The Chancellor is

chosen by the Federal Assembly for the term of three years, at

the same time as the Federal Council. The Chancery is under

the special supervision of the Federal Council. A federal law

shall provide for the organization of the Chancery.

Article 106.

There shall be a Federal Court [Tribunal fédéral;

Bundesgericht] for the administration of justice in federal

concerns. There shall be, moreover, a jury for criminal cases.

(Article 112.)

{595}

Article 107.

The members and alternates of the Federal Court shall be

chosen by the Federal Assembly, which shall take care that all

three national languages are represented therein. A law shall

establish the organization of the Federal Court and of its

sections, the number of judges and alternates, their term of

office, and their salary.

Article 108.

Any Swiss citizen eligible to the National Council may be

chosen to the Federal Court. The members of the Federal

Assembly and of the Federal Council, and officials appointed

by those authorities, shall not at the same time belong to the

Federal Court. The members of the Federal Court shall not,

during their term of office, occupy any other office, either

in the service of the Confederation or in a Canton, nor engage

in any other pursuit, nor practice a profession.

Article 109.

The Federal Court organizes its own Chancery and appoints the

officials thereof.

Article 110.

The Federal Court has jurisdiction in civil suits:

1. Between the Confederation and the Cantons.

2. Between the Confederation on one part and corporations or

individuals on the other part, when such corporations or

individuals are plaintiffs, and when the amount involved is of

a degree of importance to be determined by federal

legislation.

3. Between Cantons.

4. Between Cantons on one part and corporations or individuals

on the other part, when one of the parties demands it, and the

amount involved is of a degree of importance to be determined

by federal legislation. It further has jurisdiction in suits

concerning the status of persons not subjects of any

government (heimathlosat), and the conflicts which arise

between Communes of different Cantons respecting the right of

local citizenship. [Droit de cité.]

Article 111.

The Federal Court is bound to give judgment in other cases

when both parties agree to abide by its decision, and when the

amount involved is of a degree of importance to be determined

by federal legislation.

Article 112.

The Federal Court, assisted by a jury to decide upon questions

of fact, has criminal jurisdiction in:

1. Cases of high treason against the Confederation, of

rebellion or violence against federal authorities.

2. Crimes and misdemeanors against the law of nations.

3, Political crimes and misdemeanors which are the cause or

the result of disturbances which occasion armed federal

intervention.

4. Cases against officials appointed by a federal authority,

where such authority relegates them to the Federal Court.

Article 113.

The Federal Court further has jurisdiction:

1. Over conflicts of jurisdiction between federal authorities

on one part and cantonal authorities on the other part.

2. Disputes between Cantons, when such disputes are upon

questions of public law.

3. Complaints of violation of the constitutional rights of

citizens, and complaints of individuals for the violation of

concordats or treaties. Conflicts of administrative

jurisdiction are reserved, and are to be settled in a manner

prescribed by federal legislation. In all the fore-mentioned

cases the Federal Court shall apply the laws passed by the

Federal Assembly and those resolutions of the Assembly which

have a general import. It shall in like manner conform to

treaties which shall have been ratified by the Federal

Assembly.

Article 114.

Besides the cases specified in Articles 110, 112, and 113, the

Confederation may by law place other matters within the

jurisdiction of the Federal Court; in particular, it may give

to that court powers intended to insure the uniform

application of the laws provided for in Article 64.

Article 115.

All that relates to the location of the authorities of the

Confederation is a subject for federal legislation.

Article 116.

The three principal languages spoken in Switzerland, German,

French, and Italian, are national languages of the

Confederation.

Article  117.

The officials of the Confederation are responsible for their

conduct in office. A federal law shall enforce this

responsibility.

Chapter III.

(These four articles abrogated by the four articles following

them, 118-122.) Article 118. The Federal Constitution may at

any time be amended.

[Article 119.

Amendment is secured through the forms required for passing

federal laws.]

[Article 120.

When either Council of the Federal Assembly passes a

resolution for amendment of the Federal Constitution and the

other Council does not agree; or when fifty thousand Swiss

voters demand amendment, the question whether the Federal

Constitution ought to be amended is, in either case, submitted

to a vote of the Swiss people, voting yes or no. If in either

case the majority of the Swiss citizens who vote pronounce in

the affirmative, there shall be a new election of both

Councils for the purpose of preparing amendments.]

[Article 121.

The amended Federal Constitution shalt be in force when it

has been adopted by the majority of Swiss citizens who take

part in the vote thereon and by a majority of the States. In

making up a majority of the States the vote of a Half-Canton

is counted as half a vote. The result of the popular vote in

each Canton is considered to be the vote of the State.]

Article 118.

[Amendment of July 5, 1891.] The Federal Constitution

may at any time be amended as a whole or in part.

Article 119.

[Amendment of July 5, 1891.] General revision is

secured through the forms required for passing the federal

laws.

Article 120.

When either Council of the Federal Assembly passes a

resolution for general revision and the other Council does not

agree; or when fifty thousand Swiss voters demand general

revision the question whether there shall be such a revision

must, in either case, be submitted to the popular vote of the

Swiss people. If, in either case, the majority of the Swiss

citizens who vote on the question pronounce in the

affirmative, there shall be a new election of both Councils

for the purpose of preparing a general revision.

Article 121.

[Amendment of July 5, 1891.] Specific amendments may be

brought forward either through a Proposition of the People

[Volksanregung] (Initiative) or by Federal legislation. A

Proposition of the People means a demand supported by fifty

thousand Swiss voters, either for suspension, repeal, or

alteration of specified articles of the Federal Constitution.

If by means of the method of Proposition of the People several

different subjects are brought forward either for alteration

or for incorporation into the Federal Constitution, each one

of those separate subjects must be presented in a separate

demand for a popular vote [Initintivbegehren]. The demand for

a popular vote may take the form either of a request in

general terms, or of a definite draft. If such a demand be

made in the form of a request in general terms and the

Councils of the Federal Assembly agree thereto, the said

Councils shall thereupon prepare a specific amendment of the

purport indicated by those asking amendment; and such specific

amendment shall be submitted to the people and to the states

for their acceptance or rejection. In case the Councils of the

Federal Assembly do not agree thereto, the question of

specific amendment shall then be subjected to the people for a

popular vote; and in case the majority of the Swiss voters

vote therefor, an amendment of the purport indicated by the

vote of the people shall then be prepared by the Federal

Assembly. In case the request shall take the form of a

specific draft and the Federal Assembly agree thereto, the

draft is then to be submitted to the people and the States for

acceptance or rejection. If the Federal Assembly shall not

agree thereto it may either prepare a substitute draft for

itself, or it may propose the rejection of the proposition.

The proposition to reject such substitute draft or proposition

shall be submitted to the vote of the people and of the States

at the same time with the general Proposition of the People.

{596}

Article 122.

[Amendment of July 5, 1891.] The procedure upon the

Proposition of the People and the popular votes concerning

amendment of the Federal Constitution, shall be regulated in

detail by a Federal Law.

Article 123.

[Amendment of July 5,1891.] The amended Federal

Constitution or the specific amendments proposed, as the case

may be, shall be in force when adopted by the majority of the

Swiss citizens who take part in the vote thereon and by a

majority of the Cantons. In making up the majority of the

States the vote of a half of each Canton is counted as half a

vote. The result of the popular vote in each Canton is

considered to be the vote of the state.

Temporary Provisions.

Article 1.

The proceeds of the posts and customs shall be divided upon

the present basis, until such time as the Confederation shall

take upon itself the military expenses up to this time borne

by the Cantons. Federal legislation shall provide, besides,

that the loss which may be occasioned to the finances of

certain Cantons by the sum of the charges which result from

Articles 20, 30, 36 (§ 2), and 42 (e), shall fall upon such

Cantons only gradually, and shall not attain its full effect

till after a transition period of some years. Those Cantons

which, at the going into effect of Article 20 of the

Constitution, have not fulfilled the military obligations

which are imposed upon them by the former Constitution, or by

federal laws, shall be bound to carry them out at their own

expense.

Article 2.

The provisions of the federal laws and of the cantonal

concordats, constitutions or cantonal laws, which are contrary

to this Constitution, cease to have effect by the adoption of

the Constitution or the publication of the laws for which it

provides.

Article 3.

The new provisions relating to the organization and

jurisdiction of the Federal Court take effect only after the

publication of federal laws thereon.

Article 4.

A delay of five years is allowed to Cantons for the

establishment of free instruction in primary public education.

(Art. 27.)

Article 5.

Those persons who practice a liberal profession, and who,

before the publication of the federal law provided for in

Article 33, have obtained a certificate of competence from a

Canton or a joint authority representing several Cantons, may

pursue that profession throughout the Confederation.

Article 6.

[Amendment of December 22, 1885. For the remainder of

this amendment see article 32 (ii).] If a federal law for

carrying out Article 32 (ii) be passed before the end of 1890,

the import duties levied on spirituous liquors by the Cantons

and Communes, according to Article 32, cease on the going into

effect of such law. If, in such case, the shares of any Canton

or Commune, out of the sums to be divided, are not sufficient

to equal the average annual net proceeds of the taxes they

have levied on spirituous liquors in the years 1880 to 1884

inclusive, the Cantons and Communes affected shall, till the

end of 1890, receive the amount of the deficiency out of the

amount which is to be divided among the other Cantons

according to population; and the remainder only shall be

divided among such other Cantons and Communes, according to

population. The Confederation shall further provide by law

that for such Cantons or Communes as may suffer financial loss

through the effect of this amendment, such loss shall not come

upon them immediately in its full extent, but gradually up to

the year 1895. The indemnities thereby made necessary shall be

previously taken out of the net proceeds designated in Article

32 (ii), paragraph 4.

Thus resolved by the National Council to be submitted to the

popular vote of the Swiss people and of the Cantons. Bern,

January 31, 1874. Ziegler, President. Schiess, Secretary.

Thus resolved by the Council of States, to be submitted to the

popular vote of the Swiss people and of the Cantons. Bern,

January 31, 1874. A. Kopp, President. J. L. Lutscher,

Secretary.

----------CONSTITUTION OF THE SWISS CONFEDERATION: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781.

The Articles of Confederation.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1781,

and 1783-1787.

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1787-1789, and 1791-1870.

A sketch of the history of the framing and adoption of the

Federal Constitution of the United States will be found under

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787,

and 1787-1789.

The following text of the original instrument, with the

subsequent amendments to it, is one prepared by Professor

Albert Bushnell Hart, and is the result of a careful

comparison with the original manuscripts, preserved in the

State Department at Washington. "It is intended to be

absolutely exact in word, spelling, capitalization and

punctuation. A few headings and paragraph numbers, inserted

for convenience of reference, are indicated by brackets."

"Those parts of the Constitution which were temporary in

their nature, or which have been superseded or altered by

later amendments, are included within the signs []." This

text, originally printed in the "American History Leaflets,"

is reproduced with Professor Hart's consent. The paragraphing

has been altered, to economize space, but it is otherwise

exactly reproduced:

{597}

"WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more

perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,

provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,

and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our

Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the

United States of America.

Article I.

Section 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a

Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate

and House of Representatives.

Section 2

[§ 1.]

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members

chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,

and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications

requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the

State Legislature.

[Footnote: Modified by Fourteenth Amendment.]

[§ 2.]

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have

attained to the Age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years

a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when

elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be

chosen.

[§ 3.]

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among

the several States which may be included within this Union,

according to their respective Numbers, [which shall be

determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons,

including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and

excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other

Persons.]

[Footnote: Superseded by Fourteenth Amendment.]

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after

the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and

within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as

they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall

not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall

have at Least one Representative; [and until such enumeration

shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to

chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence

Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey

four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia

ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia

three.]

[Footnote: Temporary clause.]

[§ 4.]

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State,

the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election

to fill such Vacancies.

[§ 5.]

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and

other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Section 3.

[§ 1.]

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two

Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof,

for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

[§ 2.]

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of

the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be

into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first

Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year,

of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and

of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so

that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if

Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the

Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof

may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the

Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

[§ 3.]

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to

the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the

United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an

Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

[§ 4.]

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of

the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally

divided.

[§ 5.]

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a

President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President,

or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the

United States.

[§ 6.]

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or

Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried,

the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be

convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members

present.

[§ 7.]

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than

to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy

any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States:

but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and

subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment,

according to Law.

Section 4.

[§ 1.]

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators

and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the

Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law

make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of

chusing Senators.

[§ 2.]

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and

such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless

they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

Section 5.

[§ 1.]

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and

Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each

shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number

may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel

the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under

such Penalties as each House may provide.

[§ 2.]

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish

its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the

Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

[§ 3.]

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from

time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in

their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the

Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire

of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

[§ 4.]

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without

the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days,

nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall

be sitting.

Section 6.

[§ 1.]

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation

for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of

the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases,

except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged

from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their

respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the

same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall

not be questioned in any other Place.

{598}

[§ 2.]

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which

he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the

Authority of the United States, which shall have been created,

or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during

such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United

States, shall be a Member of either House during his

Continuance in Office.

Section 7.

[§ 1.]

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of

Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with

Amendments as on other Bills.

[§ 2.]

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of

Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law,

be presented to the President of the United States; If he

approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with

his Objections to that House in which it shall have

originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their

Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such

Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass

the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to

the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered,

and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a

Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be

determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons

voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the

Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be

returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted)

after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a

Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the

Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which

Case it shall not be a Law.

[§ 3.]

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of

the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary

(except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to

the President of the United States; and before the same shall

take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by

him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House

of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations

prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Section 8.

The Congress shall have Power

[§ 1.]

To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay

the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general

Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and

Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[§ 2.]

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

[§ 3.]

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the

several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

[§ 4.]

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform

Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United

States;

[§ 5.]

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign

Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

[§ 6.]

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities

and current Coin of the United States;

[§ 7.]

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

[§ 8.]

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by

securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the

exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

[§ 9.]

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

[§ 10.]

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the

high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

[§ 11.]

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make

Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

[§ 12.]

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to

that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

[§ 13.]

To provide and maintain a Navy;

[§ 14.]

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land

and naval Forces;

[§ 15.]

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws

of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

[§ 16.]

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the

Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be

employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the

States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the

Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline

prescribed by Congress;

[§ 17.]

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever,

over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by

Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress,

become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to

exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the

Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same

shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,

dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

[§ 18.]

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for

carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other

Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the

United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section 9.

[§ 1.]

[The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the

States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be

prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand

eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on

such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.]

[Footnote: Temporary provision.]

[§ 2.]

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be

suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the

public Safety may require it.

[§ 3.]

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

[Footnote: Extended by the first eight Amendments.]

[§ 4.]

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in

Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed

to be taken.

[§ 5.]

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any

State.

[§ 6.]

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or

Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor

shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to

enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

[§ 7.]

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence

of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and

Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money

shall be published from time to time.

[§ 8.]

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:

And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under

them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of

any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind

whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

[Footnote: Extended by Ninth and Tenth Amendments.]

Section 10.

[§ 1.]

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or

Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin

Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and

silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of

Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation

of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

{599}

[§ 2.]

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any

Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be

absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws: and

the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State

on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of

the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the

Revision and Control of the Congress.

[§ 3.]

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty

of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace,

enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or

with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually

invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of

delay.

[Footnote: Extended by Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth

Amendments.]

Article II.

Section 1.

[§ 1.]

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the

United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the

Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President,

chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

[§ 2.]

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature

thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole

Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may

be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative,

or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the

United States, shall be appointed an Elector. [The Electors

shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for

two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant

of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List

of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for

each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit

sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States,

directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the

Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of

Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes

shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number

of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority

of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be

more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number

of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately

chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person

have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the

said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in

chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the

Representation from each State having one Vote: A quorum for

this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two

thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall

be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of

the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes

of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there

should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate

shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.]

[Footnote: Superseded by Twelfth Amendment.]

[§ 3.]

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors,

and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day

shall be the same throughout the United States.

[§ 4.]

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the

United States, at the time of the Adoption of this

Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall

not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been

fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

[§ 5.]

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his

Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and

Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice

President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of

Removal, Death, Resignation, or Inability, both of the

President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall

then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly,

until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be

elected.

[§ 6.]

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his

Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor

diminished during the Period for which he shall have been

elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other

Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

[§ 7.]

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take

the following Oath or Affirmation:--

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully

execute the Office of President of the United States, and

will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and

defend the Constitution of the United States."

Section 2.

[§ 1.]

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy

of the United States, and of the Militia of the several

States, when called into the actual Service of the United

States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the

principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon

any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective

Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and

Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in

Cases of Impeachment.

[§ 2.]

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the

Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators

present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the

Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors,

other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme

Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose

Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which

shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest

the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think

proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in

the Heads of Departments.

[§ 3.]

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that

may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting

Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next

Session.

Section 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of

the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration

such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he

may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or

either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with

Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to

such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive

Ambassadors and other public Ministers: he shall take Care

that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all

the Officers of the United States.

{600}

Section 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the

United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment

for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes

and Misdemeanors.

Article III.

Section 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in

one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress

may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both

of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices

during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for

their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished

during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2.

[§ 1.]

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and

Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the

United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made,

under their Authority;

--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers

and Consuls;

--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;

--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a

Party;

--to Controversies between two or more States;

--between a State and Citizens of another State;

[Footnote: Limited by Eleventh Amendment.]

--between Citizens of different States,

--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under

Grants of different States, and between a State, or the

Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

[§ 2.]

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and

Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the

supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the

other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have

appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such

Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall

make.

[§ 3.]

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall

be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where

the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not

committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place

or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3.

[§ 1.]

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in

levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies,

giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of

Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same

overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

[§ 2.]

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of

Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of

Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person

attainted.

Article IV.

Section 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the

public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other

State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the

Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be

proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2.

[§ 1.]

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges

and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

[Footnote: Extended by Fourteenth Amendment.]

[§ 2.]

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other

Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another

State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State

from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the

State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

[§ 3.]

[No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the

Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of

any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service

or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to

whom such Service or Labour may be due.]

[Footnote: Superseded by Thirteenth Amendment.]

Section 3.

[§ 1.]

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;

but no new State shall be formed or erected within the

Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by

the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States,

without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States

concerned as well as of the Congress.

[§ 2.]

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all

needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or

other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in

this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any

Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Section 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union

a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of

them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature,

or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened)

against domestic Violence.

Article V.

The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it

necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or,

on the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the

several States, shall call a Convention for proposing

Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all

Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when

ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several

States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one

or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the

Congress; Provided that [no Amendment which may be made prior

to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any

Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth

Section of the first Article; and] that no State, without its

Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the

Senate.

[Footnote: "[no amendment...]" is a Temporary provision.]

Article VI.

[§ 1.]

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the

Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the

United States under this Constitution, as under the

Confederation.

[Footnote: Extended by Fourteenth Amendment, Section 4.]

[§ 2.]

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which

shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or

which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States,

shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every

State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or

Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[§ 3.]

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the

Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive

and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the

several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to

support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be

required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust

under the United States.

Article VII.

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be

sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between

the States so ratifying the Same.

{601}

DONE in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States

present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our

Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the

Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In

Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our names.

Go WASHINGTON--Presidt and deputy from Virginia.

DELAWARE.

Geo: Read

John Dickinson

Gunning Bedford jun

Richard Bassett

Jaco: Broom

NEW HAMPSHIRE.

John Langdon

Nicholas Gilman

MASSACHUSETTS.

Nathaniel Gorham

Rufus King

MARYLAND.

James McHenry

Dan of St. Thos. Jenifer

Danl Carroll

CONNECTICUT.

Wm. Sami. Johnson

Roger Sherman

VIRGINIA.

John Blair

James Madison Jr.

NEW YORK.

Alexander Hamilton

NORTH CAROLINA.

Wm. Blount

Richd. Dobbs Spaight

Hu Williamson

NEW JERSEY.

Wil: Livingston

Wm: Paterson.

David Brearley

Jona: Dayton

SOUTH CAROLINA.

J. Rutledge,

Charles Pinckney

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney

Pierce Butler.

PENNSYLVANIA.

B Franklin

Thos. Fitz Simons

Thomas Mifflin

Jared Ingersoll

Robt. Morris

James Wilson.

Geo. Clymer

Gouv Morris

GEORGIA.

William Few

Abr Baldwin

[Footnote: These signatures have no other legal force than

that of attestation.]

ARTICLES in addition to and Amendment of the Constitution of

the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and

ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant

to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

[Footnote: This heading appears only in the joint resolution

submitting the first ten amendments.]

[Article 1.]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of

religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or

abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right

of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the

Government for a redress of grievances.

[Article II.]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a

free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

shall not be infringed.

[Article III.]

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house,

without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a

manner to be prescribed by law.

[Article IV.]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,

papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and

seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,

but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and

particularly describing the place to be searched, and the

persons or things to be seized.

[Article V.]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise

infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a

Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval

forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of

War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the

same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor

shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness

against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or

property, without due process of law; nor shall private

property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[Article VI.]

In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right

to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the

State and district wherein the crime shall have been

committed, which district shall have been previously

ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause

of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against

him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his

favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

[Article VII.]

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall

exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be

preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise

re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according

to the rules of the common law.

[Article VIII.]

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines

imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

[Article IX.]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall

not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the

people.

[Article X.]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the

Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved

to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Footnote: Amendments First to Tenth appear to have been in

force from November 3, 1791. (See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.

1791.)]

[Article XI.]

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed

to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or

prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of

another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign

State.

[Footnote: Proclaimed to be in force January 8, 1798.]

{602}

[Article XII.]

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote

by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at

least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with

themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted

for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for

as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all

persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for

as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which

lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the

seat of the government of the United States, directed to the

President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall,

in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives,

open all the certificates and the votes shall then be

counted;--The person having the greatest number of votes for

President, shall be the President, if such number be a

majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no

person have such majority, then from the persons having the

highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted

for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose

immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the

President, the votes shall be taken by states, the

representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for

this purpose shall consist of a member or members from

two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states

shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of

Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the

right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day

of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as

President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional

disability of the President.--The person having the greatest

number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the

Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole

number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a

majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the

Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the

purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of

Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be

necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally

ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to

that of Vice-President of the United States.

[Footnote: Proclaimed to be in force September 25, 1804.]

Article XIII.

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a

punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly

convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place

subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by

appropriate legislation.

[Footnote: Proclaimed to be in force December 18, 1865.

[See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (JANUARY).]]

Article XIV.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and

subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the

United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State

shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the

privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor

shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or

property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person

within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States

according to their respective numbers, counting the whole

number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of

electors for President and Vice President of the United

States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and

Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the

Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants

of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of

the United States, or in any way abridged, except for

participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of

representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion

which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole

number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or

elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office,

civil or military, under the United States, or under any

State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of

Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a

member of any State legislature, or as an executive or

judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of

the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or

rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the

enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of

each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States,

authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of

pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection

or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United

States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or

obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion

against the United States, or any claim for the loss or

emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and

claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate

legislation, the provisions of this article.

[Footnote: Proclaimed to be in force July 28. 1868.

[See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865-1866

(DECEMBER-APRIL); 1866 (JUNE),

and 1866-1867 (OCTOBER-MARCH).]]

Article XV.

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not

be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on

account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by

appropriate legislation."

[Footnote: Proclaimed to be in force March 30, 1870.

[See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1869-1870.]]

----------CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF VENEZUELA.

The following text is taken from Bulletin No. 34 of the Bureau

of the American Republics:

Article I.

The States that the constitution of March 28, 1864, declared

independent and united to form the Venezuelan Federation, and

that on April 27, 1881, were denominated Apure, Bolivar,

Barquisimeto, Barcelona, Carabobo, Cojedes, Cumamá, Falcón,

Guzmán Blanco, Guárico, Gunynna, Guzmán, Maturin, Nuevn

Esparta, Portuguesa, Táchira, Trujillo, Yaracay, Zamora, and

Zulia are constituted into nine grand political bodies, viz:

The State of Bermudez, composed of Barcelona, Cumaná, and

Maturin; the State of Miranda, composed of Bolivar, Guzman

Blanco, Guárico, and Nueva Esparta; the State of Carabobo,

composed of Carabobo and Nirgua; the State of Zamora, composed

of Cojedes, Portuguesa, and Zamora; the State of Lara,

composed of Barquisimeto and Yaracuy, except the department of

Nirgua; the State of Los Andes, composed of Guzman, Trujillo,

and Táchira; the State of Bolivar, composed of Guayana and

Apure; the State of Zulia, and also the State of Falcón. And

they are thus constituted to continue one only nation, free,

sovereign, and independent, under the title of the United

States of Venezuela.

{603}

Article. 2.

The boundaries of these great States are determined by those

that the law of April 28, 1856, that arranged the last

territorial division, designated for the ancient provinces

until it shall be re-formed.

Article. 3.

The boundaries of the United States of the Venezuelan

Federation are the same that in 1810 belonged to the old

Captaincy-General of Venezuela.

Article. 4.

The States that are grouped together to form the grand

political bodies will be called Sections. These are equal

among themselves; the constitutions prescribed for their

internal organism must be harmonious with the federative

principles established by the present compact, and the

sovereignty not delegated resides in the State without any

other limitations than those that devolve from the compromise

of association.

Article. 5.

These are Venezuelans, viz:

1st, All persons that may have been or may be born on

Venezuelan soil, whatever may be the nationality of their

parents;

2d, The children of a Venezuelan father or mother that may

have been born on foreign soil, if they should come to take up

their domicile in the country and express the desire to become

citizens;

3d, Foreigners that may have obtained naturalization papers; and,

4th, Those born or that shall be born in any of the

Spanish-American republics or in the Spanish Antilles,

provided that they may have taken up their residence in the

territory of the Republic and express a willingness to become

citizens.

Article. 6.

Those that take up their residence and acquire nationality in

a foreign country do not lose the character of Venezuelans.

Article. 7.

Males over twenty-one years of age are qualified Venezuelan

citizens, with only the exceptions contained in this

constitution.

Article. 8.

All Venezuelans are obliged to serve the nation according to

the prescriptions of the laws, sacrificing his property and

his life, if necessary, to defend the country.

Article. 9.

Venezuelans shall enjoy, in all the States of the Union, the

rights and immunities inherent to their condition as citizens

of the Federation, and they shall also have imposed upon them

there the same duties that are required of those that are

natives or domiciled there.

Article. 10.

Foreigners shall enjoy the same civil rights as Venezuelans

and the same security in their persons and property. They can

only take advantage of diplomatic means in accordance with

public treaties and in cases when right permits it.

Article. 11.

The law will determine the right applicable to the condition

of foreigners, according as they may be domiciled or in

transit.

Article. 12.

The States that form the Venezuelan Federation reciprocally

recognize their respective autonomies; they are declared equal

in political entity, and preserve, in all its plenitude, the

sovereignty not expressly delegated in this constitution.

Article. 13.

The States of the Venezuelan Federation oblige themselves--

1st, To organize themselves in accord with the principles of

popular, elective, federal, representative, alternative, and

responsible government;

2d, To establish the fundamental regulations of their interior

regulation and government in entire conformity with the

principles of this constitution;

3d, To defend themselves against all violence that threatens

the sectional independence or the integrity of the Venezuelan

Federation;

4th, To not alienate to a foreign power any part of their

territory, nor to implore its protection, nor to establish or

cultivate political or diplomatic relations with other

nations, since this last is reserved to the Federal power;

5th, To not combine or ally themselves with another nation,

nor to separate themselves to the prejudice of the nationality

of Venezuela and her territory;

6th, To cede to the nation the territory that may be necessary

for the Federal district;

7th, To cede to the Government of the Federation the territory

necessary for the erection of forts, warehouses, shipyards,

and penitentiaries, and for the construction of other edifices

indispensable to the general administration;

8th, To leave to the Government of the Federation the

administration of the Amazonas and Goajira territories and

that of the islands which pertain to the nation, until it may

be convenient to elevate them to another rank;

9th, To reserve to the powers of the Federation all

legislative or executive jurisdiction concerning maritime,

coastwise, and fluvial navigation, and the national roads,

considering as such those that exceed the limits of a State

and lead to the frontiers of others and to the Federal

district;

10th, To not subject to contributions the products or articles

upon which national taxes are imposed, or those that are by

law exempt from tax before they have been offered for

consumption;

11th, To not impose contributions on cattle, effects, or any

class of merchandise in transit for another State, in order

that traffic may be absolutely free, and that in one section

the consumption of others may not be taxed;

12th, To not prohibit the consumption of the products of other

States nor to tax their productions with greater general or

municipal taxes than those paid on products raised in the

locality;

13th, To not establish maritime or territorial custom-houses

for the collection of imports, since there will be national

ones only;

14th, To recognise the right of each State to dispose of its

natural products;

15th, To cede to the Government of the Federation the

administration of mines, public lands, and salt mines, in

order that the first may be regulated by a system of uniform

working and that the latter may be applied to the benefit of

the people;

16th, To respect the property, arsenals, and forts of the

nation;

17th, To comply with and cause to be complied with and

executed the Constitution and laws of the federation and the

decrees and orders that the federal power, the tribunals, and

courts may expedite in use of their attributes and legal

faculties;

18th, To give entire faith to and to cause to be complied with

and executed the public acts and judicial procedures of the

other States;

19th, To organize their tribunals and courts for the

administration of justice in the State and to have for all of

them the same substantive civil and criminal legislation and

the same laws of civil and criminal procedure;

20th, To present judges for the court of appeals and to submit

to the decision of this supreme tribunal of the States;

21st, To incorporate the extradition of criminals as a

political principle in their respective Constitutions;

22d, To establish direct and public suffrage in popular

elections, making it obligatory and endorsing it in the

electoral registry. The vote of the suffragist must be cast in

full and public session of the respective board; it will be

inscribed in the registry books that the law prescribes for

elections, which can not be substituted in any other form, and

the elector, for himself or by another at his request in case

of impediment or through ignorance, will sign the memorandum

entry of his vote, and without this requisite it can not be

claimed that in reality he has voted;

{604}

23d, To establish a system of primary education and that of

arts and trades;

24th, To reserve to the powers of the Federation the laws and

provisions necessary for the creation, conservation, and

progress of general schools, colleges, or universities

designed for the teaching of the sciences;

25th, To not impose duties upon the national employés, except

in the quality of citizens of the State and insomuch as these

duties may not be incompatible with the national public

service;

26th, To furnish the proportional contingent that pertains to

them to compose the national public forces in time of peace or

war;

27th, To not permit in the States of the Federation forced

enlistments and levies that have or may have for their object

an attack on liberty or independence or a disturbance of the

public order of the Nation, of other States, or of another

Nation;

28th, To preserve a strict neutrality in the contentions that

may arise in other States;

29th, To not declare or carry on war in any case, one State

with another;

30th, To defer and submit to the decision of the Congress or

the High Federal Court in all the controversies that may arise

between two or more States when they can not, between

themselves and by pacific measures, arrive at an agreement.

If, for any cause, they may not designate the arbiter to whose

decision they may submit, they leave it, in fact, to the High

Federal Court;

31st, To recognize the competency of Congress and of the court

of appeals to take cognizance of the causes that, for treason

to the country or for the infraction of the Constitution and

laws of the Federation, may be instituted against those that

exercise executive authority in the States, it being their

duty to incorporate this precept in their constitutions. In

these trials the modes of procedure that the general laws

prescribe will be followed and they will be decided in

consonance with those laws;

32d, To have as the just income of the States, two-thirds of

the total product of the impost collected as transit tax in

all the custom-houses of the Republic and two-thirds of that

collected from mines, public lands, and salt mines

administered by the Federal Power and to distribute this

income among all the States of the Federation in proportion to

the population of each;

33d, To reserve to the Federal Power the amount of the third

part of the income from transit tax, the production of mines,

public lands, and salt mines, to be invested in the

improvement of the country;

34th, To keep far away from the frontier those individuals

that, through political motives, take refuge in a State,

provided that the State interested requests it.

Article. 14.

The nation guarantees to Venezuelans:

1st, The inviolability of life, capital punishment being

abolished in spite of any law that establishes it;

2d, Property, with all its attributes, rights and privileges,

will only be subjected to contributions decreed by legislative

authority, to judicial decision, and to be taken for public

works after indemnity and condemnation;

3d, The inviolability and secrecy of correspondence and other

private papers;

4th, The domestic hearth, that can not be approached except to

prevent the perpetration of crime, and this itself must be

done in accordance with law;

5th, Personal liberty, and consequently

(1) forced recruiting for armed service is abolished,

(2) slavery is forever proscribed,

(3) slaves that tread the soil of Venezuela are free, and

(4) nobody is obliged to do that which the law does not

command, nor is impeded from doing that which it does not

prohibit;

6th, The freedom of thought, expressed by word or through the

press, is without any restriction to be submitted to previous

censure. In cases of calumny or injury or prejudice to a third

party, the aggrieved party shall have every facility to have

his complaints investigated before competent tribunals of

justice in accordance with the common laws;

7th, The liberty of traveling without passport, to change the

domicil, observing the legal formalities, and to depart from

and return to the Republic, carrying off and bringing back his

or her property;

8th, The liberty of industry and consequently the

proprietorship of discoveries and productions. The law will

assign to the proprietors a temporary privilege or the mode of

indemnity in case that the author agrees to its publication;

9th, The liberty of reunion and assembling without arms,

publicly or privately, the authorities being prohibited from

exercising any act of inspection or coercion;

10th, The liberty of petition, with the right of obtaining

action by resolution; petition can be made by any functionary,

authority or corporation. If the petition shall be made in the

name of various persons, the first five will respond for the

authenticity of the signatures and all for the truth of the

assertions;

11th, The liberty of suffrage at popular elections without any

restriction except to males under eighteen years of age;

12th, The liberty of instruction will be protected to every

extent. The public power is obliged to establish gratuitous

instruction in primary schools, the arts, and trades;

13th, Religious liberty;

14th, Individual security, and, therefore

(1) no Venezuelan can be imprisoned or arrested in

punishment for debts not founded in fraud or crime;

(2) nor to be obliged to lodge or quarter soldiers in his

house;

(3) nor to be judged by special commissions or tribunals,

but by his natural judges and by virtue of laws dictated

before the commission of the crime or act to be judged;

(4) nor to be imprisoned nor arrested without previous

summary information that a crime meriting corporal

punishment has been committed, and a written order from the

functionary that orders the imprisonment, stating the cause

of arrest, unless the person may be caught in the

commission of the crime;

(5) nor to be placed in solitary confinement for any cause;

(6) nor to be obliged to give evidence, in criminal causes,

against himself or his blood relations within the fourth

degree of consanguinity or against his relations by

marriage within the second degree, or against husband or

wife;

(7) nor to remain in prison when the reasons that caused

the imprisonment have been dissipated;

(8) nor to be sentenced to corporal punishment for more

than ten years;

(9) nor to remain deprived of his liberty for political

reasons when order is reestablished.

{605}

Article. 15.

Equality: in virtue of which

(1) all must be judged by the very same laws and subject to

equal duty, service and contributions;

(2) no titles of nobility, hereditary honors, and

distinctions will be conceded, nor employments or offices

the salaries or emoluments of which continue after the

termination of service;

(3) no other official salutation than "citizen" and "you"

will be given to employés and corporations. The present

enumeration does not impose upon the States the obligation

to accord other guarantees to their inhabitants.

Article 16.

The laws in the States will prescribe penalties for the

infractions of these guarantees, establishing modes of

procedure to make them effective.

Article 17.

Those who may issue, sign, or execute, or order executed any

decrees, orders, or resolutions that violate or in any manner

infringe upon the guarantees accorded to Venezuelans are

culpable and must be punished according to the law. Every

citizen is empowered to bring charges.

Article 18.

The National Legislature will be composed of two chambers, one

of Senators and another of Deputies.

Article 19.

The States will determine the mode of election of Deputies.

Article 20.

To form the Chamber of Deputies, each State will name, by

popular election in accordance with paragraph 22 of Article 13

of this Constitution, one Deputy for each thirty-five thousand

inhabitants and another for an excess not under fifteen

thousand. In the same manner it will elect alternates in equal

number to the principals.

Article 21.

The Deputies will hold office for four years, when they will

be renewed in their entirety.

Article 22.

The prerogatives of the chamber of Deputies are:

First, to examine the annual account that the President of the

United States of Venezuela must render;

Second, to pass a vote of censure of the Ministers of the

Cabinet, in which event their posts will be vacant;

Third, to hear charges against the persons in charge of the

office of the National Executive for treason to the country,

for infraction of the constitution, or for ordinary crimes;

against the ministers and other National employés for

infraction of the Constitution and laws and for fault in the

discharge of their duties according to article 75 of this

constitution and of the general laws of the Republic. This

attribute is preventative and neither contracts nor diminishes

those that other authorities have to judge and punish.

Article 23.

When a charge is instituted by a Deputy or by any corporation

or individual the following rules will be observed:

(1) there will be appointed, in secret session, a commission

of three deputies;

(2) the commission will, within three days, render an opinion,

declaring whether or not there is foundation for instituting a

cause;

(3) the Chamber will consider the information and decide upon

the cause by the vote of an absolute majority of the members

present, the accusing Deputy abstaining from voting.

Article 24.

The declaration that there is foundation for the cause

operates to suspend from office the accused and incapacitates

him for the discharge of any public function during the trial.

Article 25.

To form this Chamber each State, through its respective

legislature, will elect three principal Senators and an equal

number of alternates to supply the vacancies that may occur.

Article 26.

To be a Senator it is required that he shall be a Venezuelan

by birth and thirty years of age.

Article 27.

The Senators will occupy their posts for four years and be

renewed in their entirety.

Article 28.

It is the prerogative of the Senate to substantiate and decide

the causes initiated in the Chamber of Deputies.

Article 29.

If the cause may not have been concluded during the sessions,

the Senate will continue assembled for this purpose only until

the cause is finished.

Article 30.

The National Legislature will assemble on the 20th day of

February of each year or as soon thereafter as possible at the

capital of the United States without the necessity of previous

notice. The sessions will last for seventy days to be

prolonged until ninety days at the judgment of the majority.

Article 31.

The Chambers will open their sessions with two-thirds of their

number at least; and, in default of this number, those present

will assemble in preparatory commission and adopt measures for

the concurrence of the absentees.

Article 32.

The sessions having been opened, they may be continued by

two-thirds of those that may have installed them, provided

that the number be not less than half of all the members

elected.

Article 33.

Although the Chambers deliberate separately, they may assemble

together in the Congress when the constitution and laws

provide for it or when one of the two Chambers may deem it

necessary. If the Chamber that is invited shall agree, it

remains to it to fix the day and the hour of the joint

session.

Article 34.

The sessions will be public and secret at the will of the

Chamber.

Article 35.

The Chambers have the right:

(1) to make rules to be observed in the sessions and to

regulate the debates;

(2) to correct infractors;

(3) to establish the police force in the hall of sessions;

(4) to punish or correct spectators who create disorder;

(5) to remove the obstacles to the free exercise of their

functions;

(6) to command the execution of their private resolutions;

(7) to judge of the qualifications of their members and to

consider their resignations.

Article 36.

One of the Chambers cannot suspend its sessions nor change its

place of meeting without the consent of the other; in case of

disagreement they will reassemble together and execute that

which the majority resolves.

Article 37.

The exercise of any other public function, during the

sessions, is incompatible with those of a Senator or Deputy.

The law will specify the remunerations that the members of the

national Legislature shall receive for their services. And

whenever an increase of said remunerations is decreed, the law

that sanctions it will not begin to be in force until the

following period when the Chambers that sanctioned it shall

have been renewed in their entirety.

Article 38.

The Senators and Deputies shall enjoy immunity from the 20th

day of January of each year until thirty days after the close

of the sessions and this consists in the suspension of all

civil or criminal proceeding, whatever may be its origin or

nature; when anyone shall perpetrate an act that merits

corporal punishment the investigation shall continue until the

end of the summing up and shall remain in this state while the

term of immunity continues.

Article 39.

The Congress will be presided over by the President of the

Senate and the presiding officer of the Chamber of Deputies

will act as Vice-President.

{606}

Article 40.

The members of the Chambers are not responsible for the

opinions they express or the discourses they pronounce in

session.

Article 41.

Senators and deputies that accept office or commission from

the National Executive thereby leave vacant the posts of

legislators in the Chambers to which they were elected.

Article 42.

Nor can senators and deputies make contracts with the general

Government or conduct the prosecution of claims of others

against it.

Article 43.

The National Legislature has the following prerogatives:

(1) to dissolve the controversies that may arise between two

or more States;

(2) to locate the Federal District in an unpopulated territory

not exceeding three miles square, where will be constructed

the capital city of the Republic. This district will be

neutral territory, and no other elections will be there held

than those that the law determines for the locality, The

district will be provisionally that which the constituent

assembly designated or that which the National Legislature may

designate;

(3) to organize everything relating to the custom-houses,

whose income will constitute the treasure of the Union until

these incomes are supplied from other sources;

(4) to dispose in everything relating to the habitation and

security of ports and seacoasts;

(5) to create and organize the postal service and to fix the

charges for transportation of correspondence;

(6) to form the National Codes in accordance with paragraph

19, article 13 of this Constitution;

(7) to fix the value, type law, weight, and coinage of

national money, and to regulate the admission and circulation

of foreign money;

(8) to designate the coat-of-arms and the national flag which

will be the same for all the States;

(9) to create, abolish, and fix salaries for national offices;

(10) to determine everything in relation to the national debt;

(11) to contract loans upon the credit of the nation;

(12) to dictate necessary measures to perfect the census of

the current population and the national statistics;

(13) to annually fix the armed forces by sea and land and to

dictate the army regulations;

(14) to decree rules for the formation and substitution of the

forces referred to in the preceding clause;

(15) to declare war and to require the National Executive to

negotiate peace;

(16) to ratify or reject the contracts for national public

works made by the President with the approval of the Federal

Council, without which requisite they will not be carried into

effect;

[Transcriber's note: (17) is missing.]

(18) to annually fix the estimates for public expenses;

(19) to promote whatever conduces to the prosperity of the

country and to its advancement in the general knowledge of the

arts and sciences;

(20) to fix and regulate the national weights and measures;

(21) to grant amnesties;

(22) to establish, under the names of territories, special

regulations for the government of regions inhabited by

unconquered and uncivilized Indians. Such territories will be

under the immediate supervision of the Executive of the Union;

(23) to establish the modes of procedure and to designate the

penalties to be imposed by the Senate in the trials originated

in the Chamber of Deputies;

(24) to increase the basis of population for the election of

deputies;

(25) to permit or refuse the admission of foreigners into the

service of the Republic;

(26) to make laws in respect to retirements from the military

service and army pensions;

(27) to dictate the law of responsibility on the part of all

national employés and those of the States for infraction of

the constitution and the general laws of the Union;

(28) to determine the mode of conceding military rank or

promotion;

(29) to elect the Federal Council provided for in this

constitution and to convoke the alternates of the senators and

deputies who may have been chosen for it.

Article 44.

Besides the preceding enumeration the National Legislature may

pass such laws of general character as may be necessary, but

in no case can they be promulgated, much less executed, if

they conflict with this constitution, which defines the

prerogatives of the public powers in Venezuela.

Article 45.

The laws and decrees of the National Legislature may be

proposed by the members of either chamber, provided that the

respective projects are conformed to the rules established for

the Parliament of Venezuela.

Article 46.

After a project may have been presented, it will be read and

considered in order to be admitted; and if it is, it must

undergo three discussions, with an interval of at least one

day between each, observing the rules established for debate.

Article 47.

The projects approved in the chamber in which they were

originated will be passed to the other for the purposes

indicated in the preceding article, and if they are not

rejected they will be returned to the chamber whence they

originated, with the amendments they may have undergone.

Article 48.

If the chamber of their origin does not agree to the

amendments, it may insist and send its written reasons to the

other. They may also assemble together in Congress and

deliberate, in general commission, over the mode of agreement,

but if this can not be reached, the project will be of no

effect after the chamber of its origin separately decides upon

the ratification of its insistence.

Article 49.

Upon the passing of the projects from one to the other

chamber, the days on which they have been discussed will be

stated.

Article 50.

The law reforming another law must be fully engrossed and the

former law, in all its parts, will be annulled.

Article 51.

In the laws this form will be used: "The Congress of the

United States of Venezuela decrees."

Article 52.

The projects defeated in one legislature cannot be

reintroduced except in another.

Article 53.

The projects pending in a chamber at the close of the sessions

must undergo the same three discussions in succeeding

legislatures.

Article 54.

Laws are annulled with the same formalities established for

their sanction.

Article 55.

When the ministers of Cabinet may have sustained, in a

chamber, the unconstitutionality of a project by word or in

writing, and, notwithstanding this, it may have been

sanctioned as law, the National Executive, with the

affirmative vote of the Federal Council, will suspend its

execution and apply to the legislatures of the States, asking

their vote in the matter.

Article 56.

In case of the foregoing article, each State will represent

one vote expressed by the majority of the members of the

legislature present, and the result will be sent to the High

Federal Court in this form: "I confirm" or "I reject."

{607}

Article 57.

If a majority of the legislatures of the States agree with the

Federal Executive, the High Federal Court will confirm the

suspension, and the Federal Executive himself will render an

account to the next Congress relative to all that has been

done in the matter.

Article  58.

The laws will not be observed until after being published in

the solemn form established.

Article 59.

The faculty conceded to sanction a law is not to be delegated.

Article  60.

No legislative disposition will have a retroactive effect,

except in matters of judicial procedure and that which imposes

a lighter penalty.

Article 61.

There will be a Federal Council composed of one senator and

one deputy for each State and of one more deputy for the

Federal District, who will be elected by the Congress each two

years from among the respective representations of the States

composing the Federation and from that of the Federal

District. This election will take place in the first fifteen

days of the meeting of Congress, in the first and third year

of the constitutional period.

Article 62.

The Federal Council elects from its members the President of

the United States of Venezuela, and in the same manner the

person who shall act in his stead in case of his temporal or

permanent disability during his term. The election of a person

to be President of the United States of Venezuela who is not a

member of the Federal Council, as well as of those who may

have to act in his stead in case of his temporal or permanent

disability, is null of right and void of efficacy.

Article 63.

The members of the Federal Council hold office for two years,

the same as the President of the United States of Venezuela,

whose term is of equal duration; and neither he nor they can

be reëlected for the term immediately succeeding, although

they may return to occupy` their posts as legislators in the

chambers to which they belong.

Article 64.

The Federal Council resides in the district and exercises the

functions prescribed in this constitution. It cannot

deliberate with less than an absolute majority of all its

members; it dictates the interior regulations to be observed

in its deliberations, and annually appoints the person who

shall preside over its sessions.

Article  65.

The prerogatives of the President of Venezuela are:

(1) To appoint and remove the cabinet ministers;

(2) to preside over the cabinet, in whose discussions he will

have a vote, and to inform the Council of all the matters that

refer to the General Administration;

(3) to receive and welcome public ministers;

(4) to sign the official letters to the Sovereigns or

Presidents of other countries;

(5) to order the execution of the laws and decrees of the

National Legislature, and to take care that they are complied

with and executed;

(6) to promulgate the resolutions and decrees that may have

been proposed and received the approbation of the Federal

Council, in conformity with article 66 of this constitution;

(7) to organize the Federal District and to act therein as the

chief civil and political authority established by this

constitution;

(8) to issue registers of navigation to national vessels;

(9) to render an account to Congress, within the first eight

days of its annual session, of the cases in which, with the

approval of the Federal Council, he may have exercised all or

any of the faculties accorded to him in article 66 of this

compact;

(10) to discharge the other functions that the national laws

entrust to him.

Article 66.

Besides the foregoing prerogatives, that are personal to the

president of the United States of Venezuela, he can, with the

deliberate vote of the Federal Council, exercise the

following:

(1) To protect the Nation from all exterior attack;

(2) to administer the public lands, mines, and salt mines of

the States as their delegate;

(3) to convoke the National Legislature in its regular

sessions, and in extraordinary session when the gravity of any

subject demands it;

(4) to nominate persons for diplomatic positions,

consuls-general, and consuls; those named for the first and

second positions must be Venezuelans by birth;

(5) to direct negotiations and celebrate all kinds of treaties

with other nations, submitting these to the National

Legislature;

(6) to celebrate contracts of national interest in accordance

with the laws and to submit them the legislatures for their

approval;

(7) to nominate the employés of hacienda, which nominations

are not to be made by any other authority. It is required that

these employés shall be Venezuelan by birth;

(8) to remove and suspend employés of his own free motion,

ordering them to be tried if there should be cause for it;

(9) to declare war in the name of the Republic when Congress

shall have decreed it;

(10) in the case of foreign war he can,

first, demand from the States the assistance necessary for

the national defense;

second, require, in anticipation, the contributions and

negotiate the loans decreed by the National Legislature;

third, arrest or expel persons who pertain to the nation

with which war is carried on and who may be opposed to the

defense of the country;

fourth, to suspend the guaranties that may be incompatible

with the defense of the country, except that of life;

fifth, to select the place to which the General Power of

the Federation may be provisionally translated when there

may be grave reasons for it;

sixth, to bring to trial for treason to the country those

Venezuelans who may be, in any manner, hostile to the

national defense;

seventh, to issue registers to corsairs and privateers and

to prescribe the laws that they must observe in cases of

capture;

(11) to employ the public force and the powers contained in

numbers 1, 2, and 5 of the preceding clause with the object of

reëstablishing constitutional order in case of armed

insurrection against the institutions of the Nation;

(12) to dispose of the public force for the purpose of

quelling every armed collision between two or more States,

requiring them to lay down their arms and submit their

controversies to the arbitration to which they are pledged by

number 30, article 14 of this constitution;

(13) to direct the war and to appoint the person who shall

command the army;

(14) to organize the national force in time of peace;

(15) to concede general or particular exemptions;

(16) to defend the territory designated for the Federal

District when there may be reasons to apprehend that it will

be invaded by hostile forces.

Article 67.

The President of the United States of Venezuela shall have the

ministers for his cabinet that the law designates. It will

determine their functions and duties and will organize their

bureaus.

Article 68.

To be a minister of the cabinet it is required that the person

shall be twenty-five years of age, a Venezuelan by birth or

five years of naturalization.

{608}

Article 69.

The ministers are the natural and proper organs of the

President of the United States of Venezuela. All his acts must

be subscribed by them and without such requisite they will not

be complied with nor executed by the authorities, employees,

or private persons.

Article 70.

All the acts of the ministers must be conformed to this

Constitution and the laws; their personal responsibility is

not saved, although they may have the written order of the

President.

Article 71.

The settlement of all business, except the fiscal affairs of

the bureaus, will be determined in the council of ministers,

and their responsibility is collective and consolidated.

Article 72.

The ministers, within the five first sessions of each year,

will render an account to the Chambers of what they may have

done or propose to do in their respective branches. They will

also render written or verbal reports that may be requested of

them, reserving only that which, in diplomatic affairs, it may

not be convenient to publish.

Article 73.

Within the same period, they will present to the National

Legislature the estimates of public expenditures and the

general account of the past year.

Article 74.

The ministers have the right to be heard in the Chambers, and

are obliged to attend when they may be called upon for

information.

Article 75.

The ministers are responsible:

(1) for treason to the country;

(2) for infraction of this Constitution or the laws;

(3) for malversation of the public funds;

(4) for exceeding the estimates in their expenditures;

(5) for subornation or bribery in the affairs under their

charge or in the nominations for public employees;

(6) for failure in compliance with the decisions of the

Federal Council.

Article 76.

The High Federal Court will be composed of as many judges as

there may be States of the Federation and with the following

qualities:

(1) A judge must be a Venezuelan by birth;

(2) he must be thirty years of age.

Article 77.

For the nomination of judges of the High Federal Court the

Congress will convene on the fifteenth day of its regular

sessions and will proceed to group together the representation

of each State from which to form a list of as many candidates

for principal judges and an equal number of alternates as

there may be States of the Federation. The Congress, in the

same or following session, will elect one principal and one

alternate for each State, selecting them from the respective

lists.

Article 78. The law will determine the different functions of the

judges and other officers of the High Federal Court.

Article 79.

The judges and their respective alternates will hold office

for four years. The principals and their alternates in office

can not accept during this period any office in the gift of

the executive without previous resignation and lawful

acceptance. The infraction of this disposition will be

punished with four years of disability to hold public office

in Venezuela.

Article 80.

The matters within the competence of the High Federal Court

are:

(1) to take cognizance of civil or criminal causes that may be

instituted against diplomatic officers in those cases

permitted by the law of nations;

(2) to take cognizance of causes ordered by the President to

be instituted against cabinet ministers when they may be

accused according to the cases provided for in this

Constitution. In the matter of the necessity of suspension

from office, they will request the President to that effect

and he will comply;

[Transcriber's note: (3) is absent.]

(4) to have jurisdiction of the causes of responsibility

instituted against diplomatic agents accredited to another

nation for the wrong discharge of their functions;

(5) to have jurisdiction in civil trials when the nation is

defendant and the law sanctions it;

(6) to dissipate the controversies that may arise between the

officials of different States in political order in the matter

of jurisdiction or competence;

(7) to take cognizance of all matters of political nature that

the States desire to submit for their consideration;

(8) to declare which may be the law in force when the national

and State laws may be found to conflict with each other;

(9) to have jurisdiction in the controversies that may result

from contracts or negotiations celebrated by the president of

the federation;

(10) to have jurisdiction in causes of imprisonment;

(11) to exercise other prerogatives provided for by law.

Article 81.

The Court of Appeals referred to in paragraph 20, article 13

of this Constitution, is the tribunal of the states; it will

be composed of as many judges as there are states of the

federation, and their terms of office will last for four

years.

Article 82.

A judge of the Court of Appeals must have the following

qualifications:

(1) he must be an attorney at law in the exercise of his

profession, and must have had at least six years practice;

(2) he must be a Venezuelan, thirty years of age.

Article 83.

Every four years the legislature of each State will form a

list of as many attorneys, with the qualifications expressed

in the preceding article, as there are States, and will remit

it, duly certified, to the Federal Council in order that this

body, from the respective lists, may select a judge for each

State in the organization of this high tribunal.

Article 84.

After the Federal Council may have received the lists from all

the States, it will proceed, in public session, to verify the

election; forming thereafter a list of the attorneys not

elected, in order that from this general list, which will be

published in the official paper, the permanent vacancies that

may occur in the Court of Appeals may be filled by lot. The

temporary vacancies will be filled according to law.

Article 85.

The Court of Appeals will have the following prerogatives:

(1) to take cognizance of criminal causes or those of

responsibility that may be instituted against the high

functionaries of the different States, applying the laws of

the States themselves in matters of responsibility, and in

case of omission of the promulgation of a law of

constitutional precept, it will apply to the cause in question

the general laws of the land;

(2) to take cognizance and to decide in cases of appeal in the

form and terms directed by law;

(3) to annually report to the National Legislature the

difficulties that stand in the way of uniformity in the matter

of civil or criminal legislation;

(4) to dispose of the rivalries that may arise between the

officers or functionaries of judicial order in the different

States of the federation and amongst those of a single State,

provided that the authority to settle them does not exist in

the State.

{609}

Article 86.

The National Executive is exercised by the Federal Council,

the President of the United States of Venezuela, or the person

who fills his vacancies, in union with the cabinet ministers

who are his organs. The President of Venezuela must be a

Venezuelan by birth.

Article 87.

The functions of National Executive can not be exercised

outside of the federal district except in the case provided

for in number 5, paragraph 10, article 66 of the Constitution.

When the President, with the approval of the Council, shall

take command of the army or absent himself from the district

on account of matters of public interest that demand it, he

can not exercise any functions and will be replaced by the

Federal Council in accordance with article 62 of this

Constitution.

Article 88.

Everything that may not be expressly assigned to the general

administration of the nation in this Constitution is reserved

to the States.

Article 89.

The tribunals of justice in the States are independent; the

causes originated in them will be concluded in the same States

without any other review than that of the Court of Appeals in

the cases provided for by law.

Article 90.

Every act of Congress and of the National Executive that

violates the rights guaranteed to the States in this

Constitution, or that attacks their independence, must be

declared of no effect by the High Court, provided that a

majority of the legislatures demands it.

Article 91.

The public national force is divided into naval and land

troops, and will be composed of the citizen militia that the

States may organize according to law.

Article 92.

The force at the disposal of the federation will be organized

from citizens of a contingent furnished by each State in

proportion to its population, calling to service those

citizens that should render it according to their internal

laws.

Article 93.

In case of war the contingent can be augmented by bodies of

citizen militia up to the number of men necessary to fill the

draft of the National Government.

Article 94.

The National Government may change the commanders of the

public force supplied by the States in the cases and with the

formalities provided for in the national military law and then

their successors will be called for from the States.

Article 95.

The military and civil authority can never be exercised by the

same person or corporation.

Article 96.

The nation, being in possession of the right of ecclesiastical

patronage, will exercise it as the law upon the subject may

direct.

Article 97.

The Government of the Federation will have no other resident

employees with jurisdiction or authority in the States than

those of the States themselves. The officers of hacienda,

those of the forces that garrison national fortresses,

arsenals created by law, navy-yards, and habilitated ports,

that only have jurisdiction in matters peculiar to their

respective offices and within the limits of the forts and

quarters that they command, are excepted; but even these must

be subject to the general laws of the State in which they

reside. All the elements of war now existing belong to the

National Government; nevertheless it is not to be understood

that the States are prohibited from acquiring those that they

may need for domestic defense.

Article 98.

The National Government can not station troops nor military

officers with command in a State, although they may be from

that or another State, without permission of the government of

the State in which the force is to be stationed.

Article 99.

Neither the National Executive nor those of the States can

resort to armed intervention in the domestic contentions of a

State; it is only permitted to them to tender their good

offices to bring about a pacific solution in the case.

Article 100.

In case of a permanent or temporary vacancy in the office of

President of the United States of Venezuela, the States will

be immediately informed as to who has supplied the vacancy.

Article 101.

Exportation in Venezuela is free and no duty can be placed

upon it.

Article 102.

All usurped authority is without effect and its acts are null.

Every order granted for a requisition, direct or indirect, by

armed force or by an assemblage of people in subversive

attitude is null of right and void of efficacy.

Article 103.

The exercise of any function not conferred by the constitution

or laws is prohibited to every corporation or authority.

Article 104.

Any citizen may accuse the employees of the nation or the

States before the chamber of deputies, before their respective

superiors in office, or before the authorities designated by

law.

Article 105.

No payment shall be made from the National Treasury for which

Congress has not expressly provided in the annual estimate,

and those that may infringe this rule will be civilly

responsible to the National Treasury for the sums they have

paid out. In every payment from the public Treasury the

ordinary expenses will be preferred to the extraordinary

charges.

Article 106.

The offices of collection and disbursement of the national

taxes shall be always separate, and the officers of collection

may disburse only the salaries of their respective employees.

Article 107.

When, for any reason, the estimate of appropriations for a

fiscal period have not been made, that of the immediately

preceding period will continue in force.

Article 108.

In time of elections, the public national force or that of the

States themselves will remain closely quartered during the

holding of popular elections.

Article 109.

In international treaties of commerce and friendship this

clause will be inserted, to wit: "all the disagreements

between the contracting parties must be decided without an

appeal to war, by the decision of a power or friendly powers."

Article 110.

No individual can hold more than one office within the gift of

Congress and the National Executive. The acceptance of any

other is equivalent to resignation of the first. Officials

that are removable will cease to hold office upon accepting

the charge of a Senator or Deputy when they are dependents of

the National Executive.

Article 111.

The law will create and designate other national tribunals

that may be necessary.

Article 112.

National officers can not accept gifts, commissions, honors,

or emoluments from a foreign nation without permission from

the National Legislature.

Article 113.

Armed force can not deliberate; it is passive and obedient. No

armed body can make requisitions nor demand assistance of any

kind, but from the civil authorities, and in the mode and form

prescribed by law.

{610}

Article 114.

The Nation and the States will promote foreign immigration and

colonization in accordance with their respective laws.

Article 115.

A law will regulate the manner in which national officers,

upon taking charge of their posts, shall take the oath to

comply with their duties.

Article 116.

The National Executive will negotiate with the Governments of

America over treaties of alliance or confederation.

Article 117.

The law of Nations forms a part of the National Legislation;

its dispositions will be specially in force in cases of civil

war, which can be terminated by treaties between the

belligerents who will have to respect the humanitarian customs

of Christians and civilized nations, the guarantee of life being,

in every case, inviolable.

Article 118.

This constitution can be reformed by the National Legislature

if the legislatures of the States desire it, but there shall

never be any reform except in the parts upon which the

majority of the States coincide; also a reform can be made

upon one or more points when two-thirds of the members of the

National Legislature, deliberating separately and by the

proceedings established to sanction the laws, shall accord it;

but, in this second case, the amendment voted shall be

submitted to the legislatures of the States, and it will stand

sanctioned in the point or points that may have been ratified

by them.

Article 119.

This constitution will take effect from the day of its

official promulgation in each State, and in all public acts

and official documents there will be cited the date of the

Federation to begin with February 20, 1859, and the date of

the law to begin with March 28, 1864.

Article 120.

The constitutional period for the offices of the General

Administration of the Republic will continue to be computed

from February 20, 1882, the date on which the reformed

constitution took effect.

Article 121.

For every act of civil and political life of the States of the

Federation, its basis of population is that which is

determined in the last census approved by the National

Legislature.

Article 122.

The Federal Constitution of April 27, 1881, is repealed. Done

in Caracas, in the Palace of the Federal Legislative Corps,

and sealed with the seal of Congress on the 9th day of April,

1891. The 28th year of the Law and the 33rd year of the

Federation.

(Here follow the signatures of the Presidents,

Vice-Presidents, and Second Vice-Presidents of the Senate and

Chamber of Deputies, together with those of the Senators and

Deputies of the various States, followed by those of the

President and the ministers of his cabinet.)

See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1869-1892.

----------CONSTITUTION OF VENEZUELA: End----------

CONSTITUTION OF THE WATAUGA ASSOCIATION

(the first Western American Commonwealth).

See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772.

CONSTITUTIONS OF CLARENDON.

The "Constitutions of Clarendon" were a series of declarations

drawn up by a council which King Henry II. of England convened

at Clarendon, near Winchester, in 1164, and which were

intended to determine the law on various points in dispute

between the Crown and the laity, on one side, and the Church

on the other. The issues in question were those which brought

Henry into collision with Thomas Becket, Archbishop of

Canterbury. The general provisions embodied in the

Constitutions of Clarendon "would now be scarcely challenged

in the most Catholic country in the world.

1. During the vacancy of any archbishopric, bishopric, abbey,

or priory of royal foundation, the estates were to be in the

custody of the Crown. Elections to these preferments were to

be held in the royal chapel, with the assent of the king and

council.

2. In every suit to which a clerk was a party, proceedings

were to commence before the king's justices, and these

justices were to decide whether the case was to be tried

before a spiritual or a civil court. If it was referred to a

spiritual court, a civil officer was to attend to watch the

trial, and if a clerk was found guilty of felony the Church

was to cease to protect him.

3. No tenant-in-chief of the king, or officer of his

household, was to be excommunicated, or his lands laid under

an interdict, until application had been first made to the

king, or, in his absence, to the chief justice.

4. Laymen were not to be indicted in a bishop's court, either

for perjury or other similar offence, except in the bishop's

presence by a lawful prosecutor and with lawful witnesses. If

the accused was of so high rank that no prosecutor would

appear, the bishop might require the sheriff to call a jury to

inquire into the case.

5. Archbishops, bishops, and other great persons were

forbidden to leave the realm without the king's permission.

6. Appeals were to be from the archdeacon to the bishop, from

the bishop to the archbishop, from the archbishop to the king,

and no further; that, by the king's mandate, the case might be

ended in the archbishop's court.

The last article the king afterwards explained away. It was

one of the most essential, but he was unable to maintain it;

and he was rash, or he was ill-advised, in raising a second

question, on which the pope would naturally be sensitive,

before he had disposed of the first."

J. A. Froude, Life and Times of Becket, pages 31-32.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

CONSTITUTIONS, Roman Imperial.

See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

CONSTITUTIONAL UNION PARTY, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (APRIL-NOVEMBER).

CONSUL, Roman.

When the Romans had rid themselves of their kings and

established a republic, or, rather, an aristocratic

government, "the civil duties of the king were given to two

magistrates, chosen for a year, who were at first called

'prætores' or generals, 'judices' or judges, or consules (cf.

con 'together' and salio 'to leap') or 'colleagues.' In the

matter of their power, no violent departure was made from the

imperium of the king. The greatest limitation on the consuls

was the short period for which they were at the head of the

state; but even here they were thought of, by a fiction, as

voluntarily abdicating at the expiration of their term, and as

nominating their successors, although they were required to

nominate the men who had already been selected in the 'comitia

centuriata.' Another limitation was the result of the dual

character of the magistracy. The imperium was not divided

between the consuls, but each possessed it in full, as the

king had before. When, therefore, they did not agree, the veto

of the one prevailed over the proposal of the other, and there

was no action."

A. Tighe, Development of the Roman Constitution,  chapter 4.

{611}

"As judges, the consuls occupied altogether the place of the

kings. They decided the legal disputes of the citizens either

personally or by deputy. Their criminal jurisdiction was

probably limited to the most important cases. ... In the

warlike state of the Romans the military character of the

consuls was no doubt most prominent and most important. When

the consul led the army into the field he possessed the

unlimited military power of the kings (the imperium). He was

entrusted with the direction of the war, the distribution of

the booty, and the first disposal of the conquered land. ...

The oldest designation for the consuls, therefore, was derived

from their military quality, for they were called prætors,

that is, commanders. It was, however, precisely in war that

the division of power among two colleagues must often have

proved prejudicial ... and the necessity of unity in the

direction of affairs was felt to be indispensable. The

dictatorship served this purpose. By decree of the senate one

of the consuls could be charged with naming a dictator for six

months, and in this officer the full power of the king was

revived for a limited period. The dictatorship was a formal

suspension of the constitution of the republic. ... Military

was substituted for common law, and Rome, during the time of

the dictatorship, was in a state of siege."

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 1,

and book 6, chapter 3-5.

In the later years of the Roman empire, "two consuls were

created by the sovereigns of Rome and Constantinople for the

sole purpose of giving al date to the year and a festival to

the people. But the expenses of this festival, in which the

wealthy and the vain aspired to surpass their predecessors,

insensibly arose to the enormous sum of four score thousand

pounds; the wisest senators declined a useless honour which

involved the certain ruin of their families, and to this

reluctance I should impute the frequent chasms in the last age

of the consular Fasti. ... The succession of consuls finally

ceased in the thirteenth year of Justinian [A. D. 541] whose

despotic temper might be gratified by the final extinction of

a title which admonished the Romans of their ancient freedom.

Yet the annual consulship still lived in the minds of the

people; they fondly expected its speedy restoration ... and

three centuries elapsed after the death of Justinian before

that obsolete dignity, which had been suppressed by custom,

could be abolished by law. The imperfect mode of

distinguishing each year by the name of a magistrate was

usefully supplied by the date of a permanent era."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 40.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

"There were no consuls in 531 and 532. The Emperor held the

office alone in 533, and with a colleague in 534. Belisarius

was sole consul in 535. The two following years, having no

consuls of their own, were styled the First and Second after

the Consulship of Belisarius. John of Cappadocia gave his name

to the year 538, and the years 539 and 540 had again consuls,

though one only for each year. In 541 Albinus Basilius sat in

the curule chair, and he was practically the last of the long

list of warriors, orators, demagogues, courtiers, which began

(in the year 500 B. C.) with the names of Lucius Junius Brutus

and Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus. All the rest of the years of

Justinian, twenty-four in number, were reckoned as Post

Consulatum Basilii."

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders.

book 5, chapter 14.

See, also, ROME B. C. 500.

CONSULAR TRIBUNES, Roman.

The plebeians of Rome having demanded admission for their

order to the consulship, a compromise was arranged, B. C. 444,

which settled that, thereafter, "the people should be free to

elect either consuls--that is, patricians according to the old

law--or in their place other officers under the title of

'military tribunes with consular power,' consisting of

patricians and plebeians. ... It is not reported in what

respect the official competency of the consular tribunes was

to differ from that of the consuls. Still, so much is plain,

that the difference consisted not alone in name. The number of

the consular tribunes was in the beginning fixed at three."

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 11.

CONSULATE GOVERNMENT OF FRANCE, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

CONTINENTAL ARMY.

"The Continentals" of the American Revolution.

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

CONTINENTAL CURRENCY, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (JANUARY-APRIL).

CONTINENTAL SYSTEM OF NAPOLEON, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802, and 1806-1810.

CONTIONES, OR CONCIONES.

The contiones, or conciones, at Rome, were assemblies of the

people, "less formal than the comitia," held for the mere

purpose of discussing public questions, and incapable of

passing any binding resolution. "They could not be called

together by anybody except the magistrates, neither had every

man the liberty of speaking in them, of making proposals or of

declaring his opinion; ... but even in this limited manner

public questions could be discussed and the people could be

enlightened. ... The custom of discussing public questions in

the contiones became general after the comitia of the tribes

had obtained full legislative competency."

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 6, chapter 1.

See, also, COMITIA CURIATA.

CONTRABANDS.

In the early part of the American civil war of 1861-65, the

escaped slaves of the Confederates, who came within the Union

lines, were called contrabands, General Butler having supplied

the term by declaring them to be "contraband of war."

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

CONTRERAS, Battle of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1847 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

CONVENT,

See MONASTERY.

CONVENTICLE ACT, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1662-1665.

CONVENTION,

The French National, of the great Revolution.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (AUGUST),

and 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER), to 1705 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

CONVOCATION.

The assemblies of the clergy in the two ecclesiastical

provinces of England are called the Convocation of Canterbury

and the Convocation of York. The former, which is the superior

body, frequently receives the name of Convocation, simply. It

is constituted upon the model of Parliament, and is, in fact,

the Parliament of the Church of England. It has two Houses:

the upper one consisting of the Archbishop and his Bishops;

the lower one composed of deans, archdeacons and proctors,

representing the inferior clergy. The Convocation of York has

but one House. Since 1716 Convocation has possessed slight

powers.

{612}

CONWAY CABAL, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1778.

COOMASSIE, Burning of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1873-1880.

COPAIC REEDS.

See BŒOTIA.

COPAN, Ruins of.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MAYAS;

and MEXICO, ANCIENT.

COPEHAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: COPEHAN FAMILY.

COPENHAGEN: A. D. 1362.

Taken and pillaged by the Hanseatic League.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1018-1397.

COPENHAGEN: A. D. 1658-1660.

Sieges by Charles X. of Sweden.

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

COPENHAGEN: A. D. 1700.

Surrender to Charles XII. of Sweden.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1697-1700.

COPENHAGEN: A. D. 1801.

Bombardment by the English fleet.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

COPENHAGEN: A. D. 1807.

Bombardment of the city by the English.

Seizure of the fleet.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES: A. D. 1807-1810.

----------COPENHAGEN:  End----------

COPPERHEADS.

During the American Civil War, the Democratic Party in the

Northern States "comprised two well-recognized classes: The

Anti-War (or Peace) Democrats, commonly called 'Copperheads,'

who sympathized with the Rebellion, and opposed the War for

the Union; and the War (or Union) Democrats, who favored a

vigorous prosecution of the War for the preservation of the

Union."

J. A. Logan, The Great Conspiracy, page 574, foot-note.

See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (OCTOBER).

COPREDY BRIDGE, Battle of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (JANUARY-JULY).

COPTS, The.

The descendants of the ancient Egyptian race, who form to this

day the larger part of the population of Egypt.

See EGYPT: ORIGIN OF THE ANCIENT PEOPLE.

COPTOS.

Destroyed by Diocletian.

See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.

COR, The.

See EPHAH.

CORBIE,

Spanish capture of (1636).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1635-1638.

CORCYRA.

See KORKYRA.

CORDAY, Charlotte, and the assassination of Marat.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY).

CORDELIERS.

See MENDICANT ORDERS.

CORDELIERS, Club of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1790.

CORDOVA (Spain): A. D. 711.

Surrender to the Arab-Moors.

See SPAIN: A. D. 711-713.

CORDOVA: A. D. 756-1031.

The Caliphate at.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 756-1031.

CORDOVA: A. D. 1235.

Capture by the King of Castile.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.

----------CORDOVA: End----------

CORDOVA (Mexico), Treaty of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826.

CORDYENE.

See GORDYENE.

COREA.

See COREA in Supplement (volume 5).

COREISH, KOREISH.

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

COREY, Martha and Giles,

The execution for witchcraft of.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1692.

CORFINIUM, Cæsar's Capture of.

See ROME: B. C. 50-49.

CORFU, Ancient.

See KORKYRA.

CORFU: A. D. 1216-1880.

Since the fall of the Greek Empire.

Corfu was won by the Venetians in the early years of the Latin

conquest of the Greek empire (1216), but was presently lost,

to come back again into the possession of the republic 170

years later. "No part of Greece has been so often cutoff from

the Greek body. Under Pyrrhos and Agathoklês, no less than

under Michael Angelos and Roger, it obeyed an Epeirot or

Sicilian master. ... At last, after yet another turn of

Sicilian rule, it passed for 400 years [1386-. 1797] to the

great commonwealth [of Venice]. In our own day Corfu was not

added to free Greece till long after the deliverance of Attica

and Peloponnesos. But, under so many changes of foreign

masters, the island has always remained part of Europe and of

Christendom. Alone among the Greek lands, Corfu has never

passed under barbarian rule. It has seen the Turk only, for

one moment, as an invader [see TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718], for

another moment as a nominal overlord."

E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe, page 408.

See IONIAN ISLANDS: To 1814.

----------CORFU: End----------

CORINIUM.

A Roman city in Britain, on the site of which is the modern

city of Cirencester. Some of the richest mosaic pavements

found in England have been uncovered there.

T. Wright. Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.

CORINTH.

Corinth, the chief city and state, in ancient times, of the

narrow isthmus which connects Peloponnesus with northern

Greece, "owed everything to her situation. The double sea by

the isthmus, the confluence of the high road of the whole of

Hellas, the rocky citadel towering aloft over land and sea,

through which rushed--or around which flowed--an abundance of

springs; all these formed so extraordinary a commixture of

advantages, that, if the intercourse with other countries

remained undisturbed, they could not but call forth an

important city. As in Argolis, so on the isthmus also, other

besides Dorian families had in the days of the migration

helped to found the new state. ... By the side of the Dorian,

five non-Dorian tribes existed in Corinth, attesting the

multitude and variety of population, which were kept together

as one state by the royal power of the Heraclidæ, supported by

the armed force of the Dorians. In the ninth century [B. C.]

the royal power passed into the hands of a branch of the

Heraclidæ deriving its descent from Bacchis [one of the

earliest of the kings]; and it was in the extraordinary genius

of this royal line that the greatness of the city originated.

The Bacchiadæ opened the city to the immigration of the

industrious settlers who hoped to make their fortunes more

speedily than elsewhere at this meeting point of all Greek

high-roads of commerce. They cherished and advanced every

invention of importance. ... They took commerce into their own

hands, and established the tramway on the isthmus, along which

ships were, on rollers, transported from one gulf to the

other. ... They converted the gulf which had hitherto taken

its name from Crisa into the Corinthian, and secured its

narrow inlet by means of the fortified place of Molycria. ...

They continued their advance along the coast and occupied the

most important points on the Achelous."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 2, chapter 1.

{613}

CORINTH: B. C. 745-725.

Constitutional Revolution.

End of Monarchy.

The prytanes.

Commercial progress.

A violent contention which arose between two branches of the

Bacchiadæ "no doubt gave the nobles of Corinth power and

opportunity to end the struggle by a change in the

constitution, and by the discontinuance of the monarchy; this

occurred in the year 745 B. C., after eight generations of

kings. ... Yet the place at the head of the commonwealth was

not to be entirely taken away from the ancient royal house. A

presiding chief (a prytanis), newly elected each year by the

whole nobility from the members of the royal race, was

henceforward to conduct the government [see PRYTANIS]. It was

a peculiar arrangement which this change introduced into

Corinth. We may assume that the sovereignty was transferred to

the nobles collectively, or to their representative. This

representation seems to have been so regulated that each of

the eight tribes sent an equal number of members to the

Gerousia, i. e. the council of elders. ... But the first of

these eight tribes, to which belonged the royal family, was

privileged. From it was chosen the head of the state, an

office for which only a Bacchiad was eligible--that is, only a

member of the old royal house, which took the foremost place

in the first tribe. This clan of the Bacchiadæ is said to have

contained 200 men. 'They were numerous and wealthy,' says

Strabo. Accordingly the royal house did not exclusively retain

the first rank in the state, but only in conjunction with the

families connected with it by kindred and race. ... The new

constitution of Corinth, the government by nobles, under the

dynastic presidency of one family, became a type for other

cantons. It was a Corinthian of the Bacchiadæ who, twenty or

thirty years after the introduction of the prytanes, regulated

the oligarchy of the Thebans and gave them laws (about 725 B.

C.) ... The fall of the monarchy in Corinth at first brought

with it disastrous consequences for the power and prestige of

the commonwealth. The communities of the Megarians--either

because the new government made increased demands upon them,

or because they considered their allegiance had ceased with

the cessation of monarchy, and thought the moment was

favourable--deserted Corinth and asserted their freedom. The

five communities on the isthmus united together around the

territory of Megara, lying in the plain by the Saronic Gulf,

where the majority of the Doric tribes had settled; the city

of Megara, in the vicinity of two ancient fortresses ...

became the chief centre of the communities, now associated in

one commonwealth. ... The important progress of Corinth under

the prytany of the Bacchiadæ was not due to successes upon the

mainland, but in another sphere. For navigation and commerce

no canton in Hellas was more favourably situated. Lying on the

neck of the isthmus, it extended from sea to sea, an

advantageous position which had indeed first attracted the

Phœnicians thither in ancient times. ... Corinth, says

Thucydides, was always from the first a centre of commerce,

and abounded in wealth; for the population within and without

the Peloponnesus communicated with each other more in ancient

times by land across the isthmus than by sea. But when the

Hellenes became more practised in navigation, the Corinthians

with their ships put down piracy and established marts on both

sides; and through this influx of riches their city became

very powerful."

M. Duncker, History of Greece, book 3, chapter 3 (volume 2).

CORINTH: B. C. 509-506.

Opposition to the desire of Sparta to restore tyranny at

Athens.

See ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.

CORINTH: B. C. 481-479.

Congress and organized Hellenic union against Persia.

See GREECE: B. C.481-479.

CORINTH: B. C. 458-456.

Alliance with Ægina in unsuccessful war with Athens and Megara.

See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

CORINTH: B. C. 440.

Opposition to Spartan interference with Athens in Samos.

See ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.

CORINTH: B. C. 435-432.

Quarrel with Korkyra.

Interference of Athens.

Events leading to the Peloponnesian War.

See GREECE: B. C. 435-432.

CORINTH: B. C. 432.

Great sea-fight with the Korkyrians and Athenians.

See GREECE: B. C. 432.

CORINTH: B. C. 429-427.

The Peloponnesian War: sea-fights and defeats.

Fruitless aid to the Mitylenæans.

See GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

CORINTH: B. C. 421.

Opposition to the Peace of Nicias.

See GREECE: B. C. 421-418.

CORINTH: B. C. 415-413.

Help to Syracuse against the Athenians.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

CORINTH: B. C. 395-387.

Confederacy against Sparta.

The Corinthian War.

Battle on the Nemea.

The Peace of Antalcidas.

See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

CORINTH: B. C. 368-365.

Attempt of Epaminondas to surprise the city.

Attempt of the Athenians.

See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

CORINTH: B. C. 337.

Congress of Greek states to acknowledge the hegemony of Philip

of Macedon.

See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

CORINTH: B. C. 244.

Capture by Antigonus Gonatus, king of Macedon.

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

CORINTH: B. C. 243-146.

In the Achaian League.

See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

CORINTH: B. C. 146.

Sack by the Romans.

See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

CORINTH: B. C. 44.

Restoration by Cæsar.

"In the desolate land of Greece, Cæsar, besides other plans,

... busied himself above all with the restoration of Corinth.

Not only was a considerable burgess-colony conducted thither,

but a plan was projected for cutting through the isthmus, so

as to avoid the dangerous circumnavigation of the Peloponnesus

and to make the whole traffic between Italy and Asia pass

through the Corintho-Saronic gulf."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 11.

"Cæsar sent to Corinth a large number of freedmen, and other

settlers were afterwards sent by Augustus; but it is certain

that many Greeks came to live in the new Corinth, for it

became a Greek town. Corinth was a mass of ruins when the new

settlers came, and while they were removing the rubbish, they

grubbed up the burial places, where they found a great number

of earthen figures and bronze urns, which they sold at a high

price and filled Rome with them."

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 5, chapter 32.

{614}

"Corinth rapidly rose under these auspices, became a centre of

commerce and art, and took the lead among the cities of

European Hellas. Here was established the seat of the Roman

government of Achaia, and its population, though the

representations we have received of it are extravagant,

undoubtedly exceeded that of any Grecian rival."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 40.

CORINTH: A. D. 267.

Ravaged by the Goths.

See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

CORINTH: A. D. 395.

Plundered by the Goths.

See GOTHS: A. D. 395.

CORINTH: A. D. 1146.

Sacked by the Normans of Sicily.

Abduction of silk weavers.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.

CORINTH: A. D. 1445.

Destruction by the Turks.

The fortifications of the isthmus of Corinth were stormed and

the Peloponnesus invaded by Amurath II. in 1445. "Corinth

itself, a city sanctified by its antiquity, by its gods, by

its arts, by the beauty of its women, by its fountains, its

cypresses, its very ruins themselves, whence its unrivalled

situation had always restored it, fell anew, buried in its

flames, by the hands of Tourakhan, that ancient and ambitious

vizier of Amurath. Its flames were seen from Athens, from

Ægina, from Lepanto, from Cytheron, from Pindus. The

inhabitants, as also those of Patras, were led into slavery in

Asia, to the number of 60,000."

A. Lamartine, History of Turkey, book 11, section 10.

CORINTH: A. D. 1463-1464.

Unsuccessful siege by the Venetians.

Fortification of the Isthmus.

See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.

CORINTH: A. D. 1687.

Taken by the Venetians.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

CORINTH: A. D. 1822.

Revolt, siege and capture by the Turks.

See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

----------CORINTH: End----------

CORINTH, Mississippi, Siege and Battle.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (APRIL-MAY: TENNESSEE--MISSISSIPPI),

and (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: MISSISSIPPI).

CORINTH CANAL, The.

"On Sunday [August 6, 1893] the canal across the Isthmus of

Corinth--[projected by Cæsar--see ROME: B. C. 45-44] begun by

Nero, and completed, nearly 2,000 years later, by a Greek

engineer, M. Matsas--was opened by the King of Greece, who

steamed through the canal in his yacht, accompanied by a

procession consisting of four Greek torpedo-boats and other

vessels, including three English men-of-war and an English

despatch-boat. The canal ... will be practicable for all but

the largest vessels."

The Spectator, Aug. 12, 1893.

[Transcriber's note: "It was planned by the Hungarian

architects István Türr and Béla Gerster... Its

construction was started by a French company, which ceased

works only after the two ends had been dug, due to

financial difficulties. A Greek company took over, the main

contractor being Antonis Matsas, and continued (and

completed) the project."

http://wiki.phantis.com]

CORINTHIAN TALENT.

See TALENT.

CORINTHIAN WAR, The.

See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

CORIONDI, The.

See IRELAND, TRIBES OF ANCIENT.

CORITANI, OR CORITAVI.

A British tribe which occupied the lower valley of the Trent

and its vicinity.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CORN LAWS (English) and their repeal.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND):

A. D. 1815-1828; 1836-1839; 1842; and 1845-1846.

CORNABII, OR CORNAVII, The.

An ancient British tribe which dwelt near the mouths of the

Dee and the Mersey.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CORNWALL, Duchy of.

In the division of the spoils of his conquest of England,

William the Conqueror gave to his brother Robert almost the

whole shire of Cornwall, besides other vast estates. "Out of

those possessions," says Mr. Freeman, "arose that great

Earldom, and afterwards Duchy, of Cornwall, which was deemed

too powerful to be trusted in the hands of any but men closely

akin to the royal house, and the remains of which have for

ages formed the appanage of the heir-apparent to the Crown."

See, also, WALES, PRINCE OF.

CORNWALLIS, Charles, Lord.

In the War of the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1776 (AUGUST), (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);

1780 (FEBRUARY-AUGUST); 1780-1781;

1781 (JANUARY-MAY); 1781 (MAY-OCTOBER).

Indian administration.

See INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

Irish administration.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1798-1800.

CORON, Battle of (B. C. 281).

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

CORONADO, Expedition of.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS.

CORONATION.

"The royal consecration in its most perfect form included both

coronation and unction. The wearing of a crown was a most

ancient sign of royalty, into the origin of which it is

useless now to inquire; but the solemn rite of crowning was

borrowed from the Old Testament by the Byzantine Cæsars; the

second Theodosius was the first emperor crowned with religious

ceremonies in Christian times. The introduction of the rite of

anointing is less certainly ascertained. It did not always

accompany coronation, and, although usual with the later

emperors is not recorded in the case of the earlier ones."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,

chapter 6, section 60.

CORONATION STONE.

See SCOTLAND: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES;

also, LIA FAIL.

CORONEIA, Battles of (B. C. 447 and B. C. 394).

See GREECE: B. C. 449-445; and B. C. 399-387.

CORPS DE BELGIQUE.

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

CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS, The.

"The Corpus Juris Civilis represents the Roman law in the form

which it assumed at the close of the ancient period (a

thousand years after the decemviral legislation of the Twelve

Tables), and through which mainly it has acted upon modern

times. It was compiled in the Eastern Roman Empire (the

Western ceased in 476 A. D.) under the Emperor Justinian, ...

who reigned 527-565 A. D. The plan of the work, as laid out

by [his great law-minister] Tribonian, included two principal

parts, to be made from the constitutions of the Roman

emperors, and from the treatises of the Roman lawyers. The

constitutiones' (law-utterances) of the emperors consisted

of--

1. 'Orationes,' proposals of law, submitted to and adopted by

the Senate;

2. 'Edicta,' laws issued directly by the emperor as head of

the state;

3. 'Mandata,' instructions addressed by the emperor to high

officers of law and justice;

4. 'Decreta,' decisions given by the emperor in cases brought

before him by appeal or otherwise;

5. 'Rescripta,' answers returned by the emperor when consulted

on questions of law by parties in a suit or by magistrates.

{615}

... Three or four collections had

already been made, in which the most important constitutions

were selected from the mass, presented in a condensed form,

and arranged according to their subjects. The last and most

elaborate of these collections was the Theodosian Code,

compiled about a century before the accession of Justinian; it

is still in great part extant. ... The new Codex

Constitutionem, prepared in little more than a year, was

published in April, 529. The next work was to digest the

treatises of the most eminent law writers. Thirty-nine were

selected, nearly all of whom lived between 100 B. C. and 250

A. D. Their books (2,000 in number) were divided among a body

of collaborators (sixteen besides Tribonian), each of whom

from the books assigned to him extracted what he thought

proper. ... and putting the extracts (9,000 in all) under an

arranged series of heads. ... The Digest--or Pandects

(all-receiving), as it is also called from the multiplicity of

its sources--was issued with authority of law, in December,

533. ... While the Digest or Pandects forms much the largest

fraction of the Corpus Juris, its relative value and

importance are far more than proportionate to its extent. The

Digest is, in fact, the soul of the Corpus. ... To bring the

Codex Constitutionem into better conformity with the Digest,

it was revised in 534 and issued as we now have it in November

of that year. ... The Corpus Juris includes also an elementary

text-book, the Institutiones (founded on the 'institutiones' of

Gaius, who flourished about 150). ... The Institutes, Digest

and Codex were given, as a complete body of law, to the

law-schools at Constantinople, Rome, Berytus, Alexandria,

Cæsarea, to be studied in their five years' curriculum. In the

courts it was to supersede all earlier authorities. ... Later

statutes of Justinian, arranged in order of time, form the

Novels ('novellae constitutione,' most of them in Greek), the

last component of the Corpus Juris."

J. Hadley, Introduction to Roman Law, lecture 1.

ALSO IN: J. E. Goudsmit, The Pandects.

CORREGIDOR.

See ALCALDE.

CORSICA: Early history.

"The original inhabitants of Corsica are supposed to have been

Ligurians, but at a very early period the people had

commercial intercourse with Spain, Ionia and Tuscany. The

island was subsequently occupied by the Carthaginians, who,

however, were expelled by the Romans during the first Punic

war. A few years later Corsica came under the dominion of

Rome, and that sway was nominally maintained until the

downfall of the Empire. It then fell under the dominion of the

Vandals, and after their expulsion owned successively the rule

of the Goths, the Saracens and the Pisans, and finally of the

Genoese. It came into the possession of the latter people in

the year 1120. Pisa subsequently made several attempts to

drive out her rivals, but they were in the end void of

results. But in 1448, Genoa, having sustained great losses in

the constant wars in which she was engaged, was induced to

surrender the administration of Corsica and of her colonies in

the Levant to a corporation known as the Bank of St George.

From that time the island was administered by governors

appointed by the Bank of St George, almost precisely in the

manner in which, in England, up to 1859, the East Indies were

administered by an 'imperium in imperio.'"

G. B. Malleson, Studies from Genoese History, chapter 3.

CORSICA: A. D, 1558-1559.

Revolt against the Genoese rule, and re-subjection.

See GENOA: A. D. 1528-1559;

and FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.

CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.

The Struggle for independence.

Romance of King Theodore.

The Paolis.

Cession to France.

The revolt of 1558 was renewetl in 1564, but ended in 1567,

upon the death of its leader, Sampiero. For the next century

and a half, Corsica remained inactive; "depressed and

miserable under renewed Genoese exactions and tyrannies, but

too exhausted to resume hostilities. In 1729, however,

fighting again broke out, suddenly roused by one of the many

private wrongs then pressing upon the lower orders, and the

rebellion soon spread over the whole island. It was well

organized under two leaders of energy and ability, and was

more determined in its measures than ever. ... Genoa had

recourse to the emperor of Germany, from whom she bought

several thousand mercenaries, who were sent across the sea to

try their skill upon these unconquerable islanders. ... The

courage and chivalry of his insular foes ... won for them the

regard of the opposing General Wachtendonk; and, chiefly

through his mediation, a treaty, supposed to be favourable to

the islanders, was concluded between Genoa and the Corte

legislative assembly in 1732. Wachtendonk remained in the

island another year to see the treaty carried out, and in

June, 1734, the German general returned to his own country.

... But he had scarcely retired before the treaty was broken.

Genoa began anew her system of illegal arrests and attempted

assassinations; and, once more, the people arose under

Hyacinth Paoli, an obscure native of the little village of

Morosaglia, but a man of spirit and talent, and a scholar.

Under the direction of this man, and of Giafferi, his

colleague, a democratic constitution, in the highest degree

prudent and practical, was framed for the Corsican people. ...

Early in the next year occurred a strange and romantic

adventure in this adventureful country. A man, handsome and

well-dressed, surrounded by obsequious courtiers, and attended

by every luxury, landed in the island from a vessel

well-furnished with gold, ammunition, and arms. This man was a

German adventurer, Baron Theodore von Neuhoff, who, after a

romantic youth, had suddenly conceived a desire to become king

of Corsica. He was a man of great talent and personal

fascination, of good judgment, and enthusiastic disposition.

He had fallen in love with the bravery and determination of

the Corsicans, and longed to head such a nation. He had put

himself into communication with the leading islanders; and,

having really some little influence at the continental courts,

persuaded them that he had much more. He offered to obtain

such assistance from foreign potentates, by his persuasions,

as should effectually oust the Genoese; and, in return,

requested the crown of Corsica. His genius and his enthusiasm

were so great, and his promises so dazzling, that, after some

hesitation, the poor Corsicans, in their despair, seized upon

this last straw; and in March, 1736, Theodore was crowned

king. His exertions for the good of this country were

untiring. He established manufactures and promoted with all

his power art and commerce, at the same time that, with all

the force of his genius, he endeavoured to persuade foreign

powers to lend their assistance to his new subjects in the

field.

{616}

His style of living meanwhile was regal and sumptuous. ...

Towards the conclusion of his first year of sovereignty,

Theodore left Corsica on a continental tour, with the avowed

object of hastening the promised succour. In two years he

returned, bringing with him three large and several smaller

war vessels, handsomely laden with ammunition, which had

actually been raised by means of his talents and persuasive

faculties, chiefly amongst the Dutch. But, meanwhile, the

Corsicans had had other affairs to which to attend. France had

interfered at the request of Genoa; and negotiations were

actively going on, which the arrival of the pseudo-king could

only interrupt. Theodore, although now so well attended, found

himself unheeded and disregarded; and after a few months was

forced to leave his new kingdom to its fate, and to return to

the continent. Five years later, in 1743, he again returned,

again well equipped, this time with English vessels, but with

the same ill success. Convinced now that his chance was over

and his dream of royalty destroyed, Theodore returned to

England with a sore heart, spending his remaining years in

this asylum for dethroned kings and ruined adventurers. His

tomb may be seen in Westminster Abbey. For the next five and

twenty years the war continued between Corsica and Genoa,

still fought out on the blood-deluged plains of the unhappy

little island. But the republic of Genoa was now long past her

prime, and her energies were fading into senility; and, had it

not been for the ever-increasing assistance of France, her

intrepid foes would long ere this have got the better of her.

In May, 1768, a treaty was signed between Genoa and France, by

which the republic ceded her now enfeebled claims on Corsica

to her ally, and left her long-oppressed victim to fight the

contest out with the French troops. During this time, first

Gaffori, then Pasquale Paoli, were the leaders of the people.

Gaffori, a man of refinement, and a hero of skill and

intrepidity, was murdered in a vendetta in 1753, and in 1755

Pasquale, youngest son of the old patriot Hyacinth Paoli, left

his position as officer in the Neapolitan service, and landed,

by the general desire of his own people, at Aleria, to

undertake the command of the Corsican army. ... From 1764 to

1768 a truce was concluded between the foes. ... In August,

1768, the truce was to expire; but, before the appointed day

had arrived, an army of 20,000 French suddenly swooped down

upon the luckless island. ... It was a hopeless struggle for

Corsica; but the heroism of the undaunted people moved all

Europe to sympathy. ... The Corsicans at first got the better

of their formidable foe, at the Bridge of Golo, in the taking

of Borgo, and in other lesser actions. ... Meanwhile, the

country was being destroyed, and the troops becoming

exhausted. ... The battle of Ponte Nuovo, on the 9th of May,

1769, at once and forever annihilated the Corsican cause. ...

After this victory, the French rapidly gained possession of

the whole island, and shortly afterwards the struggle was

abandoned. ... In the same year, 1769, Napoleon Buonaparte was

born in the house out of the Place du Marché at Ajaccio. 'I

was born,' he said himself in a letter to Paoli, 'the year my

country died.'"

G. Forde, A Lady's Tour in Corsica, volume 2, chapter 18.

ALSO IN:

P. Fitzgerald, Kings and Queens of an Hour, chapter 1.

J. Boswell, Journal of a Tour to Corsica.

Corsica: A. D. 1794.

Conquest by the English.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).

Corsica: A. D. 1796.

Evacuated by the English.

Reoccupied by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (SEPTEMBER).

----------Corsica: End----------

CORTENUOVA, Battle of (1236).

See ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250.

CORTES, HERNANDO,

Conquest of Mexico by.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1519 to 1521-1524.

CORTES, The early Spanish.

The old monarchical constitutions of Castile and Aragon.

"The earliest instance on record of popular representation in

Castile occurred at Burgos, in 1169; nearly a century

antecedent to the celebrated Leicester parliament. Each city

had but one vote, whatever might be the number of its

representatives. A much greater irregularity, in regard to the

number of cities required to send deputies to cortes [the name

signifying 'court'] on different occasions, prevailed in

Castile, than had ever existed in England; though, previously

to the 15th century, this does not seem to have proceeded from

any design of infringing on the liberties of the people. The

nomination of these was originally vested in the householders

at large, but was afterwards confined to the

municipalities,--a most mischievous alteration, which

subjected their election eventually to the corrupt influence

of the crown. They assembled in the same chamber with the

higher orders of the nobility and clergy, but on questions of

moment, retired to deliberate by themselves. After the

transaction of other business, their own petitions were

presented to the sovereign, and his assent gave them the

validity of laws. The Castilian commons, by neglecting to make

their money grants depend on corresponding concessions from

the crown, relinquished that powerful check on its operations

so beneficially exerted in the British parliament, but in vain

contended for even there till a much later period than that

now under consideration. Whatever may have been the right of

the nobility and clergy to attend in cortes, their sanction

was not deemed essential to the validity of legislative acts;

for their presence was not even required in many assemblies of

the nation which occurred in the 14th and 15th centuries. The

extraordinary power thus committed to the commons was, on the

whole, unfavorable to their liberties. It deprived them of the

sympathy and cooperation of the great orders of the state,

whose authority alone could have enabled them to withstand the

encroachments of arbitrary power, and who, in fact, did

eventually desert them in their utmost need. ... The Aragonese

cortes was composed of four branches, or arms; the ricos

hombres, or great barons; the lesser nobles, comprehending the

knights; the clergy; and the commons. The nobility of every

denomination were entitled to a seat in the legislature. The

ricos hombres were allowed to appear by proxy, and a similar

privilege was enjoyed by baronial heiresses. The number of

this body was very limited, twelve of them constituting a quorum.

{617}

The arm of the ecclesiastics embraced an ample delegation from

the inferior as well as higher clergy. It is affirmed not to

have been a component of the national legislature until more

than a century and a half after the admission of the commons.

Indeed, the influence of the church was much less sensible in

Aragon than in the other kingdoms of the Peninsula. ... The

commons enjoyed higher consideration and civil privileges. For

this they were perhaps somewhat indebted to the example of

their Catalan neighbors, the influence of whose democratic

institutions naturally extended to other parts of the

Aragonese monarchy. The charters of certain cities accorded to

the inhabitants privileges of nobility, particularly that of

immunity from taxation; while the magistrates of others were

permitted to take their seats in the order of hidalgos. From a

very early period we find them employed in offices of public

trust, and on important missions. The epoch of their admission

into the national assembly is traced as far back as 1133,

several years earlier than the commencement of popular

representation in Castile. Each city had the right of sending

two or more deputies selected from persons eligible to its

magistracy; but with the privilege of only one vote, whatever

might be the number of its deputies. Any place which had been

once represented in cortes might always claim to be so. By a

statute of 1307, the convocation of the states, which had been

annual, was declared biennial. The kings, however, paid little

regard to this provision, rarely summoning them except for

some specific necessity. The great officers of the crown,

whatever might be their personal rank, were jealously excluded

from their deliberations. ... It was in the power of any

member to defeat the passage of a bill, by opposing to it his

veto or dissent, formally registered to that effect. He might

even interpose his negative on the proceedings of the house,

and thus put a stop to the prosecution of all further business

during the session. This anomalous privilege, transcending

even that claimed in the Polish diet, must have been too

invidious in its exercise, and too pernicious in its

consequences, to have been often resorted to. This may be

inferred from the fact that it was not formally repealed until

the reign of Philip II., in 1502. ... The cortes exercised the

highest functions, whether of a deliberative, legislative, or

judicial nature. It had a right to be consulted on all matters

of importance, especially on those of peace and war. No law

was valid, no tax could be imposed, without its consent; and

it carefully provided for the application of the revenue to

its destined uses. It determined the succession to the crown,

removed obnoxious ministers, reformed the household and

domestic expenditure of the monarch, and exercised the power,

in the most unreserved manner, of withholding supplies, as

well as of resisting what it regarded as an encroachment on

the liberties of the nation. ... The statute-book affords the

most unequivocal evidence of the fidelity with which the

guardians of the realm discharged the high trust reposed in

them, in the numerous enactments it exhibits for the security

both of person and property. Almost the first page which meets

the eye in this venerable record contains the General

Privilege, the Magna Charta, as it has been well denominated,

of Aragon. It was granted by Peter the Great to the cortes at

Saragossa, in 1283. It embraces a variety of provisions for

the fair and open administration of justice; for ascertaining

the legitimate powers intrusted to the cortes; for the

security of property against exactions of the crown; and for

the conservation of their legal immunities to the municipal

corporations and the different orders of nobility. ... The

Aragonese, who rightly regarded the General Privilege as the

broadest basis of their liberties, repeatedly procured its

confirmation by succeeding sovereigns. ... The judicial

functions of the cortes have not been sufficiently noticed by

writers. They were extensive in their operation, and gave it

the name of the General Court."

W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Ferdinand and

Isabella, introduction, section 1-2.

"Castile bore a closer analogy to England in its form of civil

polity than France or even Aragon. But the frequent disorders

of its government and a barbarous state of manners rendered

violations of law much more continual and flagrant than they

were in England under the Plantagenet dynasty. And besides

these practical mischiefs, there were two essential defects in

the constitution of Castile, through which perhaps it was

ultimately subverted. It wanted those two brilliants in the

coronet of British liberty, the representation of freeholders

among the commons, and trial by jury. The cortes of Castile

became a congress of deputies from a few cities, public

spirited, indeed, and intrepid, as we find them in bad times,

to an eminent degree, but too much limited in number, and too

unconnected with the territorial aristocracy, to maintain a

just balance against the crown. ... Perhaps in no European

monarchy except our own was the form of government more

interesting than in Aragon, as a fortunate temperament of law

and justice with the royal authority. ... Blancas quotes a

noble passage from the acts of cortes in 1451. 'We have always

heard of old time, and it is found by experience, that seeing

the great barrenness of this land, and the poverty of the

realm, if it were not for the liberties thereof, the folk

would go hence to live and abide in other realms and lands

more fruitful.' This high spirit of freedom had long animated

the Aragonese. After several contests with the crown in the

reign of James I., not to go back to earlier times, they

compelled Peter III. in 1283 to grant a law called the General

Privilege, the Magna Charta of Aragon, and perhaps a more full

and satisfactory basis of civil liberty than our own." They

further "established a positive right of maintaining their

liberties by arms. This was contained in the Privilege of

Union granted by Alfonso III. in 1287, after a violent

conflict with his subjects; but which was afterwards so

completely abolished, and even eradicated from the records of

the kingdom, that its precise words have never been recovered.

... That watchfulness over public liberty which originally

belonged to the aristocracy of ricos hombres ... and which was

afterwards maintained by the dangerous Privilege of Union,

became the duty of a civil magistrate whose office and

functions are the most pleasing feature in the constitutional

history of Aragon. The Justiza or Justiciary of Aragon has

been treated by some writers as a sort of anomalous

magistrate. ... But I do not perceive that his functions were,

in any essential respect, different from those of the chief

justice of England, divided, from the time of Edward I., among

the judges of the King's Bench. ...

{618}

All the royal as well as territorial judges were

bound to apply for his opinion in case of legal difficulties

arising in their courts, which he was to certify within eight

days. By subsequent statutes of the same reign it was made

penal for anyone to obtain letters from the king, impeding the

execution of the Justiza's process, and they were declared

null. Inferior courts were forbidden to proceed in any

business after his prohibition. ... There are two parts of his

remedial jurisdiction which deserve special notice. These are

the processes of juris firma, or firma del derechio, and of

manifestation. The former bears some analogy to the writs of

'pone' and 'certiorari' in England, through which the Court of

King's Bench exercises its right of withdrawing a suit from

the jurisdiction of inferior tribunals. But the Aragonese

juris firma was of more extensive operation. ... The process

termed manifestation afforded as ample security for personal

liberty as that of juris firma did for property."

H. Hallam, The Middle Age, chapter 4 (volume 2).

For some account of the loss of the old constitutional

liberties of Castile and Aragon, under Charles V.,

See SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.

"The councils or meetings of the bishops after the reconquest,

like the later Councils of Toledo, were always 'jussu regis,'

and were attended by counts and magnates 'ad videndum sine ad

audiendum verbum Domini.' But when the ecclesiastical business

was ended, it was natural that the lay part of the assembly

should discuss the affairs of the kingdom and of the people;

and insensibly this after-part of the proceedings grew as the

first part diminished in importance. The exact date when the

Council merged into the Curia or Cortes is difficult to

determine; Señor Colmeiro takes the so-named Council of Leon

in 1020 as the true starting-point of the latter. The early

monarchy of Spain was elective, and the acclamation of the

assembled people (plebs) was at least theoretically necessary

to render the king's election valid. The presence of the

citizens at the Cortes or Zamora, though stated by Sandoval

and Morales, is impugned by Señor Colmeiro; but at the Council

of Oviedo in 1115 were present bishops of Spain and Portugal

'cum principibus et plebe praedictae regionis,' and these

latter also subscribed the Acts. Still, though present and

making their influence more and more felt, there is no record

of a true representation of cities until Alfonso IX. convoked

the Cortes of Leon in 1188, 'cum archiepiscopo, et episcopis,

et magnatibus regni mei et cum electis civibus ex singulis

civitatibus'; from this time the three estates--clergy,

nobles, citizens--were always represented in the Cortes of

Leon. Unfortunately, the political development of Castille did

not synchronise with that of Leon. In general, that of

Castille was fully half a century later. We pass by as more

than doubtful the alleged presence of citizens at Burgos in

1169; the 'majores civitatum et villarum' at the Cortes of

Carrion in 1188 were not deputies, but the judges or governors

of twenty-eight cities. It is not till the united Cortes of

both kingdoms met at Seville in 1250, that we find true

representation in Castille. Castille was always more feudal

than Leon. It is in this want of simultaneous development, and

in the presence of privileged classes, that we find the germ

of the evils which eventually destroyed the liberties of

Spain. Neither the number of deputies nor of the cities

represented was ever fixed; at Burgos, in 1315, we find 200

deputies (procuradores) from 100 cities; gradually the number

sank till seventeen, and finally twenty-two, cities alone were

represented. The deputies were chosen from the municipality

either by lot, by rotation, or by election; they were the mere

spokesmen of the city councils, whose mandate was imperative.

Their payment was at first by the cities, but, after 1422, by

the king; and there are constant complaints that the salary

was insufficient. The reign of Juan II. (1406-54) was fatal to

the liberties of Castille; the answers to the demands and

petitions of the deputies were deferred; and, in fact, if not

in form, the law that no tax should be levied without consent

of the Cortes was constantly violated. Still, but for the

death of Prince Juan, in 1497, and the advent of the Austrian

dynasty with the possession of the Low Countries, the old

liberties might yet have been recovered. ... With the Cortes

of Toledo, in 1538, ended the meeting of the three estates.

The nobility first, then the clergy, were eliminated from the

Cortes, leaving only the proctors of the cities to become

servile instruments for the purposes of taxation."

W. Webster, Review of Colmeiro's

"Cortes de los Antiguos Reinos de Leon y de Castilla"

(Academy, Aug. 16, 1884).

CORUNNA, Battle of (1809).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).

CORUPEDION, Battle of.

A battle fought in western Phrygia, B. C. 281, in which

Lysimmachus, one of the disputants for Alexander's empire, was

defeated by Seleucus, and slain.

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 60.

CORVÉE.

One of the feudal rights possessed in France (under the old

regime, before the Revolution) "by the lord of the manor over

his subjects, by means of which he could employ for his own

profit a certain number of their days of labour, or of their

oxen and horses. The 'Corvée à volonté,' that is to say, at

the arbitrary will of the Seigneur, had been completely

abolished [before the Revolution]: forced labour had been for

some time past confined to a certain number of days a year."

A. de Tocqueville, On the State of Society in France

before 1789, note 4 E. (p. 499).

CORVUS, The Roman.

See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

COS, OR KOS.

One of the islands in the Ægean called the Sporades, near the

Carian coast of Asia Minor. The island was sacred to

Asclepius, or Æsculapeus, and was the birthplace of the

celebrated physician Hippocrates, as well as of the painter

Apelles. It was an Æolian colony, but joined the Dorian

confederacy.

COSIMO DE' MEDICI,

The ascendancy at Florence of.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1433-1464.

COSMOS, COSMIOS, COSMOPOLIS.

See DEMIURGI.

{619}

COSSACKS, The.

"The origin of the Cossack tribes is lost in the obscurity of

ages; and many celebrated historians are still divided in

opinion as to whence the term Cossack, or rather Kosaque, is

properly to be derived. This word, indeed, is susceptible of

so many etymological explanations, as scarcely to offer for

anyone of them decided grounds of preference. Everything,

however, would seem to favour the belief that the word

Cossack, or Kosaque, was in much earlier use in the vicinity

of the Caucasus than in the Ukraine. ... Sherer, in his

'Annals of Russia Minor,' (La Petite Russie,) traces back the

origin of the Cossacks to the ninth century; but he does not

support his assertion by any facts clothed with the dignity of

historical truth. It appears certain, however, that the vast

pasture lands between the Don and the Dnieper, the country

lying on the south of Kïow, and traversed by the Dnieper up to

the Black Sea, was the principal birthplace of the Cossacks.

When, in 1242, Batukhan came with 500,000 men to take

possession of the empire which fell to his share of the vast

inheritance left by Tchingis Khan [see MONGOLS: A. D.

1229-1294], he extirpated many nations and displaced many

others. One portion of the Komans flying from the horrors of

this terrific storm, and arriving on the borders of the

Caspian Sea, on the banks of the Iaïk, (now Ouralsek,) turned

to the left, and took refuge between the embouchures of that

river, where they dwelt in small numbers, apart from their

brethren, in a less fertile climate. These were,

incontestably, the progenitors of the Cossacks of the Iaïk,

who are, historically, scarcely important enough for notice.

... At the approach of this formidable invasion towards the

Don, that portion of the Komans located on the left bank took

refuge in the marshes, and in the numerous islands formed by

that river near its embouchure. Here they found a secure

retreat; and from thence, having, from their new position,

acquired maritime habits and seafaring experience, they not

only, themselves, resorted to piracy as a means of existence,

but likewise enlisted in a formidable confederacy, for

purposes of rapine and pillage, all the roving and

discontented tribes in their surrounding neighbourhood. These

latter were very numerous. The Tartars, ever but indifferent

seamen, had not the courage to join them in these piratical

expeditions. This division of the Komans is indubitably the

parent stock of the modern Cossacks of the Don, by far the

most numerous of the Cossack tribes: by amalgamation; however,

with whole hosts of Tartar and Calmuck hordes, lawless,

desperate, and nomadic as themselves, they lost, in some

degree, the primitive and deeply marked distinctive character

of their race. The Komans of the Dnieper offered no more

energetic resistance to the invading hordes of Batukhan than

had been shown by their brethren of the Don: they dispersed in

various directions, and from this people, flying at the

advance of the ferocious Tartars, descended a variety of

hordes, who occasionally figure in history as distinct and

independent nations. ... [They] ultimately found a permanent

resting-place in the wild islets of the Dnieper, below the

cataracts, where dwelt already a small number of their ancient

compatriots, who had escaped the general destruction of their

nation. This spot became the cradle of the Cossacks of the

Ukraine, or of the tribes known in after times as the Polish

Cossacks. When Guedynum, Grand Duke of Lithuania, after having

defeated twelve Russian princes on the banks of the Piërna,

conquered Kïow with its dependencies in 1320, the wandering

tribes scattered over the steppes of the Ukraine owned his

allegiance. After the victories of Olgierd, of Vitold, and of

Ladislas Iagellon, over the Tartars and the Russians, large

bodies of Scythian militia, known subsequently by the

comprehensive denomination of Cossacks, or Kosaques, served

under these conquerors: and after the union of the Grand Duchy

of Lithuania with Poland, in 1386, they continued under the

dominion of the grand dukes of Lithuania, forming, apparently,

an intermediate tribe or caste, superior to the peasantry and

inferior to the nobles. At a later period, when the Ukraine

was annexed to the Polish crown, they passed under the

protection of the kings of Poland. ... Although there may,

doubtless, exist several species or castes of Cossacks, and to

whom Russia in order to impose on Europe, is pleased to give

as many different names, yet there never have been, nor will

there ever be, properly speaking, more than two principal

tribes of the Cossack nation, namely the Cossacks of the Don,

or Don-Cossacks, and the Cossacks of the Black Sea, known in

ancient times as the Polish Cossacks, or Zaporowscy Kozacy.

... The Cossacks [of the Don] ... have rendered signal service

to Russia, which, ever since the year 1549, has taken them

under her protection, without, however, the existence of any

official act, treaty, or stipulation, confirming their

submission to that power. ... The Don-Cossacks enjoy a certain

kind of liberty and independence; they have a hetman, attaman,

or chief, nominated by the Emperor of Russia; and to this

chief they yield an obedience more or less willing and

implicit; in general, they are commanded only by Cossack

officers, who take equal rank in the Russian army. They have a

separate war administration of their own; although they are

compelled to furnish a stated number of recruits who serve in

a manner for life, inasmuch as they are rarely discharged

before attaining sixty years of age: on the whole, their

condition is happier than that of the rest of the Russian

population. They belong to the Greek-Russian church. The

existence of this small republic of the Don, in the very heart

of the most despotic and most extensive empire in the world,

appears to constitute a problem, the solution of which is not

as yet definitely known, and the ultimate solution of which

yet remains to be ascertained."

H. Krasinski, The Cossacks of the Ukraine, chapter 1.

The Cossacks of the Ukraine transferred their allegiance from

the King of Poland to the Czar of Russia in 1654, after a

revolt led by their hetman, Bogdan Khmelnitski, in which they

were assisted by the neighboring Tartars, and which was

accompanied by terrible scenes of slaughter and destruction.

See POLAND: A. D. 1648-1654.

COSSÆANS, The.

See KOSSÆANS.

COSTA RICA: A. D. 1502.

Discovery by Columbus.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.

COSTA RICA: A. D. 1813-1871.

Independence of Spain.

Brief annexation to Mexico.

The failures of federation, the wars and revolutions of

Central America.

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

COSTA RICA: A. D. 1850.

The Clayton Bulwer Treaty and the projected Nicaragua Canal.

See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

----------COSTA RICA: End----------

COSTANOAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: COSTANOAN FAMILY.

COSTER, Laurent, and the invention of printing.

See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.

COTARII.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN: ENGLAND.

620

COTHON OF CARTHAGE, The.

"There were two land-locked docks or harbours, opening the one

into the other, and both, it would seem, the work of human

hands. ... The outer harbour was rectangular, about 1,400 feet

long and 1,100 broad, and was appropriated to merchant

vessels; the inner was circular like a drinking cup, whence it

was called the Cothon, and was reserved for ships of war. It

could not be approached except through the merchant harbour,

and the entrance to this last was only 70 feet wide, and could

be closed at any time by chains. The war harbour was entirely

surrounded by quays, containing separate docks for 220 ships.

In front of each dock were two Ionic pillars of marble, so

that the whole must have presented the appearance of a

splendid circular colonnade. Right in the centre of the

harbour was an island, the headquarters of the admiral."

R. B. Smith, Carthage and the Carthaginians, chapter 20.

COTSETI.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN: ENGLAND.

COTTON, Reverend John and the colony of Massachusetts Bay.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636.

COTTON FAMINE, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1861-1865.

COTTON-GIN:

Eli Whitney's invention and its effects.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

COTTON MANUFACTURE:

The great inventions in spinning and weaving.

"Cotton had been used in the extreme East and in the extreme

West from the earliest periods of which we have any record.

The Spaniards, on their discovery of America, found the

Mexicans clothed in cotton. ... But though the use of cotton

had been known from the earliest ages, both in India and

America, no cotton goods were imported into Europe; and in the

ancient world both rich and poor were clothed in silk, linen,

and wool. The industrious Moors introduced cotton into Spain.

Many centuries afterwards cotton was imported into Italy,

Saxony and the Low Countries. Isolated from the rest of

Europe, with little wealth, little industry, and no roads;

rent by civil commotions; the English were the last people in

Europe to introduce the manufacture of cotton goods into their

own homes. Towards the close of the 16th century, indeed,

cotton goods were occasionally mentioned in the Statute Book,

and the manufacture of the cottons of Manchester was regulated

by Acts passed in the reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., and

Elizabeth. But there seem to be good reasons for concluding

that Manchester cottons, in the time of the Tudors, were

woollen goods, and did not consist of cotton at all. More than

a century elapsed before any considerable trade in cotton

attracted the attention of the legislature. The woollen

manufacturers complained that people were dressing their

children in printed cottons; and Parliament was actually

persuaded to prohibit the introduction of Indian printed

calicoes. Even an Act of Parliament, however, was unable to

extinguish the growing taste for Indian cottons. ... The taste

for cotton led to the introduction of calico-printing in

London; Parliament in order to encourage the new trade, was

induced to sanction the importation of plain cotton cloths

from India under a duty. The demand, which was thus created

for calicoes, probably promoted their manufacture at home. ...

Up to the middle of the last century cotton goods were really

never made at all. The so-called cotton manufactures were a

combination of wool or linen and cotton. No Englishman had

been able to produce a cotton thread strong enough for the

warp; ... The superior skill of the Indian manufacturers

enabled them to use cotton for a warp; while clumsy

workmanship made the use of cotton as a warp unattainable at

home. In the middle of the 18th century, then, a piece of

cotton cloth in the true sense of the term, had never been

made in England. The so-called cotton goods were all made in

the cottages of the weavers. The yarn was carded by hand; it

was spun by hand; it was worked into cloth by a hand loom. ...

The operation of weaving was, however, much more rapid than

that of spinning. The weaver consumed more weft than his own

family could supply him with; and the weavers generally

experienced the greatest difficulty in obtaining sufficient

yarn. About the middle of the 18th century the ingenuity of

two persons, a father and a son, made this difference more

apparent. The shuttle had originally been thrown by the hand

from one end of the loom to the other. John Kay, a native of

Bury, by his invention of the fly-shuttle [patented in 1733],

saved the weaver from this labour. ... Robert Kay, John Kay's

son, added the drop-box, by means of which the weaver was able

'to use any one of three shuttles, each containing a different

coloured weft, without the trouble of taking them from and

replacing them in the lathe.' By means of these inventions the

productive power of each weaver was doubled. ... Carding and

roving were both slowly performed. ... The trade was in this

humble and primitive state when a series of extraordinary and

unparalleled inventions revolutionised the conditions on which

cotton had been hitherto prepared. A little more than a

century ago John Hargreaves, a poor weaver in the

neighbourhood of Blackburn, was returning home from a long

walk, in which he had been purchasing a further supply of yarn

for his loom. As he entered his cottage, his wife Jenny

accidentally upset the spindle which she was using. Hargreaves

noticed that the spindles which were now thrown into an

upright position, continued to revolve, and that the thread

was still spinning in his wife's hand. The idea immediately

occurred to him that it would be possible to connect a

considerable number of upright spindles with one wheel, and

thus multiply the productive power of each spinster. ...

Hargreaves succeeded in keeping his admirable invention secret

for a time; but the powers of his machine soon became known.

His ignorant neighbours hastily concluded that a machine,

which enabled one spinster to do the work of eight, would

throw multitudes of persons out of employment. A mob broke

into his house and destroyed his machine. Hargreaves himself

had to retire to Nottingham, where, with the friendly

assistance of another person, he was able to take out a patent

[1770] for the spinning-jenny, as the machine, in compliment

to his industrious wife, was called. The invention of the

spinning-jenny gave a new impulse to the cotton manufacture.

But the ... yarn spun by the jenny, like that which had

previously been spun by hand, was neither fine enough nor hard

enough to be employed as warp, and linen or woollen threads

had consequently to be used for this purpose.

{621}

In the very year, however, in which Hargreaves moved from

Blackburn to Nottingham, Richard Arkwright [who began life as

a barber's assistant] took out a patent [1769] for his still

more celebrated machine. ... 'After many years intense and

painful application,' he invented his memorable machine for

spinning by rollers; and laid the foundations of the gigantic

industry which has done more than any other trade to

concentrate in this country the wealth of the world. ... He

passed the thread over two pairs of rollers, one of which was

made to revolve much more rapidly than the other. The thread,

after passing the pair revolving slowly, was drawn into the

requisite tenuity by the rollers revolving at a higher

rapidity. By this simple but memorable invention Arkwright

succeeded in producing thread capable of employment as warp.

From the circumstance that the mill at which his machinery was

first erected was driven by water power, the machine received

the somewhat inappropriate name of the water frame; the thread

spun by it was usually called the water twist. Invention of

the spinning-jenny and the water frame would have been useless

if the old system of hand-carding had not been superseded by a

more efficient and more rapid process. Just as Arkwright

applied rotatory motion to spinning, so Lewis Paul introduced

revolving cylinders for carding cotton. ... This extraordinary

series of inventions placed an almost unlimited supply of yarn

at the disposal of the weaver. But the machinery, which had

thus been introduced, was still incapable of providing yarn

fit for the finer qualities of cotton cloth. ... This defect,

however, was removed by the ingenuity of Samuel Crompton, a

young weaver residing near Bolton. Crompton succeeded in

combining in one machine the various excellences 'of

Arkwright's water frame and Hargreaves' jenny.' Like the

former, his machine, which from its nature is happily called

the mule, 'has a system of rollers to reduce the roving; and

like the latter it has spindles without bobbins to give the

twist. ... The effects of Crompton's great invention may be

stated epigrammatically. ... The natives of India could spin a

pound of cotton into a thread 119 miles long.' The English

succeed in spinning the same thread to a length of 160 miles.

Yarn of the finest quality was at once at the disposal of the

weaver. ... The ingenuity of Hargreaves, Arkwright and

Crompton had been exercised to provide the weaver with yarn.

... The spinster had beaten the weaver. ... Edmund Cartwright,

a clergyman residing in Kent, happened to be staying at

Matlock in the summer of 1784, and to be thrown into the

company of some Manchester gentlemen. The conversation turned

on Arkwright's machinery, and 'one of the company observed

that, as soon as Arkwright's patent expired, so many mills

would be erected and so much cotton spun that hands would

never be found to weave it.' Cartwright replied 'that

Arkwright must then set his wits to work to invent a weaving

mill.' ... Within three years he had himself proved that the

invention was practicable by producing the power-loom.

Subsequent inventors improved the idea which Cartwright had

originated, and within fifty years from the date of his

memorable visit to Matlock there were not less than 100,000

power-looms at work in Great Britain alone. ... Other

inventions, less generally remembered, were hardly less

wonderful or less beneficial than these. ... Scheele, the

Swedish philosopher, discovered in 1774 the bleaching

properties of chlorine, or oxymuriatic acid. Berthollet, the

French chemist, conceived the idea of applying the acid to

bleaching cloth. ... In the same year in which Watt and Henry

were introducing the new acid to the bleacher, Bell, a

Scotchman, was laying the foundations of a trade in printed

calicoes. 'The old method of printing was by blocks of

sycamore.' ... This clumsy process was superseded by cylinder

printing. ... Such are the leading inventions, which made

Great Britain in less than a century the wealthiest country in

the world."

S. Walpole, History of England from 1815, volume 1, chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

R. W. C. Taylor, Introduction to a History

of the Factory System, chapter 10.

E. Baines, History of the Cotton Manufacture in Great Britain.

A. Ure, The Cotton Manufacture of Great Britain.

COULMIERS, Battle of (1870).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

COUNCIL BLUFFS, The Mormons at.

See MORMONISM: A. D. 1846-1848.

COUNCIL FOR NEW ENGLAND.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623; 1621-1631; and 1635.

COUNCIL OF BLOOD, The.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1567.

COUNCIL OF FIVE HUNDRED, The Athenian.

See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.

The French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

COUNCIL OF TEN, The.

See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.

COUNCIL OF THE ANCIENTS, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

COUNCIL, THE PRIVY.

See PRIVY COUNCIL.

COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH, General or Ecumenical.

There are seven councils admitted by both the Greek and Latin

churches as œcumenical (or ecumenical)--that is general, or

universal. The Roman Catholics recognize thirteen more, making

twenty in all--as follows:

1. The synod of apostles in Jerusalem.

2. The first Council of Nice, A. D. 325

(see NICÆA, THE FIRST COUNCIL).

3. The first Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381.

4. The first Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431.

5. The Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451.

6. The second Council of Constantinople, A. D. 553.

7. The third Council of Constantinople, A. D. 681.

8. The second Council of Nice, A. D. 787.

9. The fourth Council of Constantinople, A. D. 869.

10. The first Lateran Council, A. D. 1123.

11. The second Lateran Council, A. D. 1139.

12. The third Lateran Council, A. D. 1179.

13. The fourth Lateran Council, A. D. 1215.

14. The first œcumenical synod of Lyon, A. D. 1245.

15. The second œcumenical synod of Lyon, A. D. 1274.

16. The Synod of Vienne in Gaul, A. D. 1311.

17. The Council of Constance,

A. D. 1414 (see PAPACY: A. D. 1414-1418).

18. The Council of Basel, A. D. 1431

(see PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448).

19. The Council of Trent, A. D. 1545

(see PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563).

20. The Council of the Vatican, A. D. 1869

(see PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870).

{622}

COUNT AND DUKE, Roman.

Origin of the titles.

"The defence of the Roman empire was at length committed

[under Constantine and his successors] to eight

masters-general of the cavalry and infantry. Under their

orders thirty-five military commanders were stationed in the

provinces--three in Britain, six in Gaul, one in Spain, one in

Italy, five on the Upper and four on the Lower Danube, in Asia

eight, three in Egypt, and four in Africa. The titles of

Counts and Dukes, by which they were properly distinguished,

have obtained in modern languages so very different a sense

that the use of them may occasion some surprise. But it should

be recollected that the second of those appellations is only a

corruption of the Latin word which was indiscriminately

applied to any military chief. All these provincial generals

were therefore dukes; but no more than ten among them were

dignified with the rank of counts or companions, a title of

honour, or rather of favour, which had been recently invented

in the court of Constantine. A gold belt was the ensign which

distinguished the office of the counts and dukes."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 17.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

"The Duke and the Count of modern Europe--what are they but

the Generals and Companions (Duces and Comites) of a Roman

province? Why or when they changed places, the Duke climbing

up into such unquestioned pre-eminence over his former

superior the Count, I know not, nor yet by what process it was

discovered that the latter was the precise equivalent of the

Scandinavian Jarl."

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 1, chapter 3.

COUNT OF THE DOMESTICS.

In the organization of the Imperial Household, during the

later period of the Roman empire, the officers called Counts

of the Domestics "commanded the various divisions of the

household troops, known by the names of Domestici and

Protectores, and thus together replaced the Prætorian Prefect

of the earlier days of the Empire. ... Theoretically, their

duties would not greatly differ from those of a Colonel in the

Guards."

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 1, chapter 3.

COUNT OF THE SACRED LARGESSES.

In the later Roman empire, "the Count who had charge of the

Sacred (i. e. Imperial) Bounty, should have been by his title

simply the Grand Almoner of the Empire. ... In practice,

however, the minister who took charge of the Imperial

Largesses had to find ways and means for every other form of

Imperial expenditure. ... The Count of the Sacred Largesses

was therefore in fact the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the

Empire."

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 1, chapter 3.

COUNT OF THE SAXON SHORE.

See SAXON SHORE.

COUNT PALATINE.

See PALATINE, COUNTS.

COUNTER-REFORMATION, The.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1534-1540; 1537-1563; 1555-1603.

COUNTRY PARTY, The.

See ENGLAND; A. D. 1672-1673.

COUP D' ETAT OF LOUIS NAPOLEON, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1851; and 1851-1852.

COUREURS DE BOIS.

"Out of the beaver trade [in the 17th century] rose a huge

evil, baneful to the growth and the morals of Canada. All that

was most active and vigorous in the colony took to the woods,

and escaped from the control of intendants, councils and

priests, to the savage freedom of the wilderness. Not only

were the possible profits great, but, in the pursuit of them,

there was a fascinating element of adventure and danger. The

bush rangers, or coureurs de bois, were to the king an object

of horror. They defeated his plans for the increase of the

population, and shocked his native instinct of discipline and

order. Edict after edict was directed against them; and more

than once the colony presented the extraordinary spectacle of

the greater part of its young men turned into forest outlaws.

... We hear of seigniories abandoned; farms turning again into

forests; wives and children left in destitution. The exodus of

the coureurs de bois would take at times the character of an

organized movement. The famous Du Lhut is said to have made a

general combination of the young men of Canada to follow him

into the woods. Their plan was to be absent four years, in

order that the edicts against them might have time to relent.

The intendant Duchesneau reported that 800 men out of a

population of less than 10,000 souls had vanished from sight

in the immensity of a boundless wilderness. Whereupon the king

ordered that any person going into the woods without a license

should be whipped and branded for the first offence, and sent

for life to the galleys for the second. ... Under such leaders

as Du Lhut, the coureurs de bois built forts of palisades at

various points throughout the West and Northwest. They had a

post of this sort at Detroit some time before its permanent

settlement, as well as others on Lake Superior and in the

Valley of the Mississippi. They occupied them as long as it

suited their purposes, and then abandoned them to the next

comer. Michillimackinac was, however, their chief resort."

F. Parkman, The Old Regime in Canada, chapter 17.

COURLAND, Christian conquest of.

See. LIVONIA: 12TH-13TH CENTURIES.

COURT BARON.

See MANORS.

COURT CUSTOMARY.

See MANORS.

COURT-LEET.

See MANORS,

and SAC AND SOC.

COURT OF CHANCERY.

See CHANCELLOR.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

See CURIA REGIS.

COURT OF HIGH COMMISSION.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559;

and A. D. 1686.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

See CURIA REGIS.

COURT, SUPREME, of the United States.

See SUPREME COURT.

COURTRAI: A. D. 1382.

Pillaged and burned by the French.

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1382.

COURTRAI: A. D. 1646.

Siege and capture by the French.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1645-1646.

COURTRAI: A. D. 1648.

Taken by the Spaniards.

See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1647-1648.

COURTRAI: A. D. 1667.

Taken by the French.

See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.

COURTRAI: A. D. 1668.

Ceded to France.

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

COURTRAI: A. D. 1679.

Restored to Spain.

See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.

----------COURTRAI: End----------

{623}

COURTRAI, The Battle of.

The battle of Courtrai (July 11, A. D. 1302), in which the

barons and knights of France were fearfully slaughtered by the

sturdy burghers of Flanders, was sometimes called the Day of

the Spurs, on account of the great number of gilt spurs which

was taken from the bodies of the dead and hung up by the

victors in Courtrai cathedral.

G. W. Kitchen, History of France,

book 3, chapter 10, section 2.

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1299-1304.

COURTS OF LOVE.

See PROVENCE: A.D. 1179-1207.

COUTHON,

and the French Revolutionary Committee of Public Safety.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER), to 1794 (JULY).

COUTRAS, Battle of (1587).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

COVADONGA, Cave of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 713-737.

COVENANT, The Halfway.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.

COVENANT, The Solemn League and.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

COVENANTERS.

The name given to the signers and supporters of the Scottish

National Covenant (see SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557, 1581 and 1638)

and afterwards to all who adhered to the Kirk of Scotland. The

war of Montrose with the Covenanters will be found narrated

under SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645. For the story of the

persecution which they suffered under the restored Stuarts,

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666; 1669-1679; 1679; and 1681-1689.

COVENANTS, The Scottish.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557-1581; and 1638.

COWBOYS.

During the War of the American Revolution, "there was a venal

and bloody set which hung on the skirts of the British army,

well known as Cow-boys. They were plunderers and ruffians by

profession, and came to have their name from their

cattle-stealing. Some of the most cruel and disgraceful

murders and barbarities of the war were perpetrated by them.

Whenever they were caught they were hung up at once."

C. W. Elliott, The New England History, volume 2, page 372.

See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780

(AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

COWPENS, Battle of the (1781).

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

CRACOW: A. D. 1702.

Taken by Charles XII. of Sweden.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

CRACOW: A. D. 1793-1794.

Occupied by the Russians.

Rising of the citizens.

Surrender and cession to Austria.

See POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.

CRACOW: A. D. 1815.

Creation of the Republic.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

CRACOW: A. D. 1831-1846.

Occupation by the Austrians, Russians and Prussians.

Extinction of the Republic.

Annexation to Austria.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.

----------CRACOW: End----------

CRADLE OF LIBERTY.

See FANEUIL HALL.

CRAFT-GUILDS.

See GUILDS, MEDIÆVAL.

CRAGIE TRACT, The.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

CRAL.-KRALE.

"The princes of Servia (Ducange, Famil, Dalmaticæ, &c., c.

2-4, 9) were styled 'despots' in Greek, and Cral in their

native idiom (Ducange, Gloss. Græc., page 751). That title, the

equivalent of king, appears to be of Sclavonic origin, from

whence it has been borrowed by the Hungarians, the modern

Greeks, and even by the Turks (Leunclavius, Pandect. Turc., p.

422), who reserve the name of Padishah for the Emperor."

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

chapter 63, note.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

See, also,

BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1341-1356 (SERVIA).

CRANNOGES.

See LAKE DWELLINGS.

CRANNON (KRANNON), Battle of (B. C. 322).

See GREECE: B. C. 323-322.

CRAONNE, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

CRASSUS AND THE FIRST TRIUMVIRATE.

See ROME: B. C. 78-68, to 57-52.

CRATER, Battle of the Petersburg.

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

CRATERUS, AND THE WARS OF THE DIADOCHI.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.

CRANGALLIDÆ, The.

See HIERODULI.

CRAYFORD, Battle of (A. D. 457).

The second battle fought between the Britons and the invading

Jutes, under Hengest, for the possession of southeastern

Britain.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

CRÉCY, Battle of (1346).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360.

CREDIT MOBILIER SCANDAL.

On the meeting of the Congress of the United States in

December, 1872, attention was called by the Speaker to charges

made in the preceding canvass "that the Vice-President, the

Vice-President elect, the Secretary of the Treasury, several

Senators, the Speaker of the House, and a large number of

Representatives had been bribed, during the years 1867 and

1868, by presents of stock in a corporation known as the

Credit Mobilier [organized to contract for building the Union

Pacific Railroad] to vote and act for the benefit of the Union

Pacific Railroad Company. On his motion, an investigating

committee was appointed, L. P. Poland, of Vermont, being

chairman. The Poland Committee reported February 18th, 1873,

recommending the expulsion of Oakes Ames, of Massachusetts,

for selling to members of Congress shares of the stock of the

Credit Mobilier below their real value, with intent thereby to

influence the votes of such members,' and of James Brooks, of

New York, for receiving such stock. The House modified the

proposed expulsion into an 'absolute condemnation' of the

conduct of both members."

A. Johnston, History of American Politics, pages 210-220.

Report of Select Committee

(42d Congress, 3d session, H. R. report no. 77).

ALSO IN:

J. B. Crawford, The Credit Mobilier of America.

CREEKS.

Creek Wars.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY;

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

and FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

CREES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

CREFELD, Battle of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.

CREMA, Siege of (1159-1160).

See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.

CREMONA: The Roman Colony.

Siege by the Gauls.

See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

CREMONA: A. D. 69.

Destruction by the Flavians.

See ROME: A, D. 69.

CREMONA: A. D. 1702.

Defeat of the French.

See ITALY (SAVOY AND PIEDMONT): A. D. 1701-1713.

{624}

CREOLE.

"In Europe it is very common to attach to the term Creole the

idea of a particular complexion. This is a mistake. The

designation Creole [in Spanish American regions] properly

belongs to all the natives of America born of parents who have

emigrated from the Old World, be those parents Europeans or

Africans. There are, therefore, white as well as black

Creoles. ... The term Creole is a corruption of the Spanish

word 'criollo,' which is derived from 'criar,' to create or to

foster. The Spaniards apply the term 'criollo' not merely to

the human race, but also to animals propagated in the

colonies, but of pure European blood: thus they have creole

horses, bullocks, poultry, &c."

J. J. Von Tschudi, Travels in Peru,

chapter 5, and foot-note.

"The term Creole is commonly applied in books to the native of

a Spanish colony descended from European ancestors, while

often the popular acceptation conveys the idea of an origin

partly African. In fact, its meaning varies in different times

and regions, and in Louisiana alone has, and has had, its

broad and its close, its earlier and its later, significance.

For instance, it did not here first belong to the descendants

of Spanish, but of French settlers. But such a meaning implied

a certain excellence of origin, and so came early to include

any native of French or Spanish descent by either parent,

whose pure non-mixture with the slave race entitled him to

social rank. Much later the term was adopted by, not conceded

to, the natives of European-African, or Creole-African blood,

and is still so used among themselves. At length the spirit of

commerce availed itself of the money value of so honored a

title, and broadened its meaning to take in any creature or

thing of variety or manufacture peculiar to Louisiana, that

might become an object of sale, as Creole ponies, chickens,

cows, shoes, eggs, wagons, baskets, cabbages, etc. ... There

are no English, Scotch, Irish, Western, or Yankee Creoles,

these all being included under the distinctive term

'Americans.' ... There seems to be no more serviceable

definition of the Creoles of Louisiana or of New Orleans than

to say they are the French-speaking, native, ruling class."

G. E. Waring, Jr., and G. W Cable,

History and Present Condition of New Orleans

(Tenth Census of the U. S., volume 19, page 218).

CREONES, The.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CRESCENT, The Order of the.

A Turkish Order instituted in 1799 by the reforming sultan,

Selim III. Lord Nelson, after the victory of Aboukir, was the

first to receive this decoration.

CRESPY IN VALOIS, Treaty of (1544).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

CRETAN LABYRINTH,

See LABYRINTHS.

CRETE.

"The institutions of the Cretan state show in many points so

great a similarity to those of Sparta, that it is not

surprising if it seemed to the ancients as though either Crete

were a copy of Sparta, or Sparta of Crete. Meanwhile this

similarity may be explained, apart from intentional imitation,

by the community of nationality, which, under like conditions,

must produce like institutions. For in Crete, as in Laconia,

Dorians were the ruling people, who had subdued the old

inhabitants of the island and placed them in a position of

subordination. ... It is, however, beyond doubt that

settlements were made in Crete by the Phoenicians, and that a

large portion of the island was subject to them. In the

historical period, it is true, we no longer find them here; we

find, on the contrary, only a number of Greek states, all

moreover Dorian. Each of these consisted of a city with its

surrounding district, in which no doubt also smaller cities in

their turn were found standing in a relation of subordination

to the principal city. For that each city of the

'ninety-citied' or 'hundred-citied' isle, as Homer calls it,

formed also an independent state, will probably not be

supposed. As independent states our authorities give us reason

to recognize about seventeen. The most important of these were

in earlier times Cnossus, Gortyn and Cydonia."-

G. Schömann, Antiquities of Greece: The State,

part 3, chapter 2.

See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

CRETE: B. C. 68-66.

The Roman Conquest.

The Romans came into collision with the Cretans during their

conflict with the Cilician pirates. The Cretans, degenerate

and half piratical themselves, had formed an alliance with the

professional buccaneers, and defeated, off Cydonia, a Roman

fleet that had been sent against the latter, B. C. 71. They

soon repented of the provocation they had offered and sent

envoys to Rome to buy peace by heavy bribes; but neither the

penitence nor the bribes prevailed. Three years passed,

however, before the proconsul, Quintus Metellus, appeared in

Crete (B. C. 68) to exact satisfaction, and two years more

were spent in overcoming the stubborn resistance of the

islanders. The taking of Cydonia cost Metellus a bloody battle

and a prolonged siege. Cnossus and other towns held out with

equal courage. In the end, however, Crete was added to the

conquered dominions of Rome. At the last of the struggle there

occurred a conflict of jurisdiction between Metellus and

Pompey, and their respective forces fought with one another on

the Cretan soil.

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 4.

CRETE: A. D. 823.

Conquest by the Saracens.

"The reign of Al Hakem, the Ommiade Caliph of Spain, was

disturbed by continual troubles; and some theological disputes

having created a violent insurrection in the suburbs of

Cordova, about 15,000 Spanish Arabs were compelled to emigrate

in the year 815. The greater part of these desperadoes

established themselves at Alexandria, where they soon took an

active part in the civil wars of Egypt. The rebellion of

Thomas [an officer who disputed the Byzantine throne with

Michael II.], and the absence of the naval forces of the

Byzantine Empire from the Archipelago, left the island of

Crete unprotected. The Andalusian Arabs of Alexandria availed

themselves of this circumstance to invade the island, and

establish a settlement on it, in the year 823. Michael was

unable to take any measures for expelling the invaders, and an

event soon happened in Egypt which added greatly to the

strength of this Saracen colony. The victories of the

lieutenants of the Caliph Almamum compelled the remainder of

the Andalusian Arabs to quit Alexandria; so that Abou Hafs,

called by the Greeks Apochaps, joined his countrymen in Crete

with forty ships, determined to make the new settlement their

permanent home. It is said by the Byzantine writers that they

commenced their conquest of the island by destroying their

fleet, and constructing a strong fortified camp, surrounded by

an immense ditch, from which it received the name of Chandak,

now corrupted by the western nations into Candia. ... The

Saracens retained possession of Crete for 135 years."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire,

from 716 to 1057, book 1. chapter 3.

{625}

During the stay of these piratical Andalusian Arabs at

Alexandria, "they cut in pieces both friends and foes,

pillaged the churches and mosques, sold above 6,000 Christian

captives, and maintained their station in the capital of Egypt

till they were oppressed by the forces and presence of Almamon

himself."

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

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

ALSO IN:

S. A. Dunham, History of Spain and Portugal,

book 3, chapter 1.

CRETE: A. D. 961-963.

Recovery from the Saracens.

"In the subordinate station of great domestic, or general of

the East, he [Nicephorus Phocas, afterwards emperor, on the

Byzantine throne], reduced the island of Crete, and extirpated

the nest of pirates who had so long defied, with impunity, the

majesty of the Empire. ... Seven months were consumed in the

siege of Candia; the despair of the native Cretans was

stimulated by the frequent aid of their brethren of Africa and

Spain; and, after the massy wall and double ditch had been

stormed by the Greeks, a hopeless conflict was still

maintained in the streets and houses of the city. The whole

island was subdued in the capital, and a submissive people

accepted, without resistance, the baptism of the conqueror."

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

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

CRETE: A. D. 1204-1205.

Acquired by the Venetians.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D.1204-1205.

CRETE: A. D. 1645-1669.

The long siege of Candia.

Surrender to the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1645-1669.

CRETE: A. D. 1715.

Complete Expulsion of the Venetians by the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.

CRETE: A. D. 1866-1868.

Unsuccessful revolt.

Struggle for independence.

Turkish concession of the Organic Regulation.

See GREECE: A. D. 1862-1881.

----------CRETE: End----------

CRETE, Party of the.--Crêtois.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (APRIL).

CRIMEA, OR CRIM TARTARY:

Early history.

See TAURICA;

also BOSPORUS, CITY AND KINGDOM.

CRIMEA: 7th Century.

Conquest and occupation by the Khazars.

See KHAZARS.

CRIMEA: 12th-13th Centuries.

Genoese commercial colonies.

See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

CRIMEA: 13th-14th Centuries.

The khanate to Krim.

See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.

CRIMEA: A. D. 1475.

Conquest by the Ottoman Turks.

See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1451-1481.

CRIMEA: A. D. 1571.

Expedition of the Khan to Moscow.

The city stormed and sacked.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1569-1571.

CRIMEA: A. D. 1735-1738.

Russian invasions and fruitless conquests.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.

CRIMEA: A. D. 1774.

The khanate declared independent of the Porte.

See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.

CRIMEA: A. D. 1776-1784.

The process of acquisition by Russia.

Final recognition of Russian sovereignty by the Sultan.

See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

CRIMEA: A. D. 1853-1855.

War of Russia with Turkey and her allies.

Siege of Sebastopol.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854, to 1854-1856.

----------CRIMEA: End----------

CRISIS OF 1837, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835-1837.

CRISIS OF 1857.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION

(UNITED STATES): A. D. 1846-1861.

CRISSA.

Crissæan or Sacred War.

See DELPHI.

CRITTENDEN COMPROMISE, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER).

CROATANS, The.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1587-1590.

CROATIA: 7th Century.

Sclavonic occupation and settlement.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,

7TH CENTURY (SERVIA, CROATIA, BOSNIA, ETC.)

CROATIA: A. D. 1102.

Subjection and annexation to Hungary.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114.

CROATIA: A. D. 1576.

Transferred to the Duke of Styria.

Military colonization.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.

----------CROATIA: End----------

CROIA, Turkish massacre at.

See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.

CROMLECHS.

Rude stone monuments found in many parts of the British

Islands, France, and elsewhere, usually formed by three or

more huge, rough, upright stones, with a still larger stone

lying flatly upon them. In France these are called Dolmens.

They were formerly thought to be "Druids altars," to which

notion they owe the name Cromlechs; but it is now very

generally concluded by archæologists that they were

constructed for burial chambers, and that originally, in most

cases, they were covered with mounds of earth, forming the

well known barrows, or grave mounds, or tumuli.

L. Jewett, Grave Mounds.

ALSO IN:

T. Wright, The Celt, the Roman and the Saxon.

Sir J. Lubbock, Prehistoric Times, chapter 5.

See, also, AMORITES.

CROMPTON'S MULE, The invention of.

See COTTON MANUFACTURES.

CROMWELL, Oliver.

Campaigns and Protectorate.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 to 1658-1660;

and IRELAND: A. D. 1649-1650.

CROMWELL, Thomas,

The suppression of the Monasteries.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1535-1539.

CROMWELLIAN SETTLEMENT OF IRELAND.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1653.

CROMWELL'S IRONSIDES.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (MAY).

CROSS, The "True."

Its capture by the Persians and recovery by Heraclius.

See ROME: A. D. 565-628;

And JERUSALEM: A. D. 615.

CROSS KEYS, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA).

CROTON.--KROTON.

See SYBARIS.

CROTONA, Battle of (A. D. 983).

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.

CROWN, The iron.

See LOMBARDY, THE IRON CROWN OF.

CROWN OF INDIA,  The Order of the.

An order, for women, instituted by Queen Victoria in 1878.

{626}

CROWN POINT: A. D. 1727.

Fort built by the French.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1700-1735.

CROWN POINT: A. D. 1755.

English Expedition against.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1755 (SEPTEMBER).

CROWN POINT: A. D: 1759.

Abandoned to the English by the French.

See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1759 (JULY-AUGUST).

CROWN POINT: A. D. 1775.

Surprise and capture by the Americans.

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

----------CROWN POINT: End----------

CROWS, OR UPSAROKAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

CRUITHNIGH.-CRUITHNIANS.

The Irish name of the Picts and Scots of ancient Ireland and

Scotland.

See SCOTLAND: THE PICTS AND SCOTS.

CRUSADES:

Causes and introductory events.

"Like all the great movements of mankind, the Crusades must be

traced to the coincidence of many causes which influenced men

of various nations and discordant feelings, at the same period

of time, to pursue one common end with their whole heart.

Religious zeal, the fashion of pilgrimages, the spirit of

social development, the energies that lead to colonisation or

conquest, and commercial relations, only lately extended so

widely as to influence public opinion, all suddenly received a

deep wound. Every class of society felt injured and insulted,

and unity of action was created as if by a divine impulse. The

movement was facilitated by the circumstance that Europe began

to adopt habits of order just at the time when Asia was thrown

into a state of anarchy by the invasions of the Seljouk Turks.

Great numbers of pilgrims had always passed through the

Byzantine empire to visit the holy places in Palestine. We

still possess an itinerary of the road from Bordeaux to

Jerusalem, by the way of Constantinople, written in the fourth

century for the use of pilgrims. Though the disturbed and

impoverished state of Europe, after the fall of the Western

Empire, diminished the number of pilgrims, still, even in

times of the greatest anarchy, many passed annually through

the Eastern Empire to Palestine. The improvement which dawned

on the western nations during the eleventh century, and the

augmented commerce of the Italians, gave additional importance

to the pilgrimage to the East. About the year 1064, during the

reign of Constantine X., an army or caravan of seven thousand

pilgrims passed through Constantinople, led by the Archbishop

of Mentz and four bishops. They made their way through Asia

Minor, which was then under the Byzantine government; but in

the neighbourhood of Jerusalem they were attacked by the

Bedouins, and only saved from destruction by the Saracen emir

of Ramla, who hastened to their assistance. These pilgrims are

reported to have lost 3,000 of their number, without being

able to visit either the Jordan or the Dead Sea. The invasions

of the Seljouks [see TURKS (THE SELJUKS): A. D. 1073-1092]

increased the disorders in Palestine. ... In the year 1076 the

Seljouk Turks took possession of Jerusalem, and immediately

commenced harassing the pilgrims with unheard-of exactions.

The Saracens had in general viewed the pilgrims with favour,

as men engaged in fulfilling a pious duty, or pursuing lawful

gain with praiseworthy industry, and they had levied only a

reasonable toll on the pilgrims, and a moderate duty on their

merchandise; while in consideration of these imposts, they had

established guards to protect them on the roads by which they

approached the holy places. The Turks, on the contrary, acting

like mere nomads, uncertain of retaining possession of the

city, thought only of gratifying their avarice. They plundered

the rich pilgrims, and insulted the poor. The religious

feelings of the Christians were irritated, and their commerce

ruined; a cry for vengeance arose throughout all Europe, and

men's minds were fully prepared for an attempt to conquer

Palestine, when Peter the Hermit began to preach that it was a

sacred duty to deliver the tomb of Christ from the hands of

the Infidels."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek

Empires, book 3, chapter 2, section 1.

CRUSADES: A. D. 1091.

The Council of Clermont.

Pope Urban II., one of two rival pontiffs then contending for

recognition by the Church, entered with great eagerness into

the movement stirred by Peter the Hermit, and gave it a

powerful impulse through his support, while obtaining for

himself, at the same time, a decisive advantage over his

competitor, by the popularity of the agitation. A great

Council was convened at Piacenza, A. D. 1094, and a second at

Clermont, in the autumn of the same year, to deliberate upon

the action to be taken. The city of Clermont could not contain

the vast multitude of bishops, clergy and laity which

assembled, and an army of many thousands was tented in the

surrounding country. To that excited congregation, at a

meeting in the great square of Clermont, Pope Urban addressed

a speech which is one of the notable utterances of History.

"He began by detailing the miseries endured by their brethren

in the Holy Land; how the plains of Palestine were desolated

by the outrageous heathen, who with the sword and the

firebrand carried wailing into the dwellings and flames into

the possessions of the faithful; how Christian wives and

daughters were defiled by pagan lust; how the altars of the

true God were desecrated, and the relics of the saints trodden

under foot. 'You,' continued the eloquent pontiff (and Urban

II. was one of the most eloquent men of the day), 'you, who

hear me, and who have received the true faith, and been

endowed by God with power, and strength, and greatness of

soul,--whose ancestors have been the prop of Christendom, and

whose kings have put a barrier against the progress of the

infidel,--I call upon you to wipe off these impurities from

the face of the earth, and lift your oppressed

fellow-Christians from the depths into which they have been

trampled.' ... The warmth of the pontiff communicated itself

to the crowd, and the enthusiasm of the people broke out

several times ere he concluded his address. He went on to

portray, not only the spiritual but the temporal advantages

that would accrue to those who took up arms in the service of

the cross. Palestine was, he said, a land flowing with milk

and honey, and precious in the sight of God, as the scene of

the grand events which had saved mankind. That land, he

promised, should be divided among them. Moreover, they should

have full pardon for all their offences, either against God or

man. 'Go, then,' he added, 'in expiation of your sins; and

go assured, that after this world shall have passed away,

imperishable glory shall be yours in the world which is to

come.' The enthusiasm was no longer to be restrained, and loud

shouts interrupted the speaker; the people exclaiming as if

with one voice, 'Dieu le veult! Dieu le veult!' ... The news

of this council spread to the remotest parts of Europe in an

incredibly short space of time. Long before the fleetest

horseman could have brought the intelligence, it was known by

the people in distant provinces; a fact which was considered

as nothing less than supernatural. But the subject was in

everybody's mouth, and the minds of men were prepared for the

result. The enthusiastic merely asserted what they wished, and

the event tallied with their prediction."

C. Mackay, Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular

Delusions: The Crusades, (volume 2).

ALSO IN:

H. H. Milman, History of Latin Christianity,

book 7, chapter 6.

{627}

CRUSADES: A. D. 1094-1095,

Peter the Hermit and his appeal.

"About twenty years after the conquest of Jerusalem by the

Turks, the holy sepulchre was visited by an hermit of the name

of Peter, a native of Amiens, in the province of Picardy in

France. His resentment and sympathy were excited by his own

injuries, and the oppression of the Christian name; he mingled

his tears with those of the patriarch, and earnestly inquired,

if no hopes of relief could be entertained from the Greek

emperors of the East. The patriarch exposed the vices and

weakness of the successors of Constantine. 'I will rouse,'

exclaimed the hermit, 'the martial nations of Europe in your

cause;' and Europe was obedient to the call of the hermit. The

astonished patriarch dismissed him with epistles of credit and

complaint, and no sooner did he land at Bari, than Peter

hastened to kiss the feet of the Roman pontiff. His stature

was small, his appearance contemptible; but his eye was keen

and lively, and he possessed that vehemence of speech which

seldom fails to impart the persuasion of the soul. He was born

of a gentleman's family (for we must now adopt a modern

idiom), and his military service was under the neighbouring

counts of Boulogne, the heroes of the first crusade.

Invigorated by the approbation of the pontiff, this zealous

missionary traversed, with speed and success, the provinces of

Italy and France. His diet was abstemious, his prayers long

and fervent, and the alms which he received with one hand, he

distributed with the other; his head was bare, his feet naked,

his meagre body was wrapt in a coarse garment; he bore and

displayed a weighty crucifix; and the ass on which he rode was

sanctified in the public eye by the service of the man of God.

He preached to innumerable crowds in the churches, the

streets, and the highways. ... When he painted the sufferings

of the natives and pilgrims of Palestine, every heart was

melted to compassion; every breast glowed with indignation,

when he challenged the warriors of the age to defend their

brethren and rescue their Saviour: his ignorance of art and

language was compensated by sighs and tears, and ejaculations;

and Peter supplied the deficiency of reason by loud and

frequent appeals to Christ and his Mother, to the saints and

angels of paradise, with whom he had personally conversed. The

most perfect orator of Athens might have envied the success of

his eloquence; the rustic enthusiast inspired the passions

which he felt, and Christendom expected with impatience the

counsels and decrees of the supreme pontiff."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 58.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

ALSO IN:

J. C. Robertson, History of the Christian

Church, book 6, chapter 4 (volume 4).

CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

The First Great Movement.

The first army of Crusaders to set out on the long march to

Jerusalem was a mob of men, women and children which had not

patience to wait for the organized movement of the military

leaders. They gathered in vast numbers on the banks of the

Moselle and the Meuse, in the spring of 1096, with Peter the

Hermit for their chosen chief. There were nine knights, only,

in the swarm, and but few who had horses to ride, or efficient

arms to bear, or provisions to feed upon. Knowing nothing, and

therefore fearing nothing, they marched away, through France,

Germany, Hungary and beyond, begging food where they could and

subsisting by pillage when it needed. A knight called Walter

the Penniless led the van, and Peter followed, with his second

division, by a somewhat different route. Walter escaped

serious trouble until he reached the country of the savage

Bulgarians. Peter's senseless mob provoked the just wrath of

the Hungarians by storming the small city of Semlin and

slaying 4,000 of its inhabitants. The route of both was lined

with the bones of thousands who perished of hunger, of

exposure, of disease, and by the swords of Hungarians and

Bulgarians. A third and a fourth host of like kind followed in

their wake, led by a monk, Gotschalk, a priest named Volkmar,

and a Count Emicon. These terrorized even more all the

countries through which they passed,--especially where Jews

were to be hunted and killed,--and were destroyed in Hungary

to almost the last man. Peter and Walter reached

Constantinople with 100,000 followers, it is said, even yet,

after all who had fallen by the way. Still refusing to wait

for the better appointed expeditions that were in progress,

and still appalling eastern Christendom by their lawless

barbarities, they passed into Asia Minor, and their miserable

career soon came to an end. Attacking the Turks in the city of

Nicæa,--which had become the capital of the Seljouk sultan of

Roum,--they were beaten, routed, scattered, slaughtered, until

barely 3,000 of the great host escaped. "Of the first

Crusaders," says Gibbon, "300,000 had already perished before

a single city was rescued from the infidels,--before their

graver and more noble brethren had completed the preparations

of their enterprise." Meantime the knights and princes of the

crusade had gathered their armies and were now (in the summer

of 1096) beginning to move eastward, by different routes. Not

one of the greater sovereigns of Europe had enlisted in the

undertaking. The chiefs of one armament were Godfrey de

Bouillon, duke of the Lower Lorraine, or Brabant; his

brothers, Eustace, count of Boulogne, and Baldwin; his cousin,

Baldwin de Bourg, with Baldwin, count of Hainaut, Dudon de

Contz, and other knights celebrated in the "Jerusalem

Delivered" of Tasso. This expedition followed nearly the route

of Peter the Hermit, through Hungary and Bulgaria, giving

hostages for its orderly conduct and winning the good-will of

those countries, even maddened as they were by the foregoing mobs.

{628}

Another larger following from France was led by Hugh, count of

Vermandois, brother of the king of France; Robert, duke of

Normandy, eldest son of William the Conqueror; Stephen, count

of Blois, the Conqueror's son-in-law, and Robert, count of

Flanders. These took the road into Italy, and to Bari, whence,

after spending the winter, waiting for favorable weather, they

were transported by ships to Greece, and pursued their march

to Constantinople. They were followed by a contingent from

southern Italy, under Bohemond, the Norman prince of Tarentum,

son of Robert Guiscard, and his knightly cousin, Tancred. A

fourth army, gathered in southern France by count Raymond of

Toulouse and Bishop Adhemer, the appointed legate and

representative of the pope, chose still another route, through

Lombardy, Dalmatia and Macedonia, into Thrace. On passing

through the territories of the Byzantine emperor (Alexius I.),

all the crusaders experienced his distrust, his duplicity, and

his cautious ill-will--which, under the circumstances were

natural enough. Alexius managed so well that he extorted from

each of the princes an acknowledgment of his rights of

sovereignty over the region of their expected conquests, with

an oath of fealty and homage, and he pushed them across the

Bosphorus so adroitly that no two had the opportunity to unite

their forces under the walls of Constantinople. Their first

undertaking in Asia [May and June, A. D. 1097] was the siege

of Nicæa, and they beleaguered it with an army which Gibbon

believes to have been never exceeded within the compass of a

single camp. Here, again, they were mastered by the cunning

diplomacy of the Greek emperor. When the sultan of Roum

yielded his capital, he was persuaded to surrender it to

Alexius, and the imperial banner protected it from the rage of

the discomfited crusaders. But they revenged themselves on the

Turk at Dorylæum, where he attacked them during their

subsequent march, and where he suffered a defeat which ended

all fighting in Asia Minor. Baldwin, brother of Godfrey, now

improved his opportunities by stealing away from the army,

with a few hundred knights and men, to make conquests on his

own account; with such success that he won the city of Edessa,

with a sweep of country around it, and founded a principality

which subsisted for half a century. The rest fared on, meeting

no opposition from infidel swords, but sickening and dying by

thousands, from heat and from want of water and food, until

they came to Antioch. There, the Turkish emir in command, with

a stout garrison of horse and foot, had prepared for a

stubborn defence, and he held the besiegers at bay for seven

months, while they starved in their ill-supplied camps. The

city was delivered to them by a traitor, at length, but prince

Bohemond, the crafty Norman, secured the benefit of the

treason to himself, and forced his compatriots to concede to

him the sovereignty of Antioch. The sufferings of the

crusaders did not end with the taking of the city. They

brought famine and pestilence upon themselves anew by their

greedy and sensual indulgence, and they were soon under siege

in their own turn, by a great army which the Turks had brought

against them. Death and desertion were in rivalry to thin

their wasted ranks. The survivors were in gloom and despair,

when an opportune miracle occurred to excite them afresh. A

lance, which visions and apparitions certified to be the very

spear that pierced the Redeemer's side, was found buried in a

church at Antioch. Under the stimulus of this amazing

discovery they sallied from the town and dispersed the great

army of the Turks in utter rout. Still the quarrels of the

leaders went on, and ten months more were consumed before the

remains of the Latin army advanced to Jerusalem. It was June,

A. D. 1099, when they saw the Holy City and assailed its

formidable walls. Their number was now reduced to 40,000, but

their devotion and their ardor rose to frenzy, and after a

siege of little more than a month they forced an entrance by

storm. Then they spared neither age nor sex until they had

killed all who denied the Savior of mankind--the Prince of

Peace.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 58.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

ALSO IN:

J. F. Michaud, History of the Crusades, book 1.

W. Besant and E. H. Palmer, Jerusalem, chapter 6.

C. Mills, History of the Crusades, chapter 2-6.

See also, JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099.

CRUSADES: A. D. 1099-1144.

The Latin conquests in the east.

The Kingdom of Jerusalem.

See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.

CRUSADES: A. D. 1101-1102.

The after-wave of the first movement.

"The tales of victory brought home by the pilgrims excited the

most extravagant expectations in the minds of their auditors,

and nothing was deemed capable of resisting European valour.

The pope called upon all who had taken the cross to perform

their vow, the emperor Henry IV. had the crusade preached, in

order to gain favour with the clergy and laity. Many princes

now resolved to visit in person the new empire founded in the

East. Three great armies assembled: the first in Italy under

the archbishop of Milan, and the two counts of Blandrate; the

second in France under Hugh the Great and Stephen of Blois

[who had deserted their comrades of the first expedition at

Antioch, and] whom shame and remorse urged to perform their

vow, William, duke of Guienne and count of Poitou, who

mortgaged his territory to William Rufus of England to procure

funds, the count of Nevers, the duke of Burgundy, the bishops

of Laon and Soissons; the third in Germany, under the bishop

of Saltzburg, the aged duke Welf of Bavaria, Conrad the master

of the horse to the emperor, and many other knights and

nobles. Ida also, the margravine of Austria, declared her

resolution to share the toils and dangers of the way, and pay

her vows at the tomb of Christ. Vast numbers of women of all

ranks accompanied all these armies,--nay, in that of the duke

of Guienne, who was inferior to none in valour, but united to

it the qualities of a troubadour and glee-man, there appeared

whole troops of young women. The Italian pilgrims were the

first to arrive at Constantinople. They set out early in the

spring, and took their way through Carinthia, Hungary, and

Bulgaria. Though the excesses committed by them were great,

the emperor gave them a kind reception, and the most prudent

and friendly advice respecting their future progress. While

they abode at Constantinople, Conrad and the count of Blois,

and the duke of Burgundy, arrived, and at Whitsuntide they all

passed over, and encamped at Nicomedia."

{629}

With ignorant fatuity, and against all experienced advice, the

new Crusaders resolved to direct their march to Bag-dad and to

overthrow the caliphate. The first body which advanced was cut

to pieces by the Turks on the banks of the Halys, and only a

few thousands, out of more than one hundred thousand, are said

to have made their escape by desperate flight. The second and

third armies were met successively by the victorious Moslems,

before they had advanced so far, and were even more completely

annihilated. The latter body contained, according to the

chroniclers of the time, 150,000 pilgrims, of whom scarcely

one thousand were saved from slavery or death. The men fell

under the swords of the Turks; the women and girls, in great

numbers, finished out their days in the harems of the East.

Out of the wreck of the three vast armaments a slender column

of 10,000 men was got together after some weeks at Antioch and

led to Jerusalem (A. D. 1102). Most of these perished in

subsequent battles, and very few ever saw Europe again. "Such

was the fruitless termination of this second great movement of

the West, in which perhaps a third of a million of pilgrims

left their homes, never to revisit them."

T. Keightley, The Crusaders, chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

J. F. Michaud, History of the Crusades, book 4.

Crusades: A. D. 1104-1111.

Conquest of maritime cities of Syria and Palestine.

Destruction of the Library of Tripoli.

"The prosperity and the safety of Jerusalem appeared closely

connected with the conquest of the maritime cities of Syria

and Palestine; it being by them alone that it could receive

succour, or establish prompt and easy communications with the

West. The maritime nations of Europe were interested in

seconding, in this instance, the enterprises of the king of

Jerusalem. ... From the period of the first crusades, the

Pisans and the Genoese had constantly sent vessels to the seas

of the East; and their fleets had aided the Christians in

several expeditions against the Mussulmans. A Genoese fleet

had just arrived in the seas of Syria when Baldwin undertook

the siege of Ptolemaïs [Acre]. The Genoese were invited to

assist in this conquest; but as religion was not the principle

to bring them into action, they required, in return for their

assistance and their labour, that they should have a third of

the booty; they likewise stipulated to have a separate church

for themselves, and a national factory and tribunal in the

conquered city. Ptolemaïs was besieged by land and sea, and

after a bloody resistance of twenty days, the inhabitants and

the garrison proposed to surrender, and implored the clemency

of the conquerors. The city opened its gates to the

Christians, and the inhabitants prepared to depart, taking

with them whatever they deemed most valuable; but the Genoese,

at the sight of such rich booty, paid no respect to the

capitulation, and massacred without pity a disarmed and

defenceless people. ... In consequence of this victory,

several places which the Egyptians still held on the coasts of

Syria fell into the hands of the Christians." Among those was

the city of Tripoli. "Raymond, Count de St. Gilles and of

Thoulouse, one of the companions of Godfrey, after having

wandered for a long time about Asia, had died before this

place, of which he had commenced the siege. In memory of his

exploits in the first crusade, the rich territory of Tripoli

was created a county, and became the inheritance of his

family. This territory was celebrated for its productions. ...

A library established in this city, and celebrated through all

the East, contained the monuments of the ancient literature of

the Persians, the Arabians, the Egyptians, and the Greeks. A

hundred copyists were there constantly employed in

transcribing manuscripts. ... After the taking of the city, a

priest attached to Count Bernard de St. Gilles, entered the

room in which were collected a vast number of copies of the

Koran, and as he declared the library of Tripoli contained

only the impious books of Mahomet, it was given up to the

flames. ... Bibles, situated on the smiling and fertile shores

of Phoenicia, Sarepta, where St. Jerome saw still in his day

the tower of Isaiah; and Berytus, famous in the early days of

the church for its school of eloquence, shared the fate of

Tripoli, and became baronies bestowed upon Christian knights.

After these conquests, the Pisans, the Genoese, and several

warriors who had followed Baldwin in his expeditions, returned

into Europe; and the king of Jerusalem, abandoned by these

useful allies, was obliged to employ the forces which remained

in repulsing the invasions of the Saracens."

J. F. Michaud, History of the Crusades, volume 1, book 5.

CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149.

The Second Great Movement.

During the reign of Fulk, the fourth king of Jerusalem, the

Latin power in Palestine and its neighboring territories began

to be seriously shaken by a vigorous Turkish prince named

Zenghi, on whom the sultan Mahmoud had conferred the

government of all the country west of the Tigris. It was the

first time since the coming of the Christians of the West that

the whole strength of Islam in that region had been so nearly

gathered into one strong hand, to be used against them, and

they felt the effect speedily, being themselves weakened by

many quarrels. In 1143 King Fulk died, leaving the crown to a

young son, Baldwin III.,--a boy of thirteen, whose mother

governed in his name. The next year Zenghi captured the

important city of Edessa, and consternation was produced by

his successes. Europe was then appealed to for help against

the advancing Turk, and the call from Jerusalem was taken up

by St. Bernard of Clairvaux, the irresistible enthusiast,

whose influence accomplished, in his time, whatever he willed

to have done. Just half a century after Peter the Hermit, St.

Bernard preached a Second Crusade, and with almost equal

effect, notwithstanding the better knowledge now possessed of

all the hardships and perils of the expedition. This time,

royalty took the lead. King Conrad of Germany commanded a

great army from that country, and another host followed King

Louis VII. from France. "Both armies marched down the Danube,

to Constantinople, in the summer of 1147. At the same moment

King Roger [of Naples], with his fleet, attacked, not the

Turks, but the Greek seaport towns of the Morea. Manuel [the

Byzantine emperor] thereupon, convinced that the large armies

were designed for the destruction of his empire in the first

place, with the greatest exertions, got together troops from

all his provinces, and entered into a half-alliance with the

Turks of Asia Minor. The mischief and ill-feeling was

increased by the lawless conduct of the German hordes; the

Greek troops attacked them more than once; whereupon numerous

voices were raised in Louis's headquarters to demand open war

against the faithless Greeks.

{630}

The kings were fully agreed not to permit this, but on

arriving in Constantinople they completely fell out, for,

while Louis made no secret of his warm friendship for Roger,

Conrad promised the Emperor of Constantinople to attack the

Normans as soon as the Crusade should be ended. This was a bad

beginning for a united campaign in the East, and moreover, at

every step eastward, new difficulties arose. The German army,

broken up into several detachments, and led without ability or

prudence, was attacked in Asia Minor by the Emir of Iconium,

and cut to pieces, all but a few hundred men. The French,

though better appointed, also suffered severe losses in that

country, but contrived nevertheless, to reach Antioch with a

very considerable force, and from thence might have carried

the project which the second Baldwin had conceived in vain,

namely, the defence of the northeastern frontier, upon which,

especially since Zenki [Zenghi] had made his appearance, the

life or death of the Christian states depended. But in vain

did Prince Raymond of Antioch try to prevail upon King Louis

to take this view, and to attack without delay the most

formidable of all their adversaries, Noureddin [son of Zenghi,

now dead]. Louis would not hear or do anything till he had

seen Jerusalem and prayed at the Holy Sepulchre. ... In

Jerusalem he [King Louis] was welcomed by Queen Melisende (now

regent, during her son's minority, after Fulco's death), with

praise and gratitude, because he had not taken part in the

distant wars of the Prince of Antioch, but had reserved his

forces for the defence of the holy city of Jerusalem. It was

now resolved to lead the army against Damascus, the only

Turkish town whose Emir had always refused to submit to either

Zenki or Noureddin. Nevertheless Noureddin instantly collected

all his available forces, to succour the besieged town." But

he was spared further exertion by the jealous disagreement of

the Christians, who began to take thought as to what should be

done with Damascus when they took it. The Syrian barons

concluded that they would prefer to leave the city in Turkish

hands, and by treacherous manœuvres they forced king Louis to

raise the siege. "The German king, long since tired of his

powerless position, returned home in the autumn of 1148, and

Louis, after much pressing, stayed a few months longer, and

reached Europe in the following spring. The whole expedition

... had been wrecked, without honour and without result, by

the most wretched personal passions, and the most narrow and

selfish policy."

H. Von Sybel, History and Literature of the Crusades,

chapter 3.

"So ended in utter shame and ignominy the Second Crusade. The

event seemed to give the lie to the glowing promises and

prophecies of St. Bernard. So vast had been the drain of

population to feed this holy war that, in the phrase of an

eye-witness, the cities and castles were empty, and scarcely

one man was left to seven women; and now it was known that the

fathers, the husbands, the sons, or the brothers of these

miserable women would see their earthly homes no more. The cry

of anguish charged Bernard with the crime of sending them

forth on an errand in which they had done absolutely nothing

and had reaped only wretchedness and disgrace. For a time

Bernard himself was struck dumb: but he soon remembered that

he had spoken with the authority of God and his vicegerent,

and that the guilt or failure must lie at the door of the

pilgrims."

G. W. Cox, The Crusades, chapter 5.

CRUSADES: A. D. 1187.

The loss of Jerusalem.

See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.

CRUSADES: A. D. 1188-1192.

The Third Great Movement.

When the news reached Europe that Saladin, the redoubtable new

champion of Islam had expelled the Christians and the Cross

from Jerusalem, polluting once more the precincts of the Holy

Sepulchre, the effect produced was something not easily

understood at the present day. If we may believe historians of

the time, the pope (Urban III.) died of grief; "Christians

forgot all the ills of their own country to weep over

Jerusalem. ... Luxury was banished from cities; injuries were

forgotten and alms were given abundantly, Christians slept

upon ashes, clothed themselves in haircloth, and expiated

their disorderly lives by fasting and mortification. The

clergy set the example; the morals of the cloister were

reformed, and cardinals, condemning themselves to poverty,

promised to repair to the Holy Land, supported on charity by

the way. These pious reformations did not last long; but men's

minds were not the less prepared for a new crusade by them,

and all Europe was soon roused by the voice of Gregory VIII.,

who exhorted the faithful to assume the cross and take up

arms."

J. F. Michaud, History of the Crusades, book 7.

"The emperor Frederic Barbarossa and the kings of France and

England assumed the cross; and the tardy magnitude of their

armaments was anticipated by the maritime states of the

Mediterranean and the ocean. The skilful and provident

Italians first embarked in the ships of Genoa, Pisa, and

Venice. They were speedily followed by the most eager pilgrims

of France, Normandy and the Western Isles. The powerful

succour of Flanders, Frise, and Denmark filled near a hundred

vessels; and the northern warriors were distinguished in the

field by a lofty stature and a ponderous battle-axe. Their

increasing multitudes could no longer be confined within the

walls of Tyre [which the Latins still held], or remain

obedient to the voice of Conrad [Marquis of Montferrat, who

had taken command of the place and repelled the attacks of

Saladin]. They pitied the misfortunes and revered the dignity

of Lusignan [the nominal king of Jerusalem, lately captive in

Saladin's hands], who was released from prison, perhaps to

divide the army of the Franks. He proposed the recovery of

Ptolemais, or Acre, thirty miles to the south of Tyre; and the

place was first invested [July, 1189] by 2,000 horse and

30,000 foot under his nominal command. I shall not expatiate

on the story of this memorable siege, which lasted near two

years, and consumed, in a narrow space, the forces of Europe

and Asia. ... At the sound of the holy trumpet the Moslems of

Egypt, Syria, Arabia, and the Oriental provinces assembled

under the servant of the prophet: his camp was pitched and

removed within a few miles of Acre; and he laboured, night and

day, for the relief of his brethren and the annoyance of the

Franks. ... In the spring of the second year, the royal fleets

of France and England cast anchor in the bay of Acre, and the

siege was more vigorously prosecuted by the youthful emulation

of the two kings, Philip Augustus and Richard Plantagenet.

{631}

After every resource had been tried, and every hope was

exhausted, the defenders of Acre submitted to their fate. ...

By the conquest of Acre the Latin powers acquired a strong

town and a convenient harbour; but the advantage was most

dearly purchased. The minister and historian of Saladin

computes, from the report of the enemy, that their numbers, at

different periods, amounted to 500,000 or 600,000; that more

than 100, 000 Christians were slain; that a far greater number

was lost by disease or shipwreck." On the reduction of Acre,

king Philip Augustus returned to France, leaving only 500

knights and 10,000 men behind him. Meantime, the old emperor,

Frederick Barbarossa, coming by the landward route, through

the country of the Greeks and Asia Minor, with a well-trained

army of 20,000 knights and 50,000 men on foot, had perished by

the way, drowned in a little Cilician torrent, and only 5,000

of his troops had reached the camp at Acre. Old as he was, (he

was seventy when he took the cross) Barbarossa might have

changed the event of the Crusade if he had reached the scene

of conflict; for he had brains with his valor and character

with his ferocity, which Richard Cœur de Lion had not. The

latter remained another year in the Holy Land; recovered

Cæsarea and Jaffa; threatened Saladin in Jerusalem seriously,

but to no avail; and stirred up more and fiercer quarrels

among the Christians than had been customary, even on the soil

which was sacred to them. In the end, a treaty was arranged

which displeased the more devout on both sides. "It was

stipulated that Jerusalem and the holy sepulchre should be

open, without tribute or vexation, to the pilgrimage of the

Latin Christians; that, after the demolition of Ascalon, they

should inclusively possess the sea-coast from Jaffa to Tyre;

that the count of Tripoli and the prince of Antioch should be

comprised in the truce; and that, during three years and three

months, all hostilities should cease. ... Richard embarked for

Europe, to seek a long captivity and a premature grave; and

the space of a few months concluded the life and glories of

Saladin."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 59.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

"A halo of false glory surrounds the Third Crusade from the

associations which connect it with the lion-hearted king of

England. The exploits of Richard I. have stirred to enthusiasm

the dullest of chroniclers, have furnished themes for jubilant

eulogies, and have shed over his life that glamour which

cheats even sober-minded men when they read the story of his

prototype Achilleus in the tale of Troy. ... When we turn from

the picture to the reality, we shall see in this Third Crusade

an enterprise in which the fiery zeal which does something

towards redeeming the savage brutalities of Godfrey and the

first crusaders is displaced by base and sordid greed, by

intrigues utterly of the earthy, by wanton crimes from which

we might well suppose that the sun would hide away its face;

and in the leaders of this enterprise we shall see men in whom

morally there is scarcely a single quality to relieve the

monotonous blackness of their infamy; in whom, strategically,

a very little generalship comes to the aid of a blind brute

force."

G. W. Cox, The Crusades, chapter 7.

ALSO IN:

Mrs. W. Busk, Mediaeval Popes, Emperors, Kings

and Crusaders, book 2, chapter 12, and book 3, chapter 1-2.

CRUSADES: A. D. 1196-1197.

The Fourth Expedition.

A crusading expedition of German barons and their followers,

which went to the Holy Land, by way of Italy, in 1196, is

generally counted as the Fourth Crusade, though some writers

look upon it as a movement supplementary to the Third Crusade.

The Germans, who numbered some 40,000, do not seem to have

been welcomed by the Christians of Palestine. The latter

preferred to maintain the state of peace then prevailing; but

the new crusaders forced hostilities at once. Saladin was

dead; his brother Saphadin accepted the challenge to war with

prompt vigor and struck the first hard blow, taking Jaffa,

with great slaughter, and demolishing its fortifications. But

Saphadin was presently defeated in a battle fought between

Tyre and Sidon, and Jaffa was recovered, together with other

towns and most of the coast. But, a little later, the Germans

suffered, in their turn, a most demoralizing reverse at the

castle of Thoron, which they besieged, and were further

disturbed, in the midst of their depression, by news of the

death of their emperor, Henry VI. A great part of them,

thereupon, returned home. Those who remained, or many of them,

occupied Jaffa, where they were attacked, a few months later,

and cut to pieces.

G. W. Cox, The Crusades, chapter 8.

CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203.

The Fifth Movement.-

Treachery of the Venetians.

Conquest of Constantinople.

"Every traveller returning from Syria brought a prayer for

immediate help from the survivors of the Third Crusade. It was

necessary to act at once if any portion even of the wreck of

the kingdom of Jerusalem were to be saved. Innocent the Third,

and some, at least, of the statesmen of the West were fully

alive to the progress which Islam had made since the departure

of the Western kings. In 1197, however, after five years of

weary waiting, the time seemed opportune for striking a new

blow for Christendom. Saladin, the great Sultan, had died in

1193, and his two sons were already quarreling about the

partition of his empire. The contending divisions of the Arab

Moslems were at this moment each bidding for the support of

the Christians of Syria. The other great race of Mahometans

which had threatened Europe, the Seljukian Turks, had made a

halt in their progress through Asia Minor. ... Other special

circumstances which rendered the moment favourable for a new

crusade, combined with the profound conviction of the

statesmen of the West of the danger to Christendom from the

progress of Islam, urged Western Europe to take part in the

new enterprise. The reigning Pope, Innocent III., was the

great moving spirit of the Fourth Crusade." The popular

preacher of the Crusade was found in an ignorant priest named

Fulk, of Neuilly, whose success in kindling public enthusiasm

was almost equal to that of Peter the Hermit. Vast numbers

took the cross, with Theobald, count of Champagne, Louis,

count of Blois and Chartres, Simon de Montfort, Walter of

Brienne, Baldwin, count of Flanders, Hugh of St. Pol, Geoffrey

de Villehardouin, marshal of Champagne and future historian of

the Crusade, and many other prominent knights and princes

among the leaders. The young count of Champagne was the chosen

chief; but he sickened and died and his place was taken by

Boniface, marquis of Montferrat.

{632}

It was the decision of the leaders that the expedition should

be directed in the first instance against the Moslem power in

Egypt, and that it should be conveyed to the attack of Egypt

by sea. Venice, alone, seemed to be able to furnish ships,

sailors and supplies for so great a movement, and a contract

with Venice for the service was concluded in the spring of

120l. But Venice was mercenary, unscrupulous and treacherous,

caring for nothing but commercial gains. Before the crusaders

could gather at her port for embarkation, she had betrayed

them to the Moslems. By a secret treaty with the sultan of

Egypt, the fact of which is coming more and more conclusively

to light, she had undertaken to frustrate the Crusade, and to

receive important commercial privileges at Alexandria as

compensation for her treachery. When, therefore, in the early

summer of 1202, the army of the Crusade was collected at

Venice to take ship, it encountered difficulties,

discouragements and ill-treatments which thickened daily. The

number assembled was not equal to expectation. Some had gone

by sea from Flanders; some by other routes. But Venice had

provided transport for the whole, and inflexibly demanded pay

for the whole. The money in hand was not equal to this claim.

The summer was lost in disputes and attempted compromises.

Many of the crusaders withdrew in disgust and went home. At

length, in defiance of the censures of the pope and of the

bitter opposition of many leaders and followers of the

expedition, there was a bargain struck, by the terms of which

the crusaders were to assist the Venetians in taking and

plundering the Christian city of Zara, a dreaded commercial

rival on the Dalmatian coast of the Adriatic, belonging to the

king of Hungary, himself one of the promoters of the very

crusade which was now to be turned against him. The infamous

compact was carried out. Zara was taken, and in the end it was

totally destroyed by the Venetians. In the meantime, the

doomed city was occupied by the crusading army through the

winter, while a still more perfidious plot was being formed.

Old Dandolo, the blind doge of Venice, was the master spirit

of it. He was helped by the influence of Philip, one of the

two rivals then fighting for the imperial crown in Germany and

Italy. Philip had married a daughter of Isaac II. (Angelos),

made emperor at Constantinople on the fall of the dynasty of

Comnenus, and that feeble prince had lately been dethroned by

his brother. The son and heir of Isaac, named Alexius, had

escaped from Constantinople and had made his way to Philip

imploring help. Either Philip conceived the idea, or it was

suggested to him, that the armament of the Crusade might be

employed to place the young Alexius on the throne of his

father. To the Venetians the scheme was more than acceptable.

It would frustrate the Crusade, which they had pledged

themselves to the sultan of Egypt to accomplish; it would

satisfy their ill-will towards the Byzantines, and, more

important than all else, it would give them an opportunity to

secure immeasurable advantages over their rivals in the great

trade which Constantinople held at command. The marquis of

Montferrat, commander of the Crusade, had some grievances of

his own and some ambitions of his own, which made him

favorable to the new project, and he was easily won to it. The

three influences thus combined--those of Philip, of Dandolo,

and of Montferrat--overcame all opposition. Some who opposed

were bribed, some were intimidated, some were deluded by

promises, some deserted the ranks. Pope Innocent remonstrated,

appealed and threatened in vain. The pilgrim host, "changed

from a crusading army into a filibustering expedition," set

sail from Zara in the spring of the year 1203, and was landed,

the following June, not on the shores of Egypt or Syria, but

under the walls of Constantinople. Its conquest, pillage and

brutally destructive treatment of the great city are described

in another place.

E. Pears, The Fall of Constantinople, chapter 8-13.

ALSO IN:

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and

Greek Empires, 716-1453, book 3, chapter 3.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 59.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

See, also,

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1203-1204

CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1283.

Against the heathen Sclavonians on the Baltic.

See LIVONIA: 12TH-13TH CENTURIES;

and PRUSSIA: 13TH CENTURY.

CRUSADES: A. D. 1209-1242.

Against the Albigenses.

See ALBIGENSES.

CRUSADES: A. D, 1212.

The Children's Crusade.

"The religious wars fostered and promoted vice; and the

failure of army after army was looked on as a clear

manifestation of God's wrath against the sins of the camp.

This feeling was roused to its highest pitch when, in the year

1212, certain priests--Nicolas was the name of one of these

mischievous madmen--went about France and Germany calling on

the children to perform what the fathers, through their

wickedness, had been unable to effect, promising that the sea

should be dry to enable them to march across; that the

Saracens would be miraculously stricken with a panic at the

sight of them; that God would, through the hands of children

only, whose lives were yet pure, work the recovery of the

Cross and the Sepulchre. Thousands--it is said fifty

thousand--children of both sexes responded to the call. They

listened to the impassioned preaching of the monks, believed

their lying miracles, their visions, their portents, their

references to the Scriptures, and, in spite of all that their

parents could do, rushed to take the Cross, boys and girls

together, and streamed along the roads which led to Marseilles

and Genoa, singing hymns, waving branches, replying to those

who asked whither they were going, 'We go to Jerusalem to

deliver the Holy Sepulchre,' and shouting their rallying cry,

'Lord Jesus, give us back thy Holy Cross.' They admitted

whoever came, provided he took the Cross; the infection

spread, and the children could not be restrained from joining

them in the towns and villages along their route. Their

miserable parents put them in prison; they escaped; they

forbade them to go; the children went in spite of prohibition.

They had no money, no provisions, no leaders; but the charity

of the towns they passed through supported them. At their rear

streamed the usual tail of camp followers. ... There were two

main bodies. One of these directed its way through Germany,

across the Alps, to Genoa. On the road they were robbed of all

the gifts which had been presented them; they were exposed to

heat and want, and very many either died on the march or

wandered away from the road and so became lost to sight; when

they reached Italy they dispersed about the country, seeking

food, were stripped by the villagers, and in some cases were

reduced to slavery.

{633}

Only seven thousand out of their number arrived at Genoa. Here

they stayed for some days. They looked down upon the

Mediterranean, hoping that its bright waves would divide to

let them pass. But they did not; there was no miracle wrought

in their favour; a few of noble birth were received among the

Genoese families, and have given rise to distinguished houses

of Genoa; among them is the house of Vivaldi. The rest,

disappointed and disheartened, made their way back again, and

got home at length, the girls with the loss of their virtue,

the boys with the loss of their belief, all barefooted and in

rags, laughed at by the towns they went through, and wondering

why they had ever gone at all. This was the end of the German

army. That of the French was not so fortunate, for none of

them ever got back again at all. When they arrived at

Marseilles, thinned probably by the same causes as those which

had dispersed the Germans, they found, like their brethren,

that the sea did not open a path for them, as had been

promised. Perhaps some were disheartened and went home again.

But fortune appeared to favour them. There were two worthy

merchants at Marseilles, named Hugh Ferrens, and William

Porcus, Iron Hugh and Pig William, who traded with the East,

and had in port seven ships, in which they proposed to convey

the children to Palestine. With a noble generosity they

offered to take them for nothing, all for love of religion,

and out of the pure kindness of their hearts. Of course this

offer was accepted with joy, and the seven vessels laden with

the happy little Crusaders, singing their hymns and flying

their banners, sailed out from Marseilles, bound for the East,

accompanied by William the Good and Hugh the Pious. It was not

known to the children, of course, that the chief trade of

these merchants was the lucrative business of kidnapping

Christian children for the Alexandrian market. It was so,

however, and these respectable tradesmen had never before made

so splendid a coup. Unfortunately, off the Island of St.

Peter, they encountered bad weather, and two ships went down

with all on board. What must have been the feelings of the

philanthropists, Pig William and Iron Hugh, at this

misfortune? They got, however, five ships safely to

Alexandria, and sold all their cargo, the Sultan of Cairo

buying forty of the boys, whom he brought up carefully and

apart, intending them, doubtless, for his best soldiers. A

dozen refusing to change their faith were martyred. None of

the rest ever came back. Nobody in Europe seems to have taken

much notice of this extraordinary episode."

W. Besant and E. H. Palmer, Jerusalem, chapter 18.

ALSO IN:

J. H. Michaud, History of the Crusades,

appendix number 28.

G. Z. Gray, The Children's Crusade.

CRUSADE: A. D. 1212.

Against the Moors in Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1146-1232.

CRUSADE: A. D. 1216-1229.

The Sixth Movement.

Frederic II. in Jerusalem.

For six years after the betrayal of the vows of the crusaders

of 1202-1204--who sacked Constantinople instead of rescuing

Jerusalem--the Christians of Palestine were protected by a

truce with Saphadin, the brother of Saladin, who had succeeded

the latter in power. Hostilities were then rashly provoked by

the always foolish Latins, and they soon found themselves

reduced to sore straits, calling upon Europe for fresh help.

Pope Innocent III. did not scruple to second their appeal. A

new crusade was preached with great earnestness, and a general

Council of the Church--the Fourth of Lateran--was convened for

the stimulation of it. "The Fifth Crusade [or the Sixth, as

more commonly numbered], the result of this resolution, was

divided in the sequel into three maritime expeditions: the

first [A. D. 1216] consisting principally of Hungarians under

their king, Andrew; the second [A. D. 1218] composed of

Germans, Italians, French and English nobles and their

followers; and the third [A. D. 1228] led by the Emperor

Frederic II. in person. ... Though the King of Hungary was

attended by the flower of a nation which, before its

conversion to Christianity, had been the scourge and terror of

Western Europe, the arms of that monarch, even aided by the

junction of numerous German crusaders under the dukes of

Austria and Bavaria, performed nothing worthy of notice: and

after a single campaign in Palestine, in which the Mussulman

territories were ineffectually ravaged, the fickle Andrew

deserted the cause and returned with his forces to Europe. His

defection did not prevent the duke of Austria, with the German

crusaders, from remaining, in concert with the King of

Jerusalem, his barons, and the knights of the three religious

orders, for the defence of Palestine; and, in the following

year, the constancy of these faithful champions of the Cross

was rewarded by the arrival of numerous reinforcements from

Germany. ... It was resolved to change the scene of warfare

from the narrow limits of the Syrian shore to the coast of

Egypt,  ... and the situation of Damietta, at the mouth of the

Nile, pointed out that city as the first object of attack."

After a siege of seventeen months, during which both the

besieged and the besiegers suffered horribly, from famine and

from pestilence, Damietta was taken (A. D. 1219), Nine-tenths

of its population of 80,000 had perished. "Both during the

siege and after the capture of Damietta, the invasion of Egypt

had filled the infidels with consternation; and the alarm

which was betrayed in their counsels proved that the

crusaders, in choosing that country for the theatre of

operations, had assailed the Mussulman power in its most vital

and vulnerable point. Of the two sons of Saphadin, Coradinus

and Camel, who were now uneasily seated on the thrones of

Damascus and Cairo, the former, in despair of preserving

Jerusalem, had already demolished its fortifications; and the

brothers agreed in repeatedly offering the cession of the holy

city and of all Palestine to the Christians, upon the single

condition of their evacuating Egypt. Every object which had

been ineffectually proposed in repeated Crusades, since the

fatal battle of Tiberias, might now have been gloriously

obtained by the acceptance of these terms, and the King of

Jerusalem, the French and English leaders, and the Teutonic

knights, all eagerly desired to embrace the offer of the

Sultans. But the obstinate ambition and cupidity of the

surviving papal legate, Cardinal Pelagius, of the Italian

chieftains, and of the knights of the other two religious

orders, by holding out the rich prospect of the conquest and

plunder of Egypt, overruled every wise and temperate argument

in the Christian councils, and produced a rejection of all

compromise with the infidels.

{634}

After a winter of luxurious inaction, the legate led the

crusading host from Damietta toward Cairo (A. D. 1220)." The

expedition was as disastrous in its result as it was imbecile

in its leadership. The whole army, caught by the rising of the

Nile, was placed in so helpless a situation that it was glad

to purchase escape by the surrender of Damietta and the

evacuation of Egypt. The retreat of the greater part of these

crusaders did not end until they had reached home. Pope

Honorius III. (who had succeeded Innocent III. in 1216) strove

to shift responsibility for the failure from his wretched

legate to the Emperor Frederic II., who had thus far evaded

the fulfilment of his crusading promises and vows, being

occupied in struggles with the papacy. At length, in 1228,

Frederic embarked for Palestine with a small force, pursued by

the maledictions of the pope, who denounced him for daring to

assume the Cross while under the ban of the church, as much as

he had denounced him before for neglecting it. But the

free-thinking Hohenstauffen cared little, apparently, and went

his way, shunned scrupulously by all pious souls, including

the knights of Palestine, except those of the Teutonic order.

With the help of the latter he occupied and refortified Jaffa

and succeeded in concluding a treaty with the Sultan which

restored Jerusalem to the Christians, reserving certain rights

to the Mahometans; giving up likewise Bethlehem, Nazareth

and some other places to the Christians, and securing peace

for ten years. Frederic had married, a few years before, for

his second empress, Iolante, daughter and heiress of the

titular king of Jerusalem, John de Brienne. With the hand of

this princess, he received from her father a solemn transfer

of all his rights to that shadowy throne. He now claimed those

rights, and, entering Jerusalem, with the Teutonic knights (A.

D. 1229), he crowned himself its king. The patriarch, the

Templars and the Hospitallers refused to take part in the

ceremony; the pope denounced Frederic's advantageous treaty as

soon as he had news of it, and all that it gained for the

Christians of Palestine was thrown away by them as speedily as

possible.

Major Procter, History of the Crusades,

chapter 5, section 2.

"No Crusader, since Godfrey de Bouillon, had effected so much

as Frederick the Second. What would he not have obtained, had

the Pope, the Patriarch and the Orders given him their hearty

cooperation?"

T. L. Kington, History of Frederick II., chapter 8.

CRUSADES: A. D. 1238-1280.

Against the Bogomiles.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:

9TH-16TH CENTURIES (BOSNIA, ETC.)

CRUSADES: A. D. 1242.

The Invasion of Palestine by the Carismians.

See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1242.

CRUSADES: A. D. 1248-1254.

The Seventh Movement.

Expedition of Saint Louis to Egypt.

The Seventh Crusade was undertaken, with little aid from other

countries, by the devout and wonderfully Christian-like young

king of France, Louis IX., afterwards canonized, and known in

history as St. Louis. "He carried it out with a picked army,

furnished by the feudal chivalry and by the religious and

military orders dedicated to the service of the Holy Land. The

Isle of Cyprus was the trysting-place appointed for all the

forces of the expedition. Louis arrived there on the 12th of

September, 1248, and reckoned upon remaining there only a few

days; for it was Egypt that he was in a hurry to reach. The

Christian world was at that time of opinion that, to deliver

the Holy Land, it was necessary first of all to strike a blow

at Islamism in Egypt, wherein its chief strength resided. But

scarcely had the crusaders formed a junction in Cyprus, when

the vices of the expedition and the weaknesses of its chief

began to be manifest. Louis, unshakable in his religious zeal,

was wanting in clear ideas and fixed resolves as to the

carrying out of his design. ... He did not succeed in winning

a majority in the council of chiefs over to his opinion as to

the necessity for a speedy departure for Egypt; it was decided

to pass the winter in Cyprus. ... At last a start was made

from Cyprus in May, 1249, and, in spite of violent gales of

wind which dispersed a large number of vessels, they arrived

on the 4th of June before Damietta. ... Having become masters

of Damietta, St. Louis and the crusaders committed the same

fault there as in the Isle of Cyprus: they halted there for an

indefinite time. They were expecting fresh crusaders; and they

spent the time of expectation in quarreling over the partition

of the booty taken in the city. They made away with it, they

wasted it blindly. ... Louis saw and deplored these

irregularities, without being in a condition to stop them. At

length, on the 20th of November, 1249, after more than five

months' inactivity at Damietta, the crusaders put themselves

once more in motion, with the determination of marching upon

Babylon, that outskirt of Cairo, now called Old Cairo, which

the greater part of them, in their ignorance, mistook for the

real Babylon, and where they flattered themselves they would

find immense riches, and avenge the olden sufferings of the

Hebrew captives. The Mussulmans had found time to recover from

their first fright, and to organize, at all points, a vigorous

resistance. On the 8th of February, 1250, a battle took place

twenty leagues from Damietta, at Mansourah ('the city of

victory'), on the right bank of the Nile. ... The battle-field

was left that day to the crusaders; but they were not allowed

to occupy it as conquerors, for, three days afterwards, on the

11th of February, 1250, the camp of St. Louis was assailed by

clouds of Saracens, horse and foot, Mamelukes and Bedouins.

All surprise had vanished, the Mussulmans measured at a glance

the numbers of the Christians, and attacked them in full

assurance of success, whatever heroism they might display; and

the crusaders themselves indulged in no more self·illusion,

and thought only of defending themselves. Lack of provisions

and sickness soon rendered defence almost as impossible as

attack; every day saw the Christian camp more and more

encumbered with the famine-stricken, the dying, and the dead;

and the necessity for retreating became evident." An attempt

to negotiate with the enemy failed, because they insisted on

the surrender of the king as hostage,--which none would

concede. "On the 5th of April, 1250, the crusaders decided

upon retreating. This was the most deplorable scene of a

deplorable drama; and at the same time it was, for the king,

an occasion for displaying, in their most sublime and

attractive traits, all the virtues of the Christian. Whilst

sickness and famine were devastating the camp, Louis made

himself visitor, physician and comforter; and his presence and

his words exercised upon the worst cases a searching influence. ...

{635}

When the 5th of April, the day fixed for the retreat, had

come, Louis himself was ill and much enfeebled. He was urged

to go aboard one of the vessels which were to descend the

Nile, carrying the wounded and the most suffering; but he

refused absolutely, saying, 'I don't separate from my people

in the hour of danger.' He remained on land, and when he had

to move forward he fainted away. When he came to himself, he

was amongst the last to leave the camp. ... At four leagues

distance from the camp it had just left, the rear-guard of the

crusaders, harassed by clouds of Saracens, was obliged to

halt. Louis could no longer keep on his horse. 'He was put up

at a house,' says Joinville, 'and laid, almost dead, upon the

lap of a tradeswoman from Paris; and it was believed that he

would not last till evening.'" The king, in this condition,

with the whole wreck of his army,--only 10,000 in number

remaining to him,--were taken prisoners. Their release from

captivity was purchased a month later by the surrender of

Damietta and a ransom-payment of 500,000 livres. They made

their way to St. Jean d' Acre, in Palestine, whence many of

them returned home. But King Louis, with some of his knights

and men-at-arms--how many is not known--stayed yet in the Holy

Land for four years, striving and hoping against hope to

accomplish something for the deliverance of Jerusalem, and

expending "in small works of piety, sympathy, protection, and

care for the future of the Christian population in Asia, his

time, his strength, his pecuniary resources, and the ardor of

a soul which could not remain idly abandoned to sorrowing over

great desires unsatisfied." The good and pious but ill-guided

king returned to France in the summer of 1254, and was

received with great joy.

F. P. Guizot, Popular History of France, chapter 17;

www.gutenberg.org/files/11952

ALSO IN:

Sire De Joinville, Memoirs of Saint Louis, part 2.

J. F. Michaud, History of the Crusades, books 13-14.

Crusades: A. D. 1252.

The movement of "the Pastors."

On the arrival in France of the news of the disastrous failure

of Saint Louis's expedition to Egypt, there occurred an

outbreak of fanaticism as insensate as that of the children's

crusade of forty years before. It was said to have originated

with a Hungarian named Jacob, who began to proclaim that

Christ rejected the great ones of the earth from His service,

and that the deliverance of the Holy City must be accomplished

by the poor and humble. "Shepherds left their flocks, labourers

laid down the plough, to follow his footsteps. ... The name of

Pastors was given to these village crusaders. ... At length,

assembled to the number of more than 100,000, these

redoubtable pilgrims left Paris and divided themselves into

several troops, to repair to the coast, whence they were to

embark for the East. The city of Orleans, which happened to be

in their passage, became the theatre of frightful disorders.

The progress of their enormities at length created serious

alarm in the government and the magistracy; orders were sent

to the provinces to pursue and disperse these turbulent and

seditious bands. The most numerous assemblage of the Pastors

was fixed to take place at Bourges, where the 'master of

Hungary' [Jacob] was to perform miracles and communicate the

will of Heaven. Their arrival in that city was the signal for

murder, fire and pillage. The irritated people took up arms

and marched against these disturbers of the public peace; they

overtook them between Mortemer and Villeneuve-sur-le-Cher,

where, in spite of their numbers, they were routed, and

received the punishment due to their brigandages. Jacob had

his head cut off by the blow of an axe; many of his companions

and disciples met with death on the field of battle, or were

consigned to punishment; the remainder took to flight."

J. F. Michaud, History of the Crusades, book 14.

Crusades: A. D. 1256-1259.

Against Eccelino di Romano.

See VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.

Crusades: A. D. 1270-1271.

The last undertakings.

Saint Louis at Tunis.

Prince Edward in Palestine.

"For seven years after his return to France, from 1254 to

1261, Louis seemed to think no more about them [the crusades],

and there is nothing to show that he spoke of them even to his

most intimate confidants; but, in spite of his apparent

calmness, he was living, so far as they were concerned, in a

continual ferment of imagination and internal fever, even

flattering himself that some favorable circumstance would call

him back to his interrupted work. ... In 1261, Louis held, at

Paris, a Parliament, at which, without any talk of a new

crusade, measures were taken which revealed an idea of it. ...

In 1263 the crusade was openly preached. ... All objections,

all warnings, all anxieties came to nothing in the face of

Louis's fixed idea and pious passion. He started from Paris on

the 16th of March, 1270, a sick man almost already, but with

soul content, and probably the only one without misgiving in

the midst of all his comrades. It was once more at

Aigues-Mortes that he went to embark. All was as yet dark and

undecided as to the plan of the expedition. ... Steps were

taken at hap-hazard with full trust in Providence and utter

forgetfulness that Providence does not absolve men from

foresight. ... It was only in Sardinia, after four days' halt

at Cagliari, that Louis announced to the chiefs of the

crusade, assembled aboard his ship, the 'Mountjoy,' that he

was making for Tunis, and that their Christian work would

commence there. The king of Tunis (as he was then called),

Mohammed Mostanser, had for some time been talking of his

desire to become a Christian, if he could be efficiently

protected against the seditions of his subjects. Louis

welcomed with transport the prospect of Mussulman conversions.

... But on the 17th of July, when the fleet arrived before

Tunis, the admiral, Florent de Varennes, probably without the

king's orders, and with that want of reflection which was

conspicuous at each step of the enterprise, immediately took

possession of the harbor and of some Tunisian vessels as

prize, and sent word to the king 'that he had only to support

him and that the disembarkation of the troops might be

effected with perfect safety.' Thus war was commenced at the

very first moment against the Mussulman prince whom there had

been promise of seeing before long a Christian. At the end of

a fortnight, after some fight between the Tunisians and the

crusaders, so much political and military blindness produced

its natural consequences. The re-enforcements promised to

Louis by his brother Charles of Anjou, king of Sicily, had not

arrived; provisions were falling short; and the heats of an

African summer were working havoc amongst the army with such

rapidity that before long there was no time to bury the dead;

but they were cast pell-mell into the ditch which surrounded

the camp, and the air was tainted thereby.

{636}

On the 3d of August Louis was attacked by the epidemic fever."

On the 25th of August he died. His son and successor, Philip

III., held his ground before Tunis until November, when he

gladly accepted a payment of money from the Tunisian prince

for withdrawing his army. Disaster followed him. A storm

destroyed part of his fleet, with 4,000 or 5,000 men, and sunk

all the treasure he had received from the Moslems. On the

journey home through Italy his wife met with an accident which

ended her life and that of her prematurely born child. The

young king arrived at Paris, May, 1271, bringing the remains

of five of his family for burial at St. Denis: his wife, his

son, his father, his brother, and his brother-in-law,--all

victims of the fatal crusade. While France was thus burying

the last of her crusaders, Prince Edward (afterwards King

Edward I.) of England, landed in Syria at the head of a few

hundred knights and men at arms. Joined by the Templars and

Hospitallers, he had an army of 6,000 or 7,000 men, with which

he took Nazareth and made there a bloody sacrifice to the

memory of the gentle Nazarene. He did nothing more. Being

wounded by an assassin, he arranged a truce with the Sultan of

Egypt and returned home. His expedition was the last from

Europe which strove with the Moslems for the Holy Land. The

Christians of Palestine, who still held Acre and Tyre, Sidon

and a few other coast cities, were soon afterwards

overwhelmed, and the dominion of the Crescent in Syria was

undisputed any more by force of arms, though many voices cried

vainly against it. The spirit of the Crusades had expired.

F. P. Guizot, Popular History of France, chapter 17.

www.gutenberg.org/files/11952

ALSO IN:

J. F. Michaud, History of the Crusades, book 15.

CRUSADES: A. D. 1291.

The end of the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem.

See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291.

CRUSADES: A. D. 1299.

The last campaign of the Templars.

"After the fall of Acre [A. D. 1291] the headquarters of the

Templars were established at Limisso in the island of Cyprus,

and urgent letters were sent to Europe for succour." In 1295,

James de Molay, the head of the English province, became Grand

Master, and soon after his arrival in Palestine he entered

into an alliance with Ghazan Khan, the Mongol ruler of Persia,

who had married a Christian princess of Armenia and was not

unfriendly to the Christians, as against the Mamelukes of

Egypt, with whom he was at war. The Mongol Khan invited the

Templars to join him in an expedition against the Sultan of

Egypt, and they did so in the spring of 1299, at Antioch. "An

army of 30,000 men was placed by the Mogul emperor under the

command of the Grand Master, and the combined forces moved up

the valley of the Orontes towards Damascus. In a great battle

fought at Hems, the troops of the sultans of Damascus and

Egypt were entirely defeated and pursued with great slaughter

until nightfall. Aleppo, Hems, Damascus, and all the principal

cities, surrendered to the victorious arms of the Moguls, and

the Templars once again entered Jerusalem in triumph, visited

the Holy Sepulchre and celebrated Easter on Mount Zion." The

khan sent ambassadors to Europe, offering the possession of

Palestine to the Christian powers if they would give him their

alliance and support, but none responded to the call. Ghazan

Khan fell ill and withdrew from Syria; the Templars retreated

to Cyprus once more and their military career, as the

champions of the Cross, was at an end.

C. G. Addison, The Knights Templars, chapter 6.

ALSO IN:

H. H. Howarth, History of the Mongols, part 3, chapter 8.

CRUSADES:

Effects and consequences of the Crusades, in Europe.

"The principle of the crusades was a savage fanaticism; and

the most important effects were analogous to the cause. Each

pilgrim was ambitious to return with his sacred spoils, the

relics of Greece and Palestine; and each relic was preceded

and followed by a train of miracles and visions. The belief of

the Catholics was corrupted by new legends, their practice by

new superstitions; and the establishment of the inquisition,

the mendicant orders of monks and friars, the last abuse of

indulgences, and the final progress of idolatry, flowed from

the baleful fountain of the holy war. The active spirit of the

Latins preyed on the vitals of their reason and religion; and

if the ninth and tenth centuries were the times of darkness,

the thirteenth and fourteenth were the age of absurdity and

fable. ... Some philosophers have applauded the propitious

influence of these holy wars, which appear to me to have

checked rather than forwarded the maturity of Europe."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 61.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

"The crusades may be considered as material pilgrimages on an

enormous scale, and their influence upon general morality

seems to have been altogether pernicious. Those who served

under the cross would not indeed have lived very virtuously at

home; but the confidence in their own merits which the

principle of such expeditions inspired must have aggravated

the ferocity and dissoluteness of their ancient habits.

Several historians attest the depravation of morals which

existed, both among the crusaders and in the states formed out

of their conquests."

H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 9. part 1.

"It was not possible for the crusaders to travel through so

many countries, and to behold their various customs and

institutions, without acquiring information and improvement.

Their views enlarged; their prejudices wore off; new ideas

crowded into their minds; and they must have been sensible, on

many occasions, of the rusticity of their own manners when

compared with those of a more polished people. ...

Accordingly, we discover, soon after the commencement of the

crusades, greater splendour in the courts of princes, greater

pomp in public ceremonies, a more refined taste in pleasure

and amusements, together with a more romantic spirit of

enterprise spreading gradually over Europe; and to these wild

expeditions, the effect of superstition and folly, we owe the

first gleams of light which tended to dispel barbarism and

ignorance. But the beneficial consequences of the crusades

took place slowly; their influence upon the state of property,

and, consequently, of power, in the different kingdoms of

Europe, was more immediate as well as discernible."

W. Robertson, View of the Progress of Society

in Europe, section 1.

{637}

"The crusades are not, in my mind, either the popular

delusions that our cheap literature has determined them to be,

nor papal conspiracies against kings and peoples, as they

appear to the Protestant controversialist; nor the savage

outbreaks of expiring barbarism, thirsting for blood and

plunder, nor volcanic explosions of religious intolerance. I

believe them to have been, in their deep sources, and in the

minds of their best champions, and in the main tendency of

their results, capable of ample justification. They were the

first great effort of mediæval life to go beyond the pursuit

of selfish and isolated ambitions; they were the trial-feat of

the young world, essaying to use, to the glory of God and the

benefit of man, the arms of its new knighthood. ... That in

the end they were a benefit to the world no one who reads can

doubt; and that in their course they brought out a love for

all that is heroic in human nature, the love of freedom, the

honour of prowess, sympathy with sorrow, perseverance to the

last and patient endurance without hope, the chronicles of the

age abundantly prove; proving, moreover, that it was by the

experience of those times that the forms of those virtues were

realized and presented to posterity."

William Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Mediæval

and Modern History, lecture 8.

"Though begun under the name and influence of religious

belief, the crusades deprived religious ideas, I shall not say

of their legitimate share of influence, but of their exclusive

and despotic possession of the human mind. This result, though

undoubtedly unforeseen, arose from various causes. The first

was evidently the novelty, extent, and variety of the scene

which displayed itself to the crusaders; what generally

happens to travellers happened to them. It is mere

common-place to say, that travelling gives freedom to the

mind; that the habit of observing different nations, different

manners and different opinions, enlarges the ideas, and

disengages the judgment from old prejudices. The same thing

happened to those nations of travellers who have been called

the crusaders; their minds were opened and raised by having

seen a multitude of different things, of having become

acquainted with other manners than their own. They found

themselves also placed in connexion with two states of

civilization, not only different from their own, but more

advanced--the Greek state of society on the one hand, and the

Mussulman on the other. ... It is curious to observe in the

chronicles the impression made by the crusaders on the

Mussulmans, who regarded them at first as the most brutal,

ferocious, and stupid barbarians they had ever seen. The

crusaders, on their part, were struck with the riches and

elegance of manners which they observed among the Mussulmans.

These first impressions were succeeded by frequent relations

between the Mussulmans and Christians. These became more

extensive and important than is commonly believed. ... There

is another circumstance which is worthy of notice. Down to the

time of the crusades, the court of Rome, the centre of the

Church, had been very little in communication with the laity,

unless through the medium of ecclesiastics; either legates

sent by the court of Rome, or the whole body of the bishops

and clergy. There were always some laymen in direct relation

with Rome; but upon the whole, it was by means of churchmen

that Rome had any communication with the people of different

countries. During the crusades, on the contrary, Rome became a

halting-place for a great portion of the crusaders, either in

going or returning. A multitude of laymen were spectators of

its policy and its manners, and were able to discover the

share which personal interest had in religious disputes. There

is no doubt that this newly-acquired knowledge inspired many

minds with a boldness hitherto unknown. When we consider the

state of the general mind at the termination of the crusades,

especially in regard to ecclesiastical matters, we cannot fail

to be struck with a singular fact: religious notions underwent

no change, and were not replaced by contrary or even different

opinions. Thought, notwithstanding, had become more free;

religious creeds were not the only subject on which the human

mind exercised its faculties; without abandoning them, it

began occasionally to wander from them, and to take other

directions. ... The social state of society had undergone an

analogous change. ... Without entering into the details ... we

may collect into a few general facts the influence of the

crusades on the social state of Europe. They greatly

diminished the number of petty fiefs, petty domains, and petty

proprietors; they concentrated property and power in a smaller

number of hands. It is from the time of the crusades that we

may observe the formation and growth of great fiefs--the

existence of feudal power on a large scale. ... This was one

of the most important results of the crusades. Even in those

cases where small proprietors preserved their fiefs, they did

not live upon them in such an insulated state as formerly. The

possessors of great fiefs became so many centres around which

the smaller ones were gathered, and near which they came to

live. During the crusades, small proprietors found it

necessary to place themselves in the train of some rich and

powerful chief, from whom they received assistance and

support. They lived with him, shared his fortune, and passed

through the same adventures that he did. When the crusaders

returned home, this social spirit, this habit of living in

intercourse with superiors continued to subsist, and had its

influence on the manners of the age. ... The extension of the

great fiefs, and the creation of a number of central points in

society, in place of the general dispersion which previously

existed, were the two principal effects of the crusades,

considered with respect to their influence upon feudalism. As

to the inhabitants of the towns, a result of the same nature

may easily be perceived. The crusades created great civic

communities. Petty commerce and petty industry were not

sufficient to give rise to communities such as the great

cities of Italy and Flanders. It was commerce on a great

scale--maritime commerce, and, especially, the commerce of the

East and West, which gave them birth; now it was the crusades

which gave to the maritime commerce the greatest impulse it

had yet received. On the whole, when we survey the state of

society at the end of the crusades, we find that the movement

tending to dissolution and dispersion, the movement of

universal localization (if I may be allowed such an

expression), had ceased, and had been succeeded by a movement

in the contrary direction, a movement of centralization. All

things tended to mutual approximation; small things were

absorbed in great ones, or gathered round them. Such was the

direction then taken by the progress of society."

F. Guizot, History of Civilization, lecture 8 (volume 1).

www.gutenberg.org/files/61572/61572-h/61572-h.htm#Page_151

{638}

CRUSADES: A. D. 1383.

The Bishop of Norwich's Crusade in Flanders.

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1383.

CRUSADES: A. D. 1420-1431.

Crusade against the Hussites.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

CRUSADES: A. D. 1442-1444.

Christian Europe against the Turks.

See TURKS (THE OTTOMANS): A. D. 1402-1451.

CRUSADES: A. D. 1467-1471.

Crusade Instigated by the Pope against George Podiebrad, king

of Bohemia.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471..

----------CRUSADES: End----------

CRYPTEIA, The.

See KRYPTEIA.

CTESIPHON.

"The Parthian monarchs, like the Mogul sovereigns of

Hindostan, delighted in the pastoral life of their Scythian

ancestors, and the imperial camp was frequently pitched in the

plain of Ctesiphon, on the eastern banks of the Tigris, at the

distance of only three miles from Seleucia. The innumerable

attendants on luxury and despotism resorted to the court, and

the little village of Ctesiphon insensibly swelled into a

great city. Under the reign of Marcus, the Roman generals

penetrated as far as Ctesiphon and Seleucia. They were

received as friends by the Greek colony; they attacked as

enemies the seat of the Parthian kings; yet both cities

experienced the same treatment. The sack and conflagration of

Seleucia, with the massacre of 300,000 of the inhabitants,

tarnished the glory of the Roman triumph, Seleucia, already

exhausted by the neighborhood of a too powerful rival, sunk

under the fatal blow; but Ctesiphon, in about thirty-three

years, had sufficiently recovered its strength to maintain an

obstinate siege against the emperor Severus. The city was,

however, taken by assault; the king, who defended it in

person, escaped with precipitation; 100,000 captives and a

rich booty rewarded the fatigues of the Roman soldiers.

Notwithstanding these misfortunes, Ctesiphon succeeded to

Babylon and to Seleucia as one of the great capitals of the

East."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 8.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

In 637 A. D. Ctesiphon passed into the possession of the

Saracens.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D. 632-651.

ALSO IN:

G. Rawlinson, Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 6.

See, also, MEDAIN.

CUATOS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

CUBA: A. D. 1492-1493.

Discovery by Columbus.

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

CUBA: A. D. 1511.

Spanish conquest and occupation of the island.

"Of the islands, Cuba was the second discovered; but no

attempt had been made to plant a colony there during the

lifetime of Columbus; who, indeed, after skirting the whole

extent of its southern coast, died in the conviction that it

was part of the continent. At length, in 1511, Diego, the son

and successor of the 'admiral,' who still maintained the seat

of government in Hispaniola, finding the mines much exhausted

there, proposed to occupy the neighbouring island of Cuba, or

Fernandina, as it is called, in compliment to the Spanish

monarch. He prepared a small force for the conquest, which he

placed under the command of Don Diego Velasquez. ...

Velasquez, or rather his lieutenant Narvaez, who took the

office on himself of scouring the country, met with no serious

opposition from the inhabitants, who were of the same family

with the effeminate natives of Hispaniola." After the

conquest, Velasquez was appointed governor, and established

his seat of government at St. Jago, on the southeast corner of

the island.

W. H. Prescott, Conquest of Mexico, book 2, chapter 1.

ALSO IN:

Sir A. Helps, Spanish Conquest in America, book 7.

CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.

Slow development of the island.

Capture of Havana by the English.

Discontent with Spanish rule.

Conspiracies of revolution.

"Velasquez founded many of the towns of the island, the first

of which was Baracoa, then Bayamo, and in 1514 Trinidad, Santo

Espiritu, Puerto Principe; next, in 1515, Santiago de Cuba, as

also, in the same year, the town of Habana. ... This period

(1511-1607) is particularly interesting to the general reader

from the fact that in it the explorations of Hernandez de

Cadoba and Grijalva to Darien, Yucatan, etc., were

inaugurated,--events which had so much to do with the spread

of Spanish rule and discovery, paving the way as they did for

the exploration of Mexico under Hernando Cortes, who, in the

early history of Cuba, figures largely as the lieutenant of

the Governor Velasquez. ... In 1524, Diego Velasquez died,

--his death hastened, it is said, by the troubles brought upon

him by his disputes with his insubordinate lieutenant, Cortes.

... In the history of the improvement of the island, his

government will bear favorable comparison with many of the

later governments; and while that great evil, slavery, was

introduced into the island in his time, so also was the sugar

cane. ... Up to 1538, there seems to be nothing specially

striking in the general history of the island, if we except

the constant attacks with fire and sword of the

'filibusteros,' or pirates of all nations, from which most all

the sea-coast towns suffered more or less; but in that year

there arrived at Santiago de Cuba a man destined to play an

important part in the history and discovery of the new world,

and named as Provincial Governor of Florida as well as of

Cuba,--I allude to Hernando de Soto, who brought with him 10

large vessels, prepared and fitted out expressly for the

conquest of the new Spanish territory of Florida. After much

care and preparation, this expedition started out from the

city of Habana, the 12th of May [see FLORIDA: A. D.

1528-1542]. ... In this period, also, was promulgated that

order, secured, it is believed, by the noble efforts of Padre

Las Casas, prohibiting the enslaving of the aborigines; while,

also, such had become its importance as a town, all vessels

directed to and from Mexico were ordered to stop at Havana. In

the period of years that elapsed from 1607 to 1762, the island

seems to have been in a perfect state of lethargy, except the

usual changes of its many Governors, and the raids made upon

it by pirates, or by more legalized enemies in the form of

French and English men-of-war. In this latter year, however,

occurred an event of much import, from the fact that after it,

or upon its occurrence, the Government of Spain was led to see

the great importance of Cuba, and particularly Havana, as the

'Key to the New   World,'--this event was the taking of Havana

by the English.

{639}

On the 6th of June, 1762, there arrived off the port of Havana

an English squadron of 32 ships and frigates, with some 200

transports, bringing with them a force of nearly 20,000 men of

all arms, under command of the Duke of Albemarle. This

formidable armament, the largest that America had ever seen,

laid siege to the city of Havana, whose garrison consisted at

that time of only about 2,700 regulars and the volunteers that

took up arms immediately for the defense of the place. ... The

garrison, however, made a very gallant and prolonged defense,

notwithstanding the smallness of their numbers, and finally,

surrendering, were permitted to march out with the honors of

war, the English thus coming into possession of the most

important defences on the coast, and, subsequently, taking

possession of the town of Matanzas. Remaining in possession of

this portion of the Island of Cuba for many months (until July

6, 1763), the English, by importing negro labor to cultivate

the large tracts of wild land, and by shipping large

quantities of European merchandize, gave a start to the trade

and traffic of the island that pushed it far on its way to the

state of prosperity it has now reached; but by the treaty of

peace, at Paris, in February, 1763 [see Seven Years War], was

restored to Spain the portion of the island wrested from her

by the English. ... In this period (1762-1801) the island made

rapid advances in improvement and civilization, many of the

Captains-General of this period doing much to improve the

towns and the people, beautifying the streets, erecting

buildings, etc. In 1763, a large emigration took place from

Florida, and in 1795 the French emigrants from Santo Domingo

came on to the island in large numbers. ... From 1801, rapid

increase in the prosperity of the island has taken place. ...

At various times insurrections, some of them quite serious in

their nature, have shown what the natural desire of the native

population is for greater privileges and freedom. ... In 1823,

there was a society of 'soles,' as it was called, formed for

the purpose of freeing the island, having at its head young D.

Francisco Lemus, and having for its pretext that the island

was about to be sold to England. In 1829, there was discovered

the conspiracy of the Black Eagle, as it was called (Aguila

Negra), an attempt on the part of the population to obtain

their freedom, some of the Mexican settlers in the island

being prominent in it. The insurrection, or attempt at one, by

the blacks in 1844, was remarkable for its wide-spread

ramifications among the slaves of the island, as well as its

thorough organization,--the intention being to murder all the

whites on the island. Other minor insurrections there were,

but it remained for Narciso Lopez, with a force of some 300

men, to make the most important attempt [1851], in which he

lost his life, to free the island."

S. Hazard, Cuba with Pen and Pencil, pages 547-550.

ALSO IN:

M. M. Ballou, History of Cuba, chapter 1-3.

Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),

History of England, 1713-1783, chapter 38 (volume 4).

J. Entick, History of the Late War, volume 5, pages 363-386.

D. Turnbull, Cuba, chapter 22-24.

CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.

Acquisition coveted by the slave-power in the United States.

Attempted purchase.

Filibustering schemes.

The Ostend Manifesto.

"When the Spanish colonies in America became independent, they

abolished slavery. Apprehensive that the republics of Mexico

and Columbia would be anxious to wrest Cuba and Porto Rico

from Spain, secure their independence, and introduce into

those islands the idea, if they did not establish the fact, of

freedom, the slave-masters [of the United States] at once

sought to guard against what they deemed so calamitous an

event. ... But after the annexation of Texas, there was a

change of feeling and purpose, and Cuba, from being an object

of dread, became an object of vehement desire. The

propagandists, strengthened and emboldened by that signal

triumph, now turned their eyes towards this beautiful 'isle of

the sea,' as the theatre of new exploits; and they determined

to secure the 'gem of the Antilles' for the coronet of their

great and growing power. During Mr. Polk's administration an

attempt was made to purchase it, and the sum of $100,000,000

was offered therefor. But the offer was promptly declined.

What, however, could not be bought it was determined to steal,

and filibustering movements and expeditions became the order

of the day. For no sooner was President Taylor inaugurated

than he found movements on foot in that direction; and, in

August, 1849, he issued a proclamation, affirming his belief

that an 'armed expedition' was being fitted out 'against Cuba

or some of the provinces of Mexico,' and calling upon all good

citizens' to discountenance and prevent any such enterprise.'

In 1851 an expedition, consisting of some 500 men, sailed from

New Orleans under Lopez, a Cuban adventurer. But though it

effected a landing, it was easily defeated, and its leader and

a few of his followers were executed. Soon afterward, a secret

association, styling itself the Order of the Lone Star, was

formed in several of the Southern cities, having a similar

object in view; but it attracted little notice and

accomplished nothing. ... In August, 1854, President Pierce

instructed Mr. Marcy, his Secretary of State, to direct

Buchanan, Mason and Soulé, ministers respectively at the

courts of London, Paris and Madrid, to convene in some

European city and confer with each other in regard to the

matter of gaining Cuba to the United States. They met

accordingly, in October, at Ostend. The results of their

deliberations were published in a manifesto, in which the

reasons are set forth for the acquisition; and the declaration

was made that the Union could never enjoy repose and security 'as

long as Cuba is not embraced within its boundaries.' But the

great source of anxiety, the controlling motive, was the

apprehension that, unless so annexed, she would 'be

Africanized and become a second San Domingo,' thus 'seriously

to endanger' the Union. This paper attracted great attention

and caused much astonishment. It was at first received with

incredulity, as if there had been some mistake or imposition

practised. ... But there was no mistake. ... It was the

deliberate utterance of the conference, and it received the

indorsement of Mr. Pierce and his administration. The

Democratic national conventions of 1856 and of 1860 were quite

as explicit as were the authors of the Ostend manifesto 'in

favor of the acquisition of Cuba.'"

H. Wilson, History of the Rise and Fall of the

Slave Power in America, volume 2, ch.47.

{640}

ALSO IN:

H. Von Holst, Constitutional and Political History

of the United States,

volume 4, chapter 2, and volume 5, chapter 1.

G. T. Curtis, Life of James Buchanan, volume 2, chapter 6.

M. M. Ballou, History of Cuba, chapter 3.

J. J. Roche, The Story of the Filibusters, chapter 3.

----------CUBA: End----------

CUBIT, The.

"The length of the Egyptian foot is ... shown to be equal to

1.013 English foot, or 12.16 inches (0.3086 metre) and the

cubit to 18.24 English inches, or 0.463 metre. This cubit was

identical with the Phœnician or Olympic cubit, afterwards

adopted in Greece. ... The second of the two Egyptian cubits

was the royal cubit, or cubit of Memphis, of seven palms or

twenty-eight digits. ... The mean length of the Egyptian royal

cubit is ... ascertained to be 20.67 English inches, or 525

mm. ... There is much conflict of opinion as to the actual

length of the several cubits in use by the Jews at different

periods; but the fact that Moses always mentions the Egyptian

measures ... as well as the Egyptian weights ... proves that

the Hebrews originally brought their weights and measures from

Egypt. ... In his dissertation on cubits, Sir Isaac Newton

states grounds for his opinion that the sacred cubit of the

Jews was equal to 24.7 of our inches, and that the royal cubit

of Memphis was equivalent to five-sixths of this sacred Jewish

cubit, or 20.6 inches."

H. W. Chisholm, On the Science of Weighing and

Measuring, chapter 2.

CUCUTA, The Convention of.

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830.

CUFA.

See BUSSORAH and KUFA.

CUICIDH, The.

See TUATH, THE.

CULDEES, The.

It used to be set forth by religious historians that the

Culdees were an ardent religious fraternity in Scotland,

probably founded by Columba, the saintly Irish missionary of

the sixth century, and having its principal seat in Iona; that

they "were the lights of Scotland in a dark and superstitious

age"; that they struggled for several centuries against the

errors and the oppressive pretensions of Rome, and that "the

strength and vigor of the Reformation in Scotland, where the

Papal power received its first and most decisive check, may be

traced not indirectly to the faith, the doctrines, and the

spirit of the ancient Culdees." It was claimed for the

Presbyterian Church that its form of church government

prevailed among the Culdees, while the supporters of

Episcopacy found evidences to the contrary. But all these

views, with all the controversies fomented by them, have been

dissipated by modern historical investigation. The facts

gathered by Dean Reeves and published in 1864, in his work on

the "Culdees of the British Islands," supported by the more

recent studies of Mr. W. F. Skene, are now generally accepted.

Says Mr. Skene, (Celtic Scotland, book 2, chapter 6):  "It is not

till after the expulsion of the Columban monks from the

kingdom of the Picts, in the beginning of the eighth century,

that the name of Culdee appears. To Adamnan, to Eddi and to

Bede it was totally unknown. They knew of no body of clergy

who bore this name, and in the whole range of ecclesiastical

history there is nothing more utterly destitute of authority

than the application of this name to the Columban monks of the

sixth and seventh centuries, or more utterly baseless than the

fabric which has been raised upon that assumption." Mr.

Skene's conclusion is that the Culdees sprang from an ascetic

order called Deicolæ or God-worshippers; that in Irish the

name became Ceile De, thence corrupted into Culdee; that they

were hermits, who became in time associated in communities,

and were finally brought under the canonical rule of the Roman

church, along with the secular clergy.

CULEUS, The.

See AMPHORA.

CULHUACAN.

See MEXICO, ANCIENT: THE TOLTEC EMPIRE.

CULLODEN, Battle of (1746).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.

CULM, OR KULM, Battle of.

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

CULTURKAMPF, The.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1873-1887.

CUMÆ.--CUMÆAN SIBYL.

"Earlier than 735 B. C., ... though we do not know the precise

era of its commencement, there existed one solitary Grecian

establishment in the Tyrrhenian Sea,--the Campanian Cumæ, near

Cape Misenum; which the more common opinion of chronologists

supposed to have been founded in 1050 B. U. and which has even

been carried back by some authors to 1139 B. C. ... We may at

least feel certain that it is the most ancient Grecian

establishment in any part of Italy. ... The Campanian

Cumæ--known almost entirely by this its Latin

designation--received its name and a portion of its

inhabitants from the Æolic Kymê in Asia Minor. ... Cumæ,

situated on the neck of the peninsula which terminates in Cape

Misenum, occupied a lofty and rocky hill overhanging the sea

and difficult of access on the land side. ... In the hollow

rock under the very walls of the town was situated the cavern

of the prophetic Sibyl,--a parallel and reproduction of the

Gergithian Sibyl, near Kymê in Æolis: in the immediate

neighborhood, too, stood the wild woods and dark lake of

Avernus, consecrated to the subterranean gods, and offering an

establishment of priests, with ceremonies evoking the dead,

for purposes of prophecy or for solving doubts and mysteries.

It was here that Grecian imagination localized the Cimmerians

and the fable of Odysseus; and the Cumæans derived gains from

the numerous visitors to this holy spot, perhaps hardly less

than those of the inhabitants of Krissa from the vicinity of

Delphi. Of the relations of these Cumæans with the Hellenic

world generally, we unfortunately know nothing; but they seem

to have been in intimate connection with Rome during the time

of the kings, and especially during that of the last king

Tarquin,--forming the intermediate link between the Greek and

Latin world, whereby the feelings of the Teukrians and

Gergitheans near the Æolic Kymê and the legendary stories of

Trojan as well as Grecian heroes,--Æneas and Odysseus--passed

into the antiquarian imagination of Rome and Latium. The

writers of the Augustan age knew Cumæ only in its decline, and

wondered at the vast extent of its ancient walls, yet

remaining in their time. But during the two centuries prior to

500 B. C. these walls inclosed a full and thriving population,

in the plenitude of prosperity."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 22.

See, also,  SIBYLS

CUMANS, OR KOMANS, The.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

CUMBERLAND GAP, The capture of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER: TENNESSEE).

{641}

CUMBRIA:

The British kingdom.

"The Britons of Cumbria occupy a tolerably large space on the

map, but a very small one in history;--their annals have

entirely perished;--and nothing authentic remains concerning

them, except a very few passages, wholly consisting of

incidental notices relating to their subjection and their

misfortunes. Romance would furnish much more; for it was in

Cumbria that Rhyderc, or Roderic the magnificent, is therein

represented to have reigned, and Merlin to have prophesied.

Arthur held his court in merry Carlisle; and Peredur, the

Prince of Sunshine, whose name we find amongst the princes of

Strathclyde, is one of the great heroes of the 'Mabinogion,'

or tales of youth, long preserved by tradition amongst the

Cymri. These fantastic personages, however, are of importance

in one point of view, because they show, what we might

otherwise forget--that from the Ribble in Lancashire, or

thereabouts, up to the Clyde, there existed a dense population

composed of Britons, who preserved their national language and

customs, agreeing in all respects with the Welsh of the

present day. So that even in the tenth century, the ancient

Britons still inhabited the greater part of the western coast

of the island, however much they had been compelled to yield

to the political supremacy of the Saxon invaders. The 'Regnum

Cumbrense' comprehended many districts, probably governed by

petty princes or Reguli, in subordination to a chief monarch

or Pendragon. Reged appears to have been somewhere in the

vicinity of Annandale. Strathclyde is of course the district

or vale of Clydesdale. In this district, or state, was

situated Alcluyd, or Dunbritton, now Dumbarton, where the

British kings usually resided; and the whole Cumbrian kingdom

was not infrequently called Strathclyde, from the ruling or

principal state; just as the United Kingdom of Great Britain

and Ireland is often designated in common language as

'England,' because England is the portion where the monarch

and legislature are found. Many dependencies of the Cumbrian

kingdom extended into modern Yorkshire, and Leeds was the

frontier town between the Britons and the Angles. ... The

kings of Cumbria became the vassals, or 'men,' of the

Anglo-Saxon kings. Eugenius had thus submitted to Athelstane.

Of the nature of the obligation I shall speak hereafter. The

Anglo-Saxon kings appear to have been anxious to extend and

confirm their supremacy; Edmund proceeded against Donald, or

Dumhnail, the Scottish King of Cumbria (A. D. 945), with the

most inveterate and implacable hostility. ... Edmund, having

thus obtained possession of Cumbria, granted the country to

Malcolm, King of the Scots, upon condition, as the chronicles

say, of being his co-operator, both by sea and by land. ...

From this period the right of the Scottish kings or princes to

the kingdom of Cumbria, as vassals of the English crown, seems

to have been fully admitted: and the rights of the Scottish

kings to the 'Earldom of Cumberland'--for such it was

afterwards termed--were founded upon Edmund's grant. The

Britons of Strathclyde, and Reged, and Cumbria, gradually

melted away into the surrounding population; and, losing their

language, ceased to be discernible as a separate race. Yet it

is most probable that this process was not wholly completed

until a comparatively recent period."

F. Palgrave, History of the Anglo-Saxons,

chapter 11.

Cumbria and Cambria (Wales), the two states long maintained by

the Britons, against the Angles and Saxons, bore, in reality,

the same name, Cumbria being the more correct form of it. The

earliest development of the so-called Welsh poetry seems to

have been in Cumbria rather than in Wales. Taliesen and

Aneurin were Cumbrian bards, and Arthur, if any historical

personage stands behind his kingly shadow, was probably a

Cumbrian hero.

J. Rhys, Celtic Britain.

ALSO IN:

W. F. Skene, The Four Ancient Books of Wales.

See, also, KYMRY, ALCLYDE,

and SCOTLAND: 10TH-11TH CENTURIES.

CUNARD LINE, The founding of the.

See STEAM NAVIGATION: ON THE OCEAN.

CUNAXA, Battle of (B. C. 401).

See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.

CUNEIFORM WRITING.

The characters employed for the written languages of ancient

Babylonia and Assyria, have been called cuneiform, from the

Latin cunens, a wedge, because the marks composing them are

wedge-shaped. All knowledge of those characters and of the

languages expressed in them had been lost for many centuries,

and its recent recovery is one of the most marvelous

achievements of our age. "Travellers had discovered

inscriptions engraved in cuneiform, or, as they were also

termed, arrow-headed characters, on the ruined monuments of

Persepolis and other ancient sites in Persia. Some of these

monuments were known to have been erected by the Achæmenian

princes--Darius, the son of Hystaspes, and his successors--and

it was therefore inferred that the inscriptions also had been

carved by order of the same kings. The inscriptions were in

three different systems of cuneiform writing; and since the

three kinds of inscription were always placed side by side, it

was evident that they represented different versions of the

same text. ... It was clear that the three versions of the

Achæmenian inscriptions were addressed to the three chief

populations of the Persian Empire, and that the one which

invariably came first was composed in ancient Persian, the

language of the sovereign himself. Now this Persian version

happened to offer the decipherer less difficulties than the

two others which accompanied it. The number of distinct

characters employed in writing it did not exceed forty, while

the words were divided from one another by a slanting wedge.

Some of the words contained so many characters that it was

plain that these latter must denote letters and not syllables,

and that consequently the Persian cuneiform system must have

consisted of an alphabet, and not of a syllabary. It was

further plain that the inscriptions had to be read from left

to right, since the ends of all the lines were exactly

underneath one another on the left side, whereas they

terminated irregularly on the right. ... The clue to the

decipherment of the inscriptions was first discovered by the

successful guess of a German scholar, Grotefend. Grotefend

noticed that the inscriptions generally began with three or

four words, one of which varied, while the others remained

unchanged. The variable word had three forms, though the same

form always appeared on the same monument. Grotefend,

therefore, conjectured that this word represented the name of

a king, the words which followed it being royal titles."

Working on this conjecture, he identified the three names with

Darius, Xerxes and Artaxerxes, and one of the supposed titles

with a Zend word for "king," which gave him a considerable

part of the cuneiform alphabet. He was followed in the work by

Burnouf, Lassen and Sir Henry Rawlinson, until, finally,

Assyrian inscriptions were read with "almost as much certainty

as a page of the Old Testament."

A. H. Sayce, Fresh Light from the ancient monuments,

chapter 1.

{642}

CUNIBERTUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 691-700.

CUNIMARÉ, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

GUCK OR Coco GROUP.

CURDS, OR KURDS, The.

See CARDUCHI.

CURFEW-BELL, The.

"Except from its influence upon the imagination, it would be

hardly worth while to notice the legend of the curfew-bell, so

commonly supposed to have been imposed by William [the

Conqueror] upon the English, as a token of degradation and

slavery; but the 'squilla di lontano, che paja il giorno

pianger che si muore,' was a universal custom of police

throughout the whole of mediaeval Europe, not unconnected with

devotional feeling."

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England,

volume 3, page 627.

"In the year [1061] after King Henry's death [Henry I. of

France], in a Synod held at Caen by the Duke's authority [Duke

William of Normandy, who became in 1066 the Conqueror, and

King of England], and attended by Bishops, Abbots, and Barons,

it was ordered that a bell should be rung every evening, at

hearing of which prayer should be offered, and all people

should get within their houses and shut their doors. This odd

mixture of piety and police seems to be the origin of the

famous and misrepresented Curfew. Whatever was its object, it

was at least not ordained as any special hardship on William's

English subjects."

E. A. Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest

of England, chapter 12, section 3 (volume 3).

CURIA, Ancient Roman.

See COMITIA-CURIATA.

CURIA, Municipal, of the later Roman empire.

Decuriones.

"It is only necessary in this work to describe the general

type of the municipal organization which existed in the

provinces of the Roman Empire after the time of Constantine.

... The proprietors of land in the Roman provinces generally

dwelt in towns and cities, as a protection against brigands

and man-stealers. Every town had an agricultural district

which formed its territory, and the landed proprietors

constituted the municipality. The whole local authority was

vested in an oligarchical senate called the Curia, consisting

probably of one hundred of the wealthiest landed proprietors

in the city or township. This body elected the municipal

authorities and officers, and filled up vacancies in its own

body. It was therefore independent of the proprietors from

among whom it was taken, and whose interests it ought to have

represented. The Curia--not the body of landed

proprietors--formed therefore the Roman municipality. The

Curia was used by the imperial government as an instrument of

fiscal extortion."

G. Finlay, Greece under the Romans, chapter 2, section 1.

"When the progress of fiscal tyranny had almost sapped the

vigor of society, the decuriones [members of the municipal

curiæ, called, also, curiales] ... being held jointly

responsible for the taxation, became the veriest slaves of the

empire. Responsible jointly for the taxes, they were, by the

same token, responsible for their colleagues and their

successors; their estates were made the securities of the

imperial dues; and if any estate was abandoned by its

proprietor, they were compelled to occupy it and meet the

imposts exigible from it. Yet they could not relinquish their

offices; they could not leave the city except by stealth; they

could not enter the army, or the priesthood, or any office

which might relieve them from municipal functions. ... Even

the children of the Curial were adscribed to his functions,

and could engage in no course of life inconsistent with the

onerous and intolerable duty. In short, this dignity was so

much abhorred that the lowest plebeian shunned admission to

it, the members of it made themselves bondmen, married

slave-women, or joined the barbaric hordes in order to escape

it; and malefactors, Jews and heretics were sometimes

condemned to it, as an appropriate penalty for their

offenses."

P. Godwin, History of France:

Ancient Gaul, book 2, chapter 8.

ALSO IN:

T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, book 3, chapter 9.

F. Guizot, History of Civilization, volume 2

(volume 1, France), lecture 2.

See, also ROME: A. D. 363-379.

CURIA, Papal.

College of Cardinals.

Consistory.

"The Court of Rome, commonly called the Roman Curia, consisted

of a number of dignified ecclesiastics who assisted the Pope

in the executive administration. The Pontiff's more intimate

advisers, or, as we should say, his privy council, were the

College of Cardinals [see PAPACY: A. D. 1059], consisting of a

certain number of cardinal bishops, cardinal priests, and

cardinal deacons. The cardinal deacons, at first seven and

afterwards fourteen in number, were originally ecclesiastics

appointed as overseers and guardians of the sick and poor in

the different districts of Rome. Equal to them in rank were

the fifty cardinal priests, as the chief priests of the

principal Roman churches were called; who, with the cardinal

deacons, formed, in very early times, the presbytery, or

senate of the Bishop of Rome. ... According to some

authorities, cardinal bishops were instituted in the 9th

century; according to others not till the 11th, when seven

bishops of the dioceses nearest to Rome--Ostia, Porto,

Velitrae, Tusculum, Præneste, Tibur, and the Sabines--were

adopted by the Pope partly as his assistants in the service of

the Lateran, and partly in the general administration of the

Church. In process of time, the appointment of such cardinal

bishops was extended not only to the rest of Italy but also to

foreign countries. Though the youngest of the cardinals in

point of time, cardinal bishops were the highest in rank, and

enjoyed the pre-eminence in the College. Their titles were

derived from their dioceses. ... But they were also called by

their own names. The number of the cardinals was indefinite

and varying. The Council of Basle endeavoured to restrict it

to 24. But this was not carried out, and Pope Sixtus V. at

length fixed the number at 70. The Council called the

Consistory, which advised with the Pope both in temporal and

ecclesiastical matters, was ordinarily private, and confined

to the cardinals alone; though on extraordinary occasions, and

for solemn purposes of state, as in the audiences of foreign

ambassadors, &c., other prelates, and even distinguished

laymen, might appear in it."

T. H. Dyer, History of Modern Europe, volume 1, page 38.

{643}

CURIA REGIS OF THE NORMAN KINGS.

"The Curia Regis [under the Norman Kings of England], the

supreme tribunal of judicature, of which the Exchequer was the

financial department or session, was ... the court of the king

sitting to administer justice with the advice of his

counsellors; those counsellors being, in the widest

acceptation, the whole body of tenants-in-chief, but in the

more limited usage, the great officers of the household and

specially appointed judges. The great gatherings of the

national council may be regarded as full sessions of the Curia

Regis, or the Curia Regis as a perpetual committee of the

national council."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,

chapter 11, section 127.

"Not long after the granting of Magna Charta, the Curia Regis

was permanently divided into three committees or courts, each

taking a certain portion of the business:

(1) Fiscal matters were confined to the Exchequer;

(2) civil disputes, where neither the king's interest nor any

matter savouring of a criminal nature were involved, were

decided in the Common Pleas; and

(3) the court of King's Bench retained all the remaining

business and soon acquired the exclusive denomination of the

ancient Curia Regis."

"But the same staff of judges was still retained for all three

courts, with the chief justiciar at their head. Towards the

end of Henry III.'s reign, the three courts received each a

distinct staff, and on the abolition by Edward I. of the

office of chief justiciar, the only remaining bond of union

being severed, they became completely separated. Some trace of

their ancient unity of organization always survived, however,

in the court of Exchequer Chamber; until at length after six

centuries of independent existence they were again united by

the Judicature Act, 1873. Together with the Court of Chancery

and the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty courts, they now form

divisions of a consolidated High Court of Justice, itself a

branch of the Supreme Court of Judicature."

T. P. Taswell-Langmead,

English Constitutional History, page 154.

"The Aula Regia, or Curia Regis ... has been described in

various and at first sight contradictory terms. Thus it has

been called the highest Law Court, the Ministry of the King, a

Legislative Assembly, &c. The apparent inconsistency of these

descriptions vanishes on closer inspection, and throws great

light on mediæval history. For the Curia Regis possessed every

attribute which has been ascribed to it."

A. V. Dicey, The Privy Council, part 1.

ALSO IN:

R. Gneist, History of the English Constitution, chapter 19.

CURIALES.

See CURIA, MUNICIPAL.

CURIOSOLITÆ, The.

See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

CURTIS, George W., and Civil-Service Reform.

See CIVIL SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.

CURULE ÆDILES.

See ROME: B. C. 494-492.

CURULE CHAIR.

In ancient Rome, "certain high offices of state conferred upon

the holder the right of using, upon public occasions, an ivory

chair of peculiar form. This chair was termed Sella Curulis.

... This was somewhat in the form of a modern camp-stool."

W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapters 2 and 4.

CURZOLA, Battle of (1298).

See GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.

CUSCO: The Capital of the Incas of Peru.

See PERU: A. D. 1533-154.8.

CUSH.--CUSHITES.

"Genesis, like the Hebrews of later date, includes under the

name of Cush the nations dwelling to the South, the Nubians,

Ethiopians and tribes of South Arabia."

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 2, chapter 1.

See, also, HAMITES, and ARABIA.

CUSHING, Lieutenant William B.

Destruction of the ram Albemarle.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D.1864 (OCTOBER: NORTH CAROLINA).

CUSTER'S LAST BATTLE.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1876.

CUSTOMS DUTIES.

See TARIFF.

CUSTOMS UNION, The German (Zollverein).

See TARIFF: A. D. 1833.

CUSTOZZA, Battles of (1848 and 1866).

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849; and 1862-1866.

CUTLER, Manasseh, and the Ordinance of 1787.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE

UNITED STATES: A. D. 1787.

CUYRIRI, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

CYCLADES, The.--SPORADES, The.

"Among the Ionic portion of Hellas are to be reckoned (besides

Athens) Eubœa, and the numerous group of islands included

between the southernmost Eubœan promontory, the eastern coast

of Peloponnesus, and the northwestern coast of Krête. Of these

islands some are to be considered as outlying prolongations,

in a southeasterly direction, of the mountain-system of

Attica; others of that of Eubœa; while a certain number of

them lie apart from either system, and seem referable to a

volcanic origin. To the first class belong Keôs, Kythnus,

Seriphus, Pholegandrus, Sikinus, Gyarus, Syra, Paros, and

Antiparos; to the second class Andros, Tênos, Mykonos, Dêlos,

Naxos, Amorgos; to the third class Kimôlus, Mêlos, Thêra.

These islands passed amongst the ancients by the general name

of the Cyclades and the Sporades; the former denomination

being commonly understood to comprise those which immediately

surrounded the sacred island of Dêlos,--the latter being given

to those which lay more scattered and apart. But the names are

not applied with uniformity or steadiness even in ancient

times: at present, the whole group are usually known by the

title of Cyclades."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 12.

CYDONIA, Battles and siege of (B. C. 71-68).

See CRETE: B. C. 68-66.

CYLON, Conspiracy of.

See ATHENS: B. C. 612-595.

CYMBELINE, Kingdom of.

See COLCHESTER, ORIGIN OF.

CYMRY, The.

See KYMRY, THE.

CYNOSARGES AT ATHENS, The.

See GYMNASIA, GREEK.

CYNOSCEPHALÆ, Battle of (B. C. 364).

The battle in which Pelopidas, the Theban patriot, friend and

colleague of Epaminondas, was slain. It was fought B. C. 364,

in Thessaly, near Pharsalus, on the heights called

Cynoscephalæ, or the Dog's Heads, and delivered the Thessalian

cities from the encroachments of the tyrant of Pheræ.

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 40.

CYNOSCEPHALÆ: (B. C. 197).

See GREECE: B. C. 214-146.

{644}

CYNOSSEMA, Naval battle of.

Two successive naval battles fought, one in July and the

second in October, B. C. 411, between the Athenians and the

Peloponnesian allies, in the Hellespont, are jointly called

the Battle of Cynossema. The name was taken from the headland

called Cynossema, or the "Dog's Tomb," "ennobled by the legend

and the chapel of the Trojan queen Hecuba." The Athenians had

the advantage in both encounters, especially in the latter

one, when they were joined by Alcibiades, with reenforcements,

just in time to decide the doubtful fortunes of the day.

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 4, chapter 5.

ALSO IN:

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 63.

See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.

CYNURIANS, The.

See KYNURIANS.

CYPRUS: Origin of the name.

"The Greek name of the island was derived from the abundance

in which it produced the beautiful plant ('Copher') which

furnishes the 'al-henna,' coveted throughout the East for the

yellow dye which it communicates to the nails. It was rich in

mines of copper, which has obtained for it the name by which

it is known in the modern languages of the West."

J. Kenrick, Phœnicia, chapter 4.

CYPRUS: Early History.

"The first authentic record with regard to Cyprus is an

inscription on an Egyptian tombstone of the 17th century B.

C., from which it appears that the island was conquered by

Thothmes III. of Egypt, in whose reign the exodus of the

Children of Israel is supposed to have taken place. This was

no doubt anterior to the establishment of any Greek colonies,

and probably, also, before the Phœnicians had settled in the

island. ... As appears from various inscriptions and other

records, Cyprus became subject successively to Egypt, as just

mentioned, to Assyria, to Egypt again in 568 B. C., when it

was conquered by Amasis, and in 525 B. C. to Persia. Meanwhile

the power of the Greeks had been increasing. ... The

civilization of the West was about to assert itself at

Marathon and Salamis; and Cyprus, being midway between East

and West, could not fail to be involved in the coming

conflict. On the occasion of the Ionic revolt [see PERSIA: B.

C. 521-493] the Greek element in Cyprus showed its strength:

and in 502 B. C. the whole island, with the single exception

of the Phœnician town of Amathus, took part with the Ionians

in renouncing the authority of the Persian king." But in the

war which followed, the Persians, aided by the Phœnicians of

the mainland, reconquered Cyprus, and the Cyprian Greeks were

long disheartened. They recovered their courage, however,

about 410 B. C. when Evagoras, a Greek of the royal house of

Teucer, made himself master of Salamis, and finally

established a general sovereignty over the island--even

extending his power to the mainland and subjugating Tyre. "The

reign of Evagoras is perhaps the most brilliant period in the

history of Cyprus. Before his death, which took place in 374

B. C., he had raised the island from the position of a mere

dependency of one or other of the great Eastern monarchies,

had gained for it a place among the lending states of Greece,

and had solved the question as to which division of the

ancient world the Cyprian people should be assigned.

Consequently when, some forty years later, the power of Persia

was shattered by Alexander the Great at the battle of Issus,

the kings of the island hastened to offer him their submission

as the leader of the Greek race, and sent 120 ships to assist

him in the siege of Tyre." After Alexander's death, Cyprus was

disputed between Antigonus and Ptolemy.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301.

The king of Egypt secured the prize, and the island remained

under the Greek-Egyptian crown, until it passed, with the rest

of the heritage of the Ptolemys to the Romans. "When the

[Roman] empire was divided, on the death of Constantine the

Great, Cyprus, like Malta, passed into the hands of the

Byzantine Emperors. Like Malta, also, it was exposed to

frequent attacks from the Arabs; but, although they several

times occupied the island and once held it for no less than

160 years, they were always expelled again by the Byzantine

Emperors, and never established themselves there as firmly as

they did in Malta. The crusades first brought Cyprus into

contact with the western nations of modern Europe."

C. P. Lucas, Historical Geography of British Colonies,

section 1, chapter 2.

ALSO IN:

R. H. Lang, CYPRUS, chapter 1-8.

F. Von Loher, CYPRUS, chapter 12 and 30.

L. P. Di Cesnola, Cyprus; its ancient cities, &c.

CYPRUS: B. C. 58.

Annexed to the Roman Dominions.

"The annexation of Cyprus was decreed in 696 [B. C. 58] by the

people [of Rome], that is, by the leaders of the democracy,

the support given to piracy by the Cypriots being alleged as

the official reason why that course should now be adopted.

Marcus Cato, intrusted by his opponents with the execution of

this measure, came to the island without an army; but he had

no need of one. The king [a brother of the king of Egypt] took

poison; the inhabitants submitted without offering resistance

to their inevitable fate, and were placed under the governor

of Cilicia."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 4.

CYPRUS: A. D. 117.

Jewish insurrection.

"This rich and pleasant territory [the island of Cyprus] had

afforded a refuge to the Jews of the continent through three

generations of disturbance and alarm, and the Hebrew race was

now [A. D. 117] probably not inferior there in number to the

native Syrians or Greeks. On the first outburst of a Jewish

revolt [against the Roman domination, in the last year of the

reign of Trajan] the whole island fell into the hands of the

insurgents, and became an arsenal and rallying point for the

insurrection, which soon spread over Egypt, Cyrene and

Mesopotamia. The leader of the revolt in Cyprus bore the name

of Artemion, but we know no particulars of the war in this

quarter, except that 240,000 of the native population is said

to have fallen victims to the exterminating fury of the

insurgents. When the rebellion was at last extinguished in

blood, the Jews were forbidden thenceforth to set foot on the

island; and even if driven thither by stress of weather, the

penalty of death was mercilessly enforced. ... The Jewish

population of Cyrenaica outnumbered the natives. ... The

hostility of the Jews in these parts was less directed against

the central government and the Roman residents than the native

race. ... Of these 220,000 are said to have perished."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 65.

{645}

CYPRUS: A. D. 1191.

Conquest by Richard Cœur de Lion.

Founding of the Latin Kingdom.

During the civil strife and confusion of the last years of the

Comnenian dynasty of emperors at Constantinople, one of the

members of the family, Isaac Comnenos, secured the sovereignty

of Cyprus and assumed the title of emperor. With the alliance

of the king of Sicily, he defeated the Byzantine forces sent

against him, and was planted securely, to all appearance, on

his newly built throne at the time of the Third Crusade.

Circumstances at that time (A. D. 1191) gave him a fatal

opportunity to provoke the English crusaders. First, he seized

the property and imprisoned the crews of three English ships

that were wrecked on the Cyprian coast. Not satisfied with

that violence, he refused shelter from the storm to a vessel

which bore Berengaria of Navarre, the intended wife of King

Richard. "The king of England immediately sailed to Cyprus;

and when Isaac refused to deliver up the ship-wrecked

crusaders, and to restore their property, Richard landed his

army and commenced a series of operations, which ended in his

conquering the whole island, in which he abolished the

administrative institutions of the Eastern Empire, enslaving

the Greek race, introducing the feudal system, by which he

riveted the chains of a foreign domination, and then gave it

as a present to Guy of Lusignan, the titular king of

Jerusalem, who became the founder of a dynasty of Frank kings

in Cyprus."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,

from 716 to 1453, book 3, chapter 3, section 1.

Before giving Cyprus to Guy of Lusignan, Richard had sold the

island to the Templars, and Guy had to pay the knights heavily

for the extinguishment of their rights. Richard, therefore,

was rather a negotiator than a giver in the transaction.

William Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Mediæval and

Modern History, lecture 8.

CYPRUS: A. D. 1192-1489.

The kingdom under the house of Lusignan.

"The house of Lusignan maintained itself in Cyprus for nearly

three centuries, during which, although fallen somewhat from

the blessedness which had been broken up by Isaac Comnenus,

the island seems to have retained so much fertility and

prosperity as to make its later history very dark by contrast.

... Guy, we are told, received Cyprus for life only, and did

homage for the island to Richard. As he already bore the title

of king, the question whether he should hold Cyprus as a

kingdom does not seem to have arisen. ... On his death, in

April, 1194, Richard putting in no claim for the reversion,

his brother, Amalric of Lusignan, constable of Palestine,

entered on the possession as his heir. ... Amalric succeeded

to the crown of Jerusalem; the crown of Jerusalem, which,

after the year 1269, became permanently united with that of

Cyprus, was an independent crown, and the king of Jerusalem an

anointed king: the union of the crowns therefore seems to have

precluded any question as to the tenure by which the kingdom

of Cyprus should be held. ... The homage then due to Richard,

or to the crown of England, ceased at the death of Guy."

William Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures on the Study of

Mediæval and Modern History, lecture 8.

See, also, JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291.

CYPRUS: A. D. 1291-1310.

The Knights Hospitallers of St. John.

See HOSPITALLERS OF ST. JOHN: A. D. 1118-1310.

CYPRUS: A. D. 1489-1570.

A Venetian dependency.

The last reigning king of Cyprus was James II., a bastard

brother of Queen Charlotte, whom he drove from the Cypriot

throne in 1464. This king married a Venetian lady, Caterina

Cornaro, in 1471 and was declared to be "the son-in·law of the

Republic." The unscrupulous republic is said to have poisoned

its son·in-law in order to secure the succession. He died in

1473, and a son, born after his death, lived but two years.

Cyprus was then ruled by the Venetians for fifteen years in

the name of Caterina, who finally renounced her rights wholly

in favor of the republic. After 1489, until its conquest by

the Turks, Cyprus was a Venetian dependency, in form as well

as in fact, but tributary to the Sultan of Egypt.

William Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures on the Study of

Mediæval and Modern History, lecture 8.

CYPRUS: A. D. 1570-1571.

Conquest by the Turks.

See TURKS: A. D. 1566-1571.

CYPRUS: A. D. 1821.

Turkish massacre of Christians.

See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

CYPRUS: A. D. 1878.

Control surrendered by Turkey to England.

See TURKS: A. D. 1878, THE TREATIES OF

SAN STEFANO AND BERLIN.

----------CYPRUS: End----------

CYREANS, The.

See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.

CYRENAICA.--CYRENE.--KYRENE.

A city, growing into a kingdom, which was founded at an early

day by the Greeks, on that projecting part of the coast of

Libya, or northern Africa, which lies opposite to Greece. The

first settlers were said to have been from the little island

of Thera, whose people were bold and enterprising. The site

they chose "was of an unusual nature, especially for

islanders, and lay several miles away from the sea, the shores

of which were devoid of natural bays for anchorage. But, with

this exception, every advantage was at hand: instead of the

narrow stony soil of their native land, they found the most

fertile corn-fields, a broad table-land with a healthy

atmosphere and watered by fresh springs; a well-wooded

coast-land, unusually well adapted for all the natural

products which the Hellenes deemed essential; while in the

background spread mysteriously the desert, a world passing the

comprehension of the Hellenes, out of which the Libyan tribes

came to the shore with horses and camels, with black slaves,

with apes, parrots and other wonderful animals, with dates and

rare fruits. ... An abundant spring of water above the shore

was the natural point at which the brown men of the deserts

and the mariners assembled. Here regular meetings became

customary. The bazaar became a permanent market, and the

market a city which arose on a grand scale, broad and lofty,

on two rocky heights, which jut out towards the sea from the

plateau of the desert. This city was called Cyrene. ... Large

numbers of population immigrated from Crete, the islands and

Peloponnesus. A large amount of new land was parcelled out,

the Libyans were driven back, the landing-place became the

port of Apollonia, and the territory occupied by the city

itself was largely extended. Cyrene became, like Massalia, the

starting point of a group of settlements, the centre of a

small Greece: Barca and Hesperides [afterwards called

Berenice] were her daughters. Gradually a nation grew up,

which extended itself and its agriculture, and contrived to

cover a large division of African land with Hellenic culture.

This was the new era which commenced for Cyrene with the reign

of the third king, the Battus who, on account of the

marvellously rapid rise of his kingdom, was celebrated as 'the

fortunate' in all Hellas. The Battiadæ [the family or dynasty

of Battus] were soon regarded as a great power."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 2, chapter 3.

{646}

Cyrenaica became subject to Egypt under the Ptolemys, and was

then usually called Pentapolis, from the five cities of

Cyrene, Apollonia, Arsinoë (formerly Teuchira), Berenice

(formerly Hesperis, or Hesperides) and Ptolemais (the port of

Barca). Later it became a province of the Roman Empire, and

finally, passing under Mahometan rule, sank to its present

state, as a district, called Barca, of the kingdom of

Tripoli.--Cyrene was especially famous for the production of a

plant called silphium--supposed to be assafœtida--on which

the ancients seem to have set an extraordinary value. This was

one of the principal sources of the wealth of Cyrene.--

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,

chapter 8, section 1, and chapter 12, section 2.

CYRENAICA: B. C. 525.

Tributary to Persia.

See EGYPT: B. C. 525-332.

CYRENAICA: B. C. 322.

Absorbed in the Kingdom of Egypt by Ptolemy Lagus.

See EGYPT: B. C. 323-30.

CYRENAICA: B. C. 97.

Transferred to the Romans by will.

"In the middle of this reign [of Ptolemy, called Lathyrus,

king of Egypt] died Ptolemy Apion, king of Cyrene. He was the

half-brother of Lathyrus and Alexander, and having been made

king of Cyrene by his father Euergetes II., he had there

reigned quietly for twenty years. Being between Egypt and

Carthage, then called the Roman province of Africa, and having

no army which he could lead against the Roman legions, he had

placed himself under the guardianship of Rome; he had bought a

truce during his lifetime, by making the Roman people his

heirs in his will, so that on his death they were to have his

kingdom. Cyrene had been part of Egypt for above two hundred

years, and was usually governed by a younger son or brother of

the king. But on the death of Ptolemy Apion, the Roman senate,

who had latterly been grasping at everything within their

reach, claimed his kingdom as their inheritance, and in the

flattering language of their decree by which the country was

enslaved, they declared Cyrene free."

S. Sharpe, History of Egypt, chapter 11.

CYRENAICA: A. D. 117.

Jewish insurrection.

See CYPRUS: A. D. 117.

CYRENAICA: A. D. 616.

Destroyed by Chosroes.

See EGYPT: A. D. 616-628.

CYRENAICA: 7th Century.

Mahometan conquest.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 647-709.

----------CYRENAICA: End----------

CYRUS, The empire of.

See PERSIA: B. C. 549-521.

CYRUS THE YOUNGER,

The expedition of.

See PERSIA: B. C. 401-400.

CYZICUS: B. C. 411-410, Battles at.

See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.

CYZICUS: B. C. 74.

Siege by Mithridates.

Cyzicus, which had then become one of the largest and

wealthiest cities of Asia Minor, was besieged for an entire

year (B. C. 74-73) by Mithridates in the Third Mithridatic

war. The Roman Consul Lucullus came to the relief of the city

and succeeded in gaining a position which blockaded the

besiegers and cut off their supplies. In the end, Mithridates

retreated with a small remnant only, of his great armament,

and never recovered from the disaster.

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 3, chapter 1.

CYZICUS: A. D. 267.

Capture by the Goths.

See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

----------CYZICUS: End----------

CZAR, OR TZAR.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1547.

CZARTORISKYS, The, and the fall of Poland.

See POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.

CZASLAU, OR CHOTUSITZ, Battle of (A. D. 1742).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1742 (JANUARY-MAY).

CZEKHS, The.

See BOHEMIA: ITS PEOPLE.

----------CZEKHS, End----------

D.

DACHTELFIELD, The.

See SAXONS: A. D. 772-804.

DACIA, The Dacians.

Ancient Dacia embraced the district north of the Danube

between the Theiss and the Dneister. "The Dacians [at the time

of Augustus, in the last half century B. C.] occupied the

whole of what now forms the southern part of Hungary, the

Banat and Transylvania. ... The more prominent part which they

henceforth assumed in Roman history was probably owing

principally to the immediate proximity in which they now found

themselves to the Roman frontier. The question of the relation

in which the Dacians stood to the Getæ, whom we find in

possession of these same countries at an earlier period, was

one on which there existed considerable difference of opinion

among ancient writers: but the prevailing conclusion was that

they were only different names applied to the same people.

Even Strabo, who describes them as distinct, though cognate

tribes, states that they spoke the same language. According to

his distinction the Getæ occupied the more easterly regions,

adjoining the Euxine, and the Dacians the western, bordering

on the Germans."

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,

chapter 20, section 1.

DACIA: A. D. 102-106.

Trajan's conquest.

At the beginning of the second century, when Trajan conquered

the Dacians and added their country to the Roman Empire, "they

may be considered as occupying the broad block of land bounded

by the Theiss, the Carpathians, the lower Danube or Ister, and

the Pruth." In his first campaign, A. D. 102, Trajan

penetrated the country to the heart of modern Transylvania,

and forced the Dacians to give him battle at a place called

Tapæ, the site of which is not known. He routed them with much

slaughter, as they had been routed at the same place, Tapæ,

sixteen years before, in one of the ineffectual campaigns

directed by Domitian. They submitted, and Trajan established

strong Roman posts in the country; but he had scarcely reached

Rome and celebrated his triumph there, before the Dacians were

again in arms. In the spring of the year 104, Trajan repaired

to the lower Danube in person, once more, and entered the

Dacian country with an overwhelming force. This time the

subjugation was complete, and the Romans established their

occupation of the country by the founding of colonies and the

building of roads.

{647}

Dacia was now made a Roman province, and "the language of the

Empire became, and to this day substantially remains, the

national tongue of the inhabitants. ... Of the Dacian

province, the last acquired and the first to be surrendered of

the Roman possessions, if we except some transient

occupations, soon to be commemorated, in the East, not many

traces now exist; but even these may suffice to mark the

moulding power of Roman civilization. ... The accents of the

Roman tongue still echo in the valleys of Hungary and

Wallachia; the descendants of the Dacians at the present day

repudiate the appellation of Wallachs, or strangers, and still

claim the name of Romúni."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 63.

DACIA: A. D. 270.

Given up to the Goths.

See GOTHS: A. D. 268-270.

DACIA: 4th Century.

Conquest by the Huns.

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

and HUNS: A. D. 433-453.

DACIA: 6th Century.

Occupied by the Avars.

See AVARS.

DACIA: Modern history.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

----------DACIA: End----------

DACOITS.

See DAKOITS.

DACOTAS.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY,

and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

DÆGSASTAN, Battle of.

Fought, A. D. 603, between the Northumbrians and the Scots of

Dalriada, the army of the latter being almost wholly

destroyed.

DAGOBERT I.,

King of the Franks

(Neustria), A.. D. 628-638;

(Austrasia), 622--633:

(Burgundy), 628-638.

Dagobert II., King of the Franks

(Austrasia), A.. D. 673-678.

Dagobert III., King of the Franks

(Neustria and Burgundy), A. D. 711-715.

DAHIS, The.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES,

14TH-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

DAHLGREN, Admiral John A.

Siege of Charleston.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (JULY, and AUGUST-DECEMBER: S. CAROLINA).

DAHLGREN, Ulric.

Raid to Richmond.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: VIRGINIA).

DAKOITS.--DAKOITEE.

The Dakoits of India, who were suppressed soon after the

Thugs, were "robbers by profession, and even by birth."

Dakoitee "was established upon a broad basis of hereditary

caste, and was for the most part an organic state of society.

'I have always followed the trade of my ancestors, Dakoitee.'

said Lukha, a noted Dakoit, who subsequently became approver.

'My ancestors held this profession before me,' said another,

'and we train boys in the same manner. In my caste if there

were any honest persons, i. e., not robbers, they would be

turned out.'" The hunting down of the Dakoits was begun in

1838, under the direction of Colonel Sleeman, who had already

hunted down the Thugs.

J. W. Kaye, The Administration of the East India Co.,

part 3, chapter 3.

DAKOTA, North and South: A. D. 1803.-

Embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

DAKOTA: A. D. 1834-1838.

Partly joined, in succession, to Michigan, Wisconsin,

and Iowa Territories.

See WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.

DAKOTA: A. D. 1889.

Admission to the Union.

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

DAKOTAS.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES:

SIOUAN FAMILY and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

DALAI LAMA.

See LAMAS.

DALCASSIANS.

The people of North Munster figure prominently under that name

in early Irish history.

T. Moore, History of Ireland, volume 2.

DALHOUSIE, Lord, The India administration of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1845-1849; 1848-1856; and 1852.

DALMATIA.

"The narrow strip of land on the eastern side of the Hadriatic

on which the name of Dalmatia has settled down has a history

which is strikingly analogous to its scenery. ... As the

cultivation and civilization of the land lies in patches, as

harbours and cities alternate with barren hills, so Dalmatia

has played a part in history only by fits and starts. This

fitful kind of history goes on from the days of Greek colonies

and Illyrian piracy to the last war between Italy and Austria.

But of continuous history, steadily influencing the course of

the world's progress, Dalmatia has none to show."

E. A. Freeman, Subject and Neighbour Lands of Venice,

pages 85-87.

ALSO IN:

T. G. Jackson, Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria,

chapter 1-2.

See, also, ILLYRICUM OF THE ROMANS; SALONA;

and BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

DALMATIA: 6th-7th Centuries:

Slavonic occupation.

See SLAVONIC PEOPLES: 6TH AND 7TH CENTURIES;

also, BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: 7TH CENTURY.

DALMATIA: A. D. 944.

Beginning of Venetian Conquest.

See VENICE: A. D. 810-961.

DALMATIA: A. D. 1102.

Conquest by the king of Hungary.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 972--1114.

DALMATIA: 14th Century.

Conquest from the Venetians by Louis the Great of Hungary.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.

DALMATIA: 16th Century.

The Uscocks.

See USCOCKS.

DALMATIA: A. D. 1694-1696.

Conquests by the Venetians.

See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

DALMATIA: A. D. 1699.

Cession in great part to Venice by the Turks.

See HUNGARY: 1683-1699.

DALMATIA: A. D. 1797.

Acquisition by Austria.

See, FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).

DALMATIA: A. D. 1805.

Ceded by Austria to the kingdom of Italy.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

DALMATIA: A. D. 1809.

Incorporated in the Illyrian Provinces of Napoleon.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

DALMATIA: A. D. 1814.

Restored to Austria.

Austria recovered possession of Dalmatia under the

arrangements of the Congress of Vienna.

----------DALMATIA: End----------

DALRIADA.

"A district forming the northeast corner of Ireland and

comprising the north half of the county of Antrim, was called

Dalriada. It appears to have been one of the earliest

settlements of the Scots among the Picts of Ulster and to have

derived its name from its supposed founder Cairbre, surnamed

Righfhada or Riada. It lay exactly opposite the peninsula of

Kintyre [Scotland] from whence it was separated by a part of

the Irish channel of no greater breadth than about fourteen

miles; and from this Irish district the colony of Scots, which

was already Christian [fifth century] passed over and settled

in Kintyre and in the island of Isla"--establishing a Scotch

Dalriada.

W. F. Skene, Celtic Scotland, book 1, chapter 3.

For some account of the Scotch Dalriada,

See SCOTLAND: 7TH CENTURY.

{648}

DAMASCUS, Kingdom of.

The kingdom of Damascus, or "Aram of Damascus" as it was

entitled, was formed soon after that Syrian region threw off

the yoke of dependence which David and Solomon had imposed

upon it. "Rezon, the outlaw, was its founder. Hader, or Hadad,

and Rimmon, were the chief divinities of the race, and from

them the line of its kings derived their names,--Hadad,

Ben-hadad, Hadad-ezer, Tabrimmon."

Dean Stanley, Lectures on the History of

the Jewish Church, lecture. 33.

"Though frequently captured and plundered in succeeding

centuries by Egypt and Assyria, neither of those nations was

able to hold it long in subjection because of the other. It

was probably a temporary repulse of the Assyrians, under

Shalmaneser II., by the Damascene general Naaman to which

reference is made in 2 Kings volume 1: 'by him the Lord had given

deliverance unto Syria.' ... After the great conquerors of

Egypt and Asia, each in his day, had captured and plundered

Damascus, it was taken without resistance by Parmenio for

Alexander the Great [B. C. 333]. In it Pompey spent the

proudest year of his life, 64 B. C., distributing at his

pleasure the thrones of the East to the vassals of Rome.

Cleopatra had received the city as a love-gift from Mark

Antony, and Tiberius had bestowed it upon Herod the Great,

before Aretas of Petra, the father of the princess whom Herod

Antipas divorced for Herodias' sake, and the ruler whose

officers watched the city to prevent the escape of Paul, made

it, we know not how, a part of his dominions."

W. B. Wright, Ancient Cities, chapter 7.

DAMASCUS: A. D. 634.

Conquest by the Arabs.

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

DAMASCUS: A. D. 661.

Becomes the seat of the Caliphate.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 661.

DAMASCUS: A. D. 763.

The Caliphate transferred to Bagdad.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 763.

DAMASCUS: A. D. 1148-1217.

Capital of the Atabeg and the Ayoubite sultans.

See SALADIN, THE EMPIRE OF.

DAMASCUS: A. D. 1401.

Sack and massacre by Timour.

See Timour.

DAMASCUS: A. D. 1832.

Capture by Mehemed Ali.

See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

----------DAMASCUS: End----------

DAMASUS II., Pope, A. D. 1048, July to August.

DAMIETTA: A. D. 1219-1220.

Siege, capture and surrender by the Crusaders.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1216-1229.

DAMIETTA: A. D. 1249-1250.

Capture and loss by Saint Louis.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1248-1254.

DAMIETTA: A. D. 1252.

Destruction by the Mamelukes.

"Two years after the deliverance of the king [Saint Louis],

and whilst he was still in Palestine, the Mamelukes, fearing a

fresh invasion of the Franks, in order to prevent their

enemies from taking Damietta and fortifying themselves in that

city, entirely destroyed it. Some years after, as their fears

were not yet removed, and the second crusade of Louis IX.

spread fresh alarms throughout the East, the Egyptians caused

immense heaps of stone to be cast into the mouth of the Nile,

in order that the Christian fleets might not be able to sail

up the river. Since that period a new Damietta has been built

at a small distance from the site of the former city."

J. F. Michaud, History of the Crusades, book 14.

DAMNONIA.

See BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.

DAMNONII, OR DAMNII, The.

See DUMNONII.

DAMOISEL.--DAMOISELLE.--DONZELLO.

"In mediæval Latin 'domicella' is used for the unmarried

daughter of a prince or noble, and 'domicellus,' contracted

from 'domnicellus,' the diminutive of 'dominus,' for the son.

These words are the forerunners of the old French 'dâmoisel'

in the masculine, and 'damoiselle' in the feminine gender.

Froissart calls Richard, prince of Wales, son of Edward: 'le

jeune damoisil Richart.' In Romance the word is indifferently

'damoisel' and' 'danzel,' in Italian 'donzello.' All of these

are evidently titles under the same notion as that of child

and 'enfant,' of which the idea belongs to the knights of an

earlier period."

R. T. Hampson, Origines Patriciæ, page 328.

DANAIDÆ, The.

See ARGOS.--ARGOLIS.

DANCING PLAGUE.

See PLAGUE, A. D. 1374.

DANDRIDGE, Engagement at.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-APRIL:

TENNESSEE--MISSISSIPPI).

DANEGELD, The.

"A tax of two shillings on the hide of land, originally levied

as tribute to the Danes under Ethelred, but continued [even

under the Plantagenets], like the income tax, as a convenient

ordinary resource."

William Stubbs, The Early Plantagenets, page 53.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.

DANELAGH, OR DANELAGA, OR DANELAU.

The district in England held by the Danes after their treaty

with Alfred the Great, extending south to the Thames, the Lea

and the Ouse; north to the Tyne; west of the mountain district

of Yorkshire, Westmoreland and Cumberland. "Over all this

region the traces of their colonization abound in the villages

whose names end in by, the Scandinavian equivalent of the English

tun or ham."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,

chapter 7, section 77.

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 855-880.

DANES AS VIKINGS.

See, also, NORMANS.--NORTHMEN.

DANES: In England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 855-880, 979-1016,

and 1016-1042;

also NORMANS: A. D. 787-880.

DANES: In Ireland.

See IRELAND: 9TH-10TH CENTURIES.

----------DANES: End----------

DANITES, The.

See MORMONISM: A. D. 1830-1846.

DANTE AND THE FACTIONS OF FLORENCE.

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

DANTON AND THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1791 (OCTOBER),

to 1793-1794 (NOVEMBER-JUNE).

DANTZIC:

In the Hanseatic League.

See HANSA TOWNS.

DANTZIC: A. D. 1577.

Submission to the king of Poland.

See POLAND: A. D. 1574-1590.

DANTZIC: A. D. 1793.

Acquisition by Prussia.

See POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.

DANTZIC: A. D. 1806-1807.

Siege and capture by the French.

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

DANTZIC: A. D. 1807.

Declared a Free state.

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

DANTZIC: A. D. 1813.

Siege and capture by the Allies.

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

{649}

DARA.

One of the capitals of the Parthian kings, the site of which

has not been identified.

DARA, Battle of (A. D. 529).

See PERSIA: A.. D. 226-627.

DARDANIANS OF THE TROAD.

See TROJA;

and ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES;

also, AMORITES.

DARIEN, The Isthmus of.

See PANAMA.

DARIEN: The Scottish colony.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1695-1699.

DARINI, The.

See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC

INHABITANTS.

DARIUS,

King of Persia, B. C. 521-486.

Darius II., B. C. 425-405.

Darius III. (Codomannus), B. C. 336-331.

DARK AGES, The.

The historical period, so-called, is nearly identical with

that more commonly named the Middle Ages; but its duration may

be properly considered as less by a century or two. From the

5th to the 13th century is a definition of the period which

most historians would probably accept.

See MIDDLE AGES.

DARORIGUM.

Modern Vannes.

See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

DAR-UL-ISLAM AND DAR-UL-HARB.

"The Koran divides the world into two portions, the House of

Islam, Dar-ul-Islam, and the House of War, Dar-ul-harb. It has

generally been represented by Western writers on the

institutes of Mahometanism and on the habits of Mahometan

nations, that the Dar-ul-harb, the House of War, comprises all

lands of the misbelievers. ... There is even a widely-spread

idea among superficial talkers and writers that the holy

hostility, the Jehad [or Dhihad] of Mussulmans against

non-Mussulmans is not limited to warfare between nation and

nation; but that 'it is a part of the religion of every

Mahometan to kill as many Christians as possible, and that by

counting up a certain number killed, they think themselves

secure of heaven.' But careful historical investigators, and

statesmen long practically conversant with Mahometan

populations have exposed the fallacy of such charges against

those who hold the creed of Islam. ... A country which is

under Christian rulers, but in which Mahometans are allowed

free profession of their faith, and peaceable exercise of

their ritual, is not a portion of the House of War, of the

Dar-ul-harb; and there is no religious duty of warfare, no

Jehad, on the part of true Mussulmans against such a state.

This has been of late years formally determined by the chief

authorities in Mahometan law with respect to British India."

Sir E. S. Creasy, History of the Ottoman Turks, chapter 6.

DASTAGERD.

The favorite residence of the last great Persian king and

conqueror, Chosroes (A. D. 590-628), was fixed at Dastagerd,

or Artemita, sixty miles north of Ctesiphon, and east of the

Tigris. His palaces and pleasure grounds were of extraordinary

magnificence.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 46.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

DASYUS.

See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

DAUPHINS OF FRANCE.--DAUPHINE.

In 1349, Philip VI., or Philip de Valois, of France, acquired

by purchase from Humbert II., count of Vienne, the sovereignty

of the province of Dauphine. This principality became from

that time the appanage of the eldest sons of the kings of

France and gave them their peculiar name or title of the

Dauphins. The title in question had been borne by the counts

of Vienne (in Dauphiné), "on account of the dolphin which they

carried upon their helmets and on their armorial bearings."

E. De Bonnechose, History of France,

book 2, chapter 2, footnote.

ALSO IN:

E. Smedley, History of France, part 1, chapter 9.

See, also, BURGUNDY: A. D. 1127-1378.

DAVENPORT, John, and the founding of New Haven Colony.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1638, and 1639.

DAVID, King of Israel and Judah.

See JEWS: THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND

JUDAH, and JERUSALEM: CONQUEST, &c.

DAVID I.,

King of Scotland, A. D. 1124-1153.

David II., 1329-1370.

DAVIS, Jefferson.

Election to the Presidency of the rebellious

"Confederate States."

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1861 (FEBRUARY).

Flight and capture.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865 (APRIL-MAY).

DAVOUT, Marshal, Campaigns of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER);

1806-1807; 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE);

also RUSSIA: A. D. 1812;

and GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813;

1813 (AUGUST), (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

DAY OF BARRICADES, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

DAY OF DUPES, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1630-1632.

DAY OF THE SECTIONS, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

DAYAKS, OR DYAKS, The.

See MALAYAN RACE.

DEAK, Francis, and the recovery of Hungarian nationality.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.

DEAN FOREST.

The "Royal Forest of Dean," situated in the southwestern angle

of the county of Gloucester, England, between the Severn and

the Wye, is still so extensive that it covers some 23,000

acres, though much reduced from its original dimensions. Its

oaks and its iron mines have played important parts in British

history. The latter were worked by the Romans and still give

employment to a large number of miners. The former were

thought to be so essential to the naval power of England that

the destruction of the Forest is said to have been one of the

special duties prescribed to the Spanish Armada.

J. C. Brown, Forests of England.

DEANE, Silas, and the American transactions

with Beaumarchais in France.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1778.

DEARBORN, General Henry, and the War of 1812.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER),

(SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);

A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

DEBRECZIN, Battle of (1849).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

DEBT, Laws concerning: Ancient Greek.

At Athens, in the time of Solon (6th century, B. C.) the

Thetes--"the cultivating tenants, metayers and small

proprietors of the country ... are exhibited as weighed down

by debts and dependence, and driven in large numbers out of a

state of freedom into slavery--the whole mass of them (we are

told) being in debt to the rich, who were proprietors of the

greater part of the soil. They had either borrowed money for

their own necessities, or they tilled the lands of the rich as

dependent tenants, paying a stipulated portion of the produce,

and in this capacity they were largely in arrear.

{650}

All the calamitous effects were here seen of the old harsh law

of debtor and creditor--once prevalent in Greece, Italy, Asia,

and a large portion of the world--combined with the

recognition of slavery as a legitimate status, and of the

right of one man to sell himself as well as that of another

man to buy him. Every debtor unable to fulfil his contract was

liable to be adjudged as the slave of his creditor, until he

could find means either of paying it or working it out; and

not only he himself, but his minor sons and unmarried

daughters and sisters also, whom the law gave him the power of

selling. The poor man thus borrowed upon the security of his

body (to translate literally the Greek phrase) and upon that

of the persons in his family. So severely had these oppressive

contracts been enforced, that many debtors had been reduced

from freedom to slavery in Attica itself,--many others had

been sold for exportation,--and some had only hitherto

preserved their own freedom by selling their children. ... To

their relief Solon's first measure, the memorable

Seisachtheia, shaking off of burthens, was directed. The

relief which it afforded was complete and immediate. It

cancelled at once all those contracts in which the debtor had

borrowed on the security either of his person or of his land:

it forbade all future loans or contracts in which the person

of the debtor was pledged as security: it deprived the

creditor in future of all power to imprison, or enslave, or

extort work from, his debtor, and confined him to an effective

judgment at law authorizing the seizure of the property of the

latter. It swept off all the numerous mortgage pillars from

the landed properties in Attica, leaving the land free from

all past claims. It liberated and restored to their full

rights all debtors actually in slavery under previous legal

adjudication; and it even provided the means (we do not know

how) of re-purchasing in foreign lands, and bringing back to a

renewed life of liberty in Attica, many insolvents who had

been sold for exportation. And while Solon forbad every

Athenian to pledge or sell his own person into slavery, he

took a step farther in the same direction by forbidding him to

pledge or sell his son, his daughter, or an unmarried sister

under his tutelage--excepting only the case in which either of

the latter might be detected in unchastity. ... One thing is

never to be forgotten in regard to this measure, combined with

the concurrent amendments introduced by Solon in the law--it

settled finally the question to which it referred. Never again

do we hear of the law of debtor and creditor as disturbing

Athenian tranquility. The general sentiment which grew up at

Athens, under the Solonian money-law and under the

democratical government, was one of high respect for the

sanctity of contracts. ... There can be little doubt that

under the Solonian law, which enabled the creditor to seize

the property of his debtor, but gave him no power over the

person, the system of money-lending assumed a more beneficial

character."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 11 (volume 3).

DEBT: Ancient Roman.

"The hold of the creditor was on the person of the debtor. The

obligation of a debt was a tying up or binding, or bondage, of

the person: the payment was a solution, a loosing or release

of the person from that bondage. The property of the debtor

was not a pledge for the debt. It could be made so by special

agreement, though in the earliest law only by transferring it

at once to the ownership of the creditor. Without such special

agreement, the creditor whose debtor failed to pay could not

touch his property. Even when the debtor had been prosecuted

and condemned to pay, if he still failed, the creditor could

not touch his property. He could seize his person--I speak

now of the early law, in the first centuries of the

republic--and after holding him in rigorous confinement for

sixty days, with opportunities, however, either to pay himself

or get somebody to pay for him, if payment still failed, he

could sell him as a slave, or put him to death; if there were

several creditors, they could cut his body into pieces and

divide it among them. This extreme severity was afterward

softened; but the principle remained long unchanged, that the

hold of the creditor was on the person of the debtor. If the

debtor obstinately and to the last refused to surrender his

property, the creditor could not touch it."

J. Hadley, Introduction to Roman Law, lecture 10.

"During the first half of the Samnite war [B. C. 326-304], but

in what year is uncertain, there was passed that famous law

which prohibited personal slavery for debt. No creditor might

for the future attach the person of his debtor, but he might

only seize his property; and all those whose personal freedom

was pledged for their debts (nexi), were released from their

liability, if they could swear that they had property enough

to meet their creditor's demands. It does not appear that this

great alteration in the law was the work of any tribune, or

that it arose out of any general or deliberate desire to

soften the severity of the ancient practice. It was

occasioned, we are told, by one scandalous instance of abuse

of power on the part of a creditor. ... But although personal

slavery for debt was thus done away with, yet the consequences

of insolvency were much more serious at Rome than they are in

modern Europe. He whose property had once been made over to

his creditors by the prætor's sentence, became, ipso facto,

infamous; he lost his tribe, and with it all his political

rights; and the forfeiture was irrevocable, even though he

might afterwards pay his debts to the full; nor was it even in

the power of the censors to replace him on the roll of

citizens. So sacred a thing did credit appear in the eyes of

the Romans."

T. Arnold, History of Rome, chapter 32 (volume 2).

DEBT: In England.

"Debt has been regarded as a crime by primitive society in

every part of the world. In Palestine, as in Rome, the

creditor had power over the person of the debtor, and

misfortune was commonly treated with a severity which was not

always awarded to crime."

[Leviticus 12 xxv., 39-41, and 2 Kings iv., 1]

{651}

"In this country [England] the same system was gradually

introduced in Plantagenet times. The creditor, who had been

previously entitled to seize the goods, or even the land of

the debtor, was at last authorised to seize his person. In one

sense, indeed, the English law was, in this respect, more

irrational than the cruel code of the Jews, or the awful

punishment [death and dismemberment or slavery--Gibbon, chapter

44] which the law of the Twelve Tables reserved for debtors.

In Palestine the creditor was, at least, entitled to the

service of the debtor or of his children, and the slave had

the prospect of an Insolvent Debtor's Relief Act in the

Sabbatical year. Even the law of the Twelve Tables allowed the

creditors to sell the debtor into slavery, instead of

resorting to the horrible alternative of partitioning his

body. But in England the creditors had no such choice. They

had nothing to do but to throw the debtor into prison; and by

his imprisonment deprive themselves of the only chance of his

earning money to pay their debts. A law of this kind was

intolerable to a commercial people. The debtor languished in

gaol, the creditor failed to obtain payment of his debt. When

trade increased in Tudor times, the wits of legislators were

exercised in devising some expedient for satisfying the

creditor without imprisoning the debtor. The Chancellor was

authorised to appoint commissioners empowered to divide the

debtor's property among the creditors. By an Act of Anne the

debtor who complied with the law was released from further

liability, and was practically enabled to commence life anew.

In 1826, a debtor was allowed to procure his own bankruptcy;

while in 1831, commissioners were appointed to carry out the

arrangements which had been previously conducted under the

Court of Chancery. The law of bankruptcy which was thus

gradually developed by the legislation of three centuries only

applied to persons in trade. No one who was not a trader could

become a bankrupt; the ordinary debtor became as a matter of

course an insolvent, and passed under the insolvent laws. The

statutes, moreover, omitted to give any very plain definition

of a trader. The distinction between trader and non-trader

which had been gradually drawn by the Courts was not based on

any very clear principle. A person who made bricks on his own

estate of his own clay was not a trader; but a person who

bought the clay and then made the bricks was a trader.

Farmers, again, were exempt from the bankruptcy law; but

farmers who purchased cattle for sale at a profit were liable

to it. The possibility, moreover, of a trader being made a

bankrupt depended on the size of his business. A petitioning

creditor in bankruptcy was required to be a person to whom at

least £100 was due; if two persons petitioned, their debts

were required to amount to £150; if more than two persons

petitioned, to £200. A small shopkeeper, therefore, who could

not hope to obtain credit for £200, £150, or £100, could not

become a bankrupt; he was forced to become an insolvent. The

treatment of the insolvent was wholly different from that of

the bankrupt. The bankruptcy law was founded on the principle

that the goods and not the person of the debtor should be

liable for the debt; the insolvency law enabled the person of

the debtor to be seized, but provided no machinery for

obtaining his goods. ... Up to 1838 the first step in

insolvency was the arrest of the debtor. Any person who made a

deposition on oath that some other person was in debt to him,

could obtain his arrest on what was known as 'mesne process.'

The oath might possibly be untrue; the debt might not be due;

the warrant issued on the sworn deposition as a matter of

course. But, in addition to the imprisonment on mesne process,

the insolvent could be imprisoned for a further period on what

was known as 'final process.' Imprisonment on mesne process

was the course which the creditor took to prevent the flight

of the debtor; imprisonment on final process was the

punishment which the Court awarded to the crime of debt. Such

a system would have been bad enough if the debtors' prisons

had been well managed. The actual condition of these prisons

almost exceeds belief. Dickens, indeed, has made the story of

a debtor's imprisonment in the Marshalsea familiar to a world

of readers. ... The Act of 1813 had done something to mitigate

the misery which the law occasioned. The Court which was

constituted by it released 50,000 debtors in 13 years. But

large numbers of persons were still detained in prison for

debt. In 1827 nearly 6,000 persons were committed in London

alone for debt. The Common Law Commissioners, reporting in

1830, declared that the loud and general complaints of the law

of insolvency were well founded; and Cottenham, in 1838,

introduced a bill to abolish imprisonment for debt in all

cases. The Lords were not prepared for so complete a remedy;

they declined to abolish imprisonment on final process, or to

exempt from imprisonment on mesne process, persons who owed

more than £20, and who were about to leave the country.

Cottenham, disappointed at these amendments, decided on

strengthening his own hands by instituting a fresh inquiry. He

appointed a commission in 1839, which reported in 1840, and

which recommended the abolition of imprisonment on final

process, and the union of bankruptcy and insolvency. In 1841,

in 1842, in 1843, and in 1844 Cottenham introduced bills to

carry out this report. The bills of 1841, 1842, and 1843 were

lost. The bill of 1844 was not much more successful. Brougham

declared that debtors who refused to disclose their property,

who refused to answer questions about it, who refused to give

it up, or who fraudulently made away with it, as well as

debtors who had been guilty of gross extravagance, deserved

imprisonment. He introduced an alternative bill giving the

Court discretionary power to imprison them. The Lords,

bewildered by the contrary counsels of two such great lawyers

as Cottenham and Brougham, decided on referring both bills to

one Select Committee. The Committee preferred Brougham's bill,

amended it, and returned it to the House. This bill became

ultimately law. It enabled both private debtors and traders

whose debts amounted to less than the sums named in the

Bankruptcy Acts to become bankrupts; and it abolished

Imprisonment in all cases where the debt did not exceed £20."

S. Walpole, History of England from 1815,

chapter 17 (volume 4).

DEBT: In the United States.

"In New York, by the act of April 26, 1831, c. 300, and which

went into operation on March 1st, 1832, arrest and

imprisonment on civil process at law, and on execution in

equity founded upon contract, were abolished. The provision

under the act was not to apply to any person who should have

been a non-resident of the state for a month preceding (and

even this exception was abolished by the act of April 25th,

1840); nor to proceedings as for a contempt to enforce civil

remedies; nor to actions for fines and penalties; nor to suits

founded in torts ... nor on promises to marry; or for moneys

collected by any public officer; or for misconduct or neglect

in office, or in any professional employment.

{652}

The plaintiff, however, in any suit, or upon any judgment or

decree, may apply to a judge for a warrant to arrest the

defendant, upon affidavit stating a debt or demand due, to

more than $50; and that the defendant is about to remove

property out of the jurisdiction of the court, with intent to

defraud his creditors; or that he has property or rights in

action which he fraudulently conceals; or public or corporate

stock, money, or evidences of debt, which he unjustly refuses

to apply to the payment of the judgment or decree in favor of

the plaintiff; or that he has assigned, or is about to assign

or dispose of his property, with intent to defraud his

creditors; or has fraudulently contracted the debt, or

incurred the obligation respecting which the suit is brought.

If the judge shall be satisfied, on due examination, of the

truth of the charge, he is to commit the debtor to jail,

unless he complies with certain prescribed conditions or some

one of them, and which are calculated for the security of the

plaintiff's claim. Nor is any execution against the body to be

issued on justices' judgments, except in cases essentially the

same with those above stated. ... By the New York act of 1846,

c. 150, the defendant is liable for imprisonment as in actions

for wrong, if he be sued and judgment pass against him in

actions on contracts for moneys received by him (and it

applies to all male persons) in a fiduciary character. The

legislature of Massachusetts, in 1834 and 1842, essentially

abolished arrest and imprisonment for debt, unless on proof

that the debtor was about to abscond. As early as 1790, the

constitution of Pennsylvania established, as a fundamental

principle, that debtors should not be continued in prison

after surrender of their estates in the mode to be prescribed

by law, unless in cases of a strong presumption of fraud. In

February, 1819, the legislature of that state exempted women

from arrest and imprisonment for debt; and this provision as

to women was afterwards applied in New York to all civil

actions founded upon contract. ... Females were first exempted

from imprisonment for debt in Louisiana and Mississippi; and

imprisonment for debt, in all cases free from fraud, is now

abolished in each of those states. The commissioners in

Pennsylvania, in their report on the Civil Code, in January,

1835, recommended that there be no arrest of the body of the

debtor on mesne process, without an affidavit of the debt, and

that the defendant was a non-resident, or about to depart

without leaving sufficient property, except in cases of force,

fraud, or deceit, verified by affidavit. This suggestion was

carried into effect by the act of the legislature of

Pennsylvania of July 12th, 1842, entitled 'An Act to abolish

imprisonment for debt, and to punish fraudulent debtors.' In

New Hampshire, imprisonment on mesne process and execution for

debt existed under certain qualifications, until December 23,

1840, when it was abolished by statute, in cases of contract

and debts accruing after the first of March, 1841. In Vermont,

imprisonment for debt, on contracts made after first January,

1839, is abolished, as to resident citizens, unless there be

evidence that they are about to abscond with their property;

so, also, the exception in Mississippi applies to cases of

torts, frauds, and meditated concealment, or fraudulent

disposition of property."

J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law;

edited by O. W. Holmes, Jr., volume 2 (foot-note).

"In many states the Constitution provides

(A) that there shall be no imprisonment for debt:

Indiana. C. 1, 22;

Minnesota. C. I, 12;

Kansas. C. B.  Rts. 16;

Maryland. C. 3, 38;

North Carolina. C. 1, 16;

Missouri. C. 2. 16;

Texas. C. 1, 18;

Oregon. C. 1, 19;

Nevada. C. 1, 14;

South Carolina. C. 1, 20;

Georgia. C. 1, 1, 21;

Alabama. C. 1, 21;

Mississippi. C. 1, 11;

Florida. C. Decl'n Rts. 15.

(B) That there shall be no imprisonment for debt

(1) in any civil action on mesne or final process, in seven states:

Ohio. C. 1, 15;

Iowa. C. 1, 19;

Nebraska. C. 1, 20;

Tennessee. C. 1, 18;

Arkansas. C. 2, 16;

California. C. 1, 15;

Oregon. C. 1, 15;

Arizona. B. Uts. 18.

(2) In any action or judgment founded upon contract, in

three states:

New Jersey. C. 1, 17;

Michigan. C. 6, 33;

Wisconsin. C. 1, 16.

(C) In six, that there shall be no person imprisoned for debt

in any civil action when he has delivered up his property for

the benefit of his creditors in the manner prescribed by law;

Vermont. C. 2, 33;

Rhode Island. C. 1, 11;

Pennsylvania. C. 1, 16;

Illinois. C. 2, 12;

Kentucky. C. 13, 19;

Colorado. C. 2, 12.

... But the above principles are subject to the following

exceptions in the several states respectively:

(1) a debtor may be imprisoned in criminal actions: Tennessee.

So  (2) for the non-payment of fines or penalties imposed by

law: Missouri.

So (3) generally, in civil or criminal actions, for fraud:

Vermont,

Rhode Island,

New Jersey,

Pennsylvania,

Ohio,

Indiana,

Illinois,

Michigan,

Iowa,

Minnesota,

Kansas,

Nebraska,

North Carolina,

Kentucky,

Arkansas,

California,

Oregon,

Nevada,

Colorado,

South Carolina,

Florida,

Arizona.

And so, in two, the legislature has power to provide for the

punishment of fraud and for reaching property of the debtor

concealed from his creditors:

Georgia. C. 1, 2, 6;

Louisiana. C. 223.

So (4) absconding debtors may be imprisoned: Oregon.

Or debtors (5) in cases of libel or slander: Nevada.

(6) In civil cases of tort generally: California, Colorado.

(7) In cases of malicious mischief: California.

(8) Or of breach of trust: Michigan, Arizona.

(9) Or of moneys collected by public officers,

or in any professional employment: Michigan, Arizona."

F. J. Stimson, American Statute Law:

Digest of Constitutions and Civil Public

Statutes of all the States and Territories relating

to Persons and Property, in force January 1, 1886,

art. 8.

----------DEBT: End----------

DÉCADI OF THE FRENCH REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER).

The new republican calendar.

DECAMISADOS, The.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

DECATUR, Commodore Stephen.

Burning of the "Philadelphia."

See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1803-1805.

In the War of 1812.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1812-1813; 1814.

DECCAN, The.

See INDIA: THE NAME;

and IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.

DECELIAN WAR, The.

See GREECE: B. C. 413.

DECEMVIRS, The.

See ROME: B. C. 451-449.

DECIUS: Roman Emperor. A. D. 249-251.

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (American).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1776 (JANUARY-JUNE),

and (JULY);

also, INDEPENDENCE HALL.

{653}

DECLARATION OF PARIS, The.

"At the Congress of Paris in 1856, subsequently to the

conclusion of the treaty, which ended the Crimean war [see

RUSSIA: A. D. 1854-1856], a declaration of principles was

signed on April 16th, by the plenipotentiaries of all the

powers represented there, which contained four articles:

'First. Privateering is and remains abolished. Second, The

neutral flag covers enemies' goods, with the exception of

contraband of war. Third, Neutral goods, except of contraband

of war, are not liable to capture under an enemy's flag.

Fourth, Blockades, to be binding, must be effective--that is

to say, maintained by a force really sufficient to prevent

access to the coast of the enemy.' The adherence of other

powers was requested to these principles," and all joined in

signing it except the United States, Spain, and Mexico. The

objection on the part of the United States was stated in a

circular letter by Mr. Marcy, then Secretary of State, who

"maintained that the right to resort to privateers is as

incontestable as any other right appertaining to belligerents;

and reasoned that the effect of the declaration would be to

increase the maritime preponderance of Great Britain and

France, without even benefiting the general cause of

civilization; while, if public ships retained the right of

capturing private property, the United States, which had at

that time a large mercantile marine and a comparatively small

navy, would be deprived of all means of retaliation. ... The

President proposes, therefore [wrote Mr. Marcy] to add to the

first proposition contained in the declaration of the Congress

of Paris the following words: 'and that the private property

of the subjects and citizens of a belligerent on the high seas

shall be exempted from seizure by public armed vessels of the

other belligerent, except it be contraband.' ... Among the

minor states of Europe there was complete unanimity and a

general readiness to accept our amendment to the rules"; but

England opposed, and the offered amendment was subsequently

withdrawn. "Events ... have shown that ... our refusal to

accept the Declaration of Paris has brought the world nearer

to the principles which we proposed, which became known as the

'Marcy amendment for the abolition of war against private

property on the seas.'"

E. Schuyler. American Diplomacy, chapter 7.

ALSO IN:

F. Wharton, Digest of the International law of the United

States, chapter 17, section 342 (volume 3).

H. Adams, Historical Essays, chapter 6.

See, also, PRIVATEERS.

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1689 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN,

French Revolutionary.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).

DECLARATORY ACT, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766.

DECRETA, Roman imperial.

See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

DECRETALS, The False.

See PAPACY: A. D. 829-847.

DECUMÆ.

See VECTIGAL.

DECUMATES LAND.

See AGRI DECUMATES,

also ALEMANNI;

and SUEVI.

DECURIONES.

See CURIA, MUNICIPAL, OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE.

DEDITITIUS.--COLONUS.--SERVUS.

"The poor Provincial [of the provinces of the Roman empire at

the time of the breaking up in the fifth century] who could

not fly to the Goths because his whole property was in land,

hunted to despair by the tax-gatherer, would transfer that

land to some wealthy neighbour, apparently on condition of

receiving a small life annuity out of it. He was then called

the Dedititius (or Surrenderer) of the new owner, towards whom

he stood in a position of a certain degree of dependence. Not

yet, however, were his sorrows or those of his family at an

end, for the tax-gatherer still regarded him as responsible

for his land. ... On his death his sons, who had utterly lost

their paternal inheritance, and still found themselves

confronted with the claim for taxes, were obviously without

resource. The next stage of the process accordingly was that

they abdicated the position of free citizens and implored the

great man to accept them as Coloni, a class of labourers,

half-free, half-enslaved, who may perhaps with sufficient

accuracy be compared to the serfs 'adscripti glebæ' of the

middle ages. ... Before long they became mere slaves (Servi)

without a shadow of right or claim against their new lords."

T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, book 1, chapter 10.

With the "increase of great estates and simultaneous increase

in the number of slaves (so many Goths were made slaves by

Claudius [A. D. 268-270], to give one instance, that there was

not a district without them), the small proprietors could no

longer maintain the fruitless struggle, and, as a class,

wholly disappeared. Some, no doubt, became soldiers; others

crowded into the already overflowing towns; while others

voluntarily resigned their freedom, attached themselves to the

land of some rich proprietor, and became his villeins, or

coloni. But this was not the chief means by which this class

was formed and increased. ... After a successful war these

serfs were given ... to landed proprietors without payment;

and in this way not only was the class of free peasants

diminished or altogether destroyed--a happier result--the

slave system was directly attacked. The coloni themselves were

not slaves. The codes directly distinguish them from slaves,

and in several imperial constitutions they are caned

'ingenui.' They could contract a legal marriage and could hold

property. ... On the other hand, the coloni were like slaves

in that they were liable to personal punishment. ... A colonus

was indissolubly attached to the land, and could not get quit

of the tie, even by enlisting as a soldier. The proprietor

could sell him with the estate, but had no power whatever of

selling him without it; and if he sold the estate, he was

compelled to sell the coloni along with it. ... The position

of these villeins was a very miserable one. ... These coloni

in Gaul, combined together, were joined by the free peasants

still left [A. D. 287], whose lot was not less wretched than

their own, and forming into numerous bands, spread themselves

over the country to pillage and destroy. They were called

Bagaudæ, from a Celtic word meaning a mob or riotous assembly;

and under this name recur often in the course of the next

century both in Gaul and Spain."

W. T. Arnold, The Roman System of Provincial

Administration, ch.4.

DEEMSTERS.

See MANX KINGDOM, THE.

DEFENDERS.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1784.

DEFENESTRATION AT PRAGUE, The.

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1611-1618.

DEFTERDARS.

See SUBLIME PORTE.

DEICOLÆ, The.

See CULDEES.

DEIRA, The kingdom of.

One of the kingdoms of the Angles, covering what is now called

the East Riding of Yorkshire, with some territory beyond it.

Sometimes it was united with the kingdom of Bernicia, north of

it, to form the greater kingdom of Northumbria.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

{654}

DEKARCHIES.

See SPARTA: B. C. 404-403.

DEKELEIA.--DEKELEIAN WAR.

See GREECE: B. C. 413.

DELATION.--DELATORS.

Under the empire, there was soon bred at Rome an infamous

class of men who bore a certain resemblance--with significant

contrasts likewise--to the sycophants of Athens. They were

known as delators, and their occupation was delation. "The

delator was properly one who gave notice to the fiscal

officers of moneys that had become due to the treasury of the

state, or more strictly to the emperor's fiscus." But the

title was extended to informers generally, who dragged their

fellow-citizens before the tribunals for alleged violations of

law. Augustus made delation a profession by attaching rewards

to the information given against transgressors of his marriage

laws. Under the successor of Augustus, the sullen and

suspicious Tiberius, delation received its greatest

encouragement and development. "According to the spirit of

Roman criminal procedure, the informer and the pleader were

one and the same person. There was no public accuser, ... but

the spy who discovered the delinquency was himself the man to

demand of the senate, the prætor or the judge, an opportunity

of proving it by his own eloquence and ingenuity. The odium of

prosecution was thus removed from the government to the

private delator."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 44.

See, also, ROME: A. D. 14-37.

DELAWARE BAY: A. D. 1609.

Discovered by Henry Hudson.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1609.

DELAWARE BAY:

The error perpetuated in its name.

"Almost every writer on American history that I have met with

appears to have taken pains to perpetuate the stereotyped

error that 'Lord Delawarr touched at this bay in his passage

to Virginia in 1610.' ... Lord Delawarr himself, in his letter

of the 7th of July, 1610, giving an account of his voyage to

Virginia, not only makes no mention of that bay, or of his

approaching it, but expressly speaks of his first reaching the

American coast on the '6th of June, at what time we made land

to the southward of our harbor, the Chesiopiock Bay.' The

first European who is really known to have entered the bay,

after Hudson, was Capt. Samuel Argall [July 1610]. ... The

name of Lord Delawarr, however, seems to have been given to

the bay soon afterwards by the Virginians."

J. R. Brodhead,

History of the State of New York, volume 1, appendix, note D.

----------DELAWARE BAY: End----------

DELAWARE: A. D. 1629-1631.

The Dutch occupancy and first settlement.

The first attempt at settlement on the Delaware was made by

the Dutch, who claimed the country in right of Hudson's

discovery and Mey's exploration of the Bay, notwithstanding

the broad English claim, which covered the whole of it as part

of an indefinite Virginia. In 1629, pursuant to the patroon

ordinance of the Dutch West India Company, which opened New

Netherland territory to private purchasers, "Samuel Godyn and

Samuel Blommaert, both directors of the Amsterdam Chamber,

bargained with the natives for the soil from Cape Henlopen to

the mouth of Delaware river; in July, 1630, this purchase of

an estate more than thirty miles long was ratified at Fort

Amsterdam by Minuit [then Governor of New Netherland] and his

council. It is the oldest deed for land in Delaware, and

comprises the water-line of the two southern counties of that

state. ... A company was soon formed to colonize the tract

acquired by Godyn and Blommaert. The first settlement in

Delaware, older than any in Pennsylvania, was undertaken by a

company, of which Godyn, Van Rensselaer, Blommaert, the

historian De Laet, and a new partner, David Petersen de Vries,

were members. By joint enterprise, in December, 1630, a ship

of 18 guns, commanded by Pieter Heyes, and laden with

emigrants, store of seeds, cattle and agricultural implements,

embarked from the Texel, partly to cover the southern shore of

Delaware Bay with fields of wheat and tobacco, and partly for

a whale fishery on the coast. ... Early in the spring of 1631,

the ... vessel reached its destination, and just within Cape

Henlopen, on Lewes Creek, planted a colony of more than thirty

souls. The superintendence of the settlement was intrusted to

Gillis Hosset. A little fort was built and well beset with

palisades: the arms of Holland were affixed to a pillar; the

country received the name Swaanendael; the water that of

Godyn's Bay. The voyage of Heyes was the cradling of a state.

That Delaware exists as a separate commonwealth is due to this

colony. According to English rule, occupancy was necessary to

complete a title to the wilderness; and the Dutch now occupied

Delaware. On the 5th of May, Heyes and Hosset, in behalf of

Godyn and Blommaert, made a further purchase from Indian

chiefs of the opposite coast of Cape May, for twelve miles on

the bay, on the sea, and in the interior; and, in June, this

sale of a tract twelve miles square was formally attested at

Manhattan. Animated by the courage of Godyn, the patroons of

Swaanendael fitted out a second expedition under the command

of De Vries. But, before he set sail, news was received of the

destruction of the fort, and the murder of its people. Hasset,

the commandant, had caused the death of an Indian chief; and

the revenge of the savages was not appeased till not one of

the emigrants remained alive. De Vries, on his arrival, found

only the ruins of the house and its palisades, half consumed

by fire, and here and there the bones of the colonists."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States,

part 2, chapter 13 (volume 1).

ALSO IN:

J. R. Brodhead, History of the State of New York,

volume 1, chapter 7.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1632.

Embraced in the Maryland grant to Lord Baltimore.

See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1634.

Embraced in the Palatine grant of New Albion.

See NEW ALBION.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640.

The planting of the Swedish colony.

"William Usselinx, a distinguished merchant in Stockholm, was

the first to propose to the Swedish government a scheme for

planting a colony in America. He was a native of Antwerp, and

had resided in Spain, Portugal and the Azores, at a time when

the spirit of foreign adventure pervaded every class of

society. ... In the year 1624 he proposed to the Swedish

monarch, Gustavus Adolphus, a plan for the organization of a

trading company, to extend its operations to Asia, Africa,

America and Terra Magellanica. ...

{655}

Whether Usselinx had ever been in America is uncertain, but he

had, soon after the organization of the Dutch West India

Company, some connection with it, and by this and other means

was able to give ample information in relation to the country

bordering on the Delaware, its soil, climate, and productions.

... His plan and contract were translated into the Swedish

language by Schrader, the royal interpreter, and published to

the nation, with an address strongly appealing both to their

piety and their love of gain. The king recommended it to the

States, and an edict dated at Stockholm, July 2d, 1626, was

issued by royal authority, in which people of all ranks were

invited to encourage the project and support the Company.

Books were opened for subscription to the stock ... and

Gustavus pledged the royal treasure for its support to the

amount of 400,000 dollars. ... The work was ripe for

execution, when the German war [the Thirty Years War], and

afterwards the king's death, prevented it, and rendered the

fair prospect fruitless. ... The next attempt on the part of

the Swedes to plant a colony in America was more successful.

But there has been much difference among historians in

relation to the period when that settlement was made. ... It

is owing to the preservation, among the Dutch records at

Albany, of an official protest issued by Kieft, the Governor

at New Amsterdam, that we do certainly know the Swedes were

here in the spring of 1638. Peter Minuit, who conducted to our

shore the first Swedish colony, had been Commercial Agent, and

Director General of the Dutch West India Company, and Governor

of the New Netherlands. ... At this time Christina, the infant

daughter of Gustavus Adolphus, had ascended the throne of

Sweden. ... Under the direction of Oxenstiern, the celebrated

chancellor of Sweden, whose wisdom and virtue have shed a

glory on the age in which he lived, the patent which had been

granted in the reign of Gustavus to the company formed under

the influence of Usselinx was renewed, and its privileges

extended to the citizens of Germany. Minuit, being now out of

employment, and probably deeming himself injured by the

conduct of the Dutch Company [which had displaced him from the

governorship of the New Netherlands, through the influence of

the patroons, and appointed Wouter Van Twiller, a clerk, to

succeed him], had determined to offer his services to the

crown of Sweden. ... Minuit laid before the chancellor a plan

of procedure, urged a settlement on the Delaware, and offered

to conduct the enterprise. Oxenstiern represented the case to

the queen ... and Minuit was commissioned to command and

direct the expedition."

B. Ferris, History of the Original Settlements on the

Delaware, part 1, chapter 2-3.

"With two ships laden with provisions and other supplies

requisite for the settlement of emigrants in a new country,

and with fifty colonists, Minuit sailed from Sweden late in

1637, and entered Delaware Bay in April, 1638. He found the

country as he had left it, without white inhabitants. Minqua

Kill, now Wilmington, was selected as the place for the first

settlement, where he bought a few acres of land of the

natives, landed his colonists and stores, erected a fort, and

began a small plantation. He had conducted his enterprise with

some secrecy, that he might avoid collision with the Dutch;

but the watchful eyes of their agents soon discovered him, and

reported his presence to the director at New Amsterdam. Kieft

[successor to Van Twiller] had just arrived, and it became one

of his first duties to notify a man who had preceded him in

office that he was a trespasser and warn him off. Minuit,

knowing that Kieft was powerless to enforce his protest, being

without troops or money, paid no attention to his missive, and

kept on with his work. ... He erected a fort of considerable

strength, named Christina, for the Swedish queen, and

garrisoned it with 24 soldiers. Understanding the character of

the Indians, he conciliated their sachems by liberal presents

and secured the trade. In a few months he was enabled to load

his ships with peltries and despatch them to his patrons. ...

The colony had to all appearance a promising future. ...

Within two years, however, their prospects were clouded. The

Company had failed to send out another ship with supplies and

merchandise for the Indian trade. Provisions failed, trade

fell off, and sickness began to prevail. ... They resolved to

remove to Manhattan, where they could at least have 'enough to

eat.' On the eve of 'breaking up' to carry their resolution

into effect, succor came from an unexpected quarter. The fame

of New Sweden, as the colony was called, of its fertile lands

and profitable trade, had reached other nations of Europe. In

Holland itself a company was formed to establish a settlement

under the patronage of the Swedish Company." This Dutch

company "freighted a ship with colonists and supplies, which

fortunately arrived when the Swedish colony was about to be

broken up and the country abandoned. The spirits of the Swedes

were revived. ... Their projected removal was indefinitely

deferred and they continued their work with fresh vigor. The

Dutch colonists were located in a settlement by themselves,

only a few miles from Fort Christina. They were loyal to the

Swedes. ... In the autumn of the same year, 1640, Peter

Hollaendare, who had been appointed deputy governor of the

colony, and Moens Kling, arrived from Sweden with three ships

laden with provisions and merchandise for the straitened

colonists. They also brought out a considerable company of new

emigrants. New Sweden was now well established and prosperous.

More lands were bought, and new settlements were made. Peter

Minuit died the following year."

G. W. Schuyler, Colonial New York, volume 1,

introduction, section 2.

ALSO IN:

I. Acrelius, History of New Sweden

(Penn. Historical Society Mem., volume 11) chapter 1.

Documents relative to Colonial History of New York,

volume 12.

G. B. Keen, New Sweden (Narrative and Critical

History of America, volume 4, chapter 9).

J. F. Jameson, Willem Usselinx (Papers of the

American Historical Association., volume 2, number 3).

DELAWARE: A. D. 1640-1643.

Intrusions of the English from New Haven.

See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1640-1655.

DELAWARE. A. D. 1640-1656.

The struggle between the Swedes and the Dutch and the final

victory of the latter.

"The [Swedish] colony grew to such importance that John

Printz, a lieutenant-colonel of cavalry, was sent out in 1642

as governor, with orders for developing industry and trade. He

took pains to command the mouth of the river, although the

Dutch had established Fort Nassau on its eastern bank, and the

Swedish settlements were on the western bank exclusively.

{656}

Collisions arose between the Dutch and the Swedes, and when

the former put up the arms of the States General on the

completion of a purchase of lands from the Indians, Printz in

a passion ordered them to be torn down. The Swedes gained in

strength while the Dutch lost ground in the vicinity. In 1648

the Dutch attempted to build a trading post on the Schuylkill,

when they were repulsed by force by the Swedes. Individuals

seeking to erect houses were treated in the same way. The

Swedes in turn set up a stockade on the disputed ground.

Director Stuyvesant found it necessary in 1651 to go to confer

with Printz with a view to holding the country against the

aggressive English. The Indians were called into council and

confirmed the Dutch title, allowing the Swedes little more

than the site of Fort Christina. Fort Casimir was erected

lower down the river, to protect Dutch interests. The two

rulers agreed to be friends and allies, and so continued for

three years. The distress of the Swedish colony led to appeals

for aid from the home country whither Governor Printz had

returned. In 1654 help was given, and a new governor, John

Claude Rysingh, marked his coming by the capture of Fort

Casimir, pretending that the Dutch West India Company

authorized the act. The only revenge the Dutch could take was

the seizure of a Swedish vessel which by mistake ran into

Manhattan Bay. But the next year orders came from Holland

exposing the fraud of Rysingh, and directing the expulsion of

the Swedes from the South River. A fleet was organized and

Director Stuyvesant recovered Fort Casimir without firing a

gun. After some parley Fort Christina was also surrendered.

Such Swedes as would not take the oath of allegiance to the

Dutch authorities were sent to the home country. Only twenty

persons accepted the oath, and of three clergymen two were

expelled, and the third escaped like treatment by the sudden

outbreak of Indian troubles. In 1656 the States General and

Sweden made these transactions [a] matter of international

discussion. The Swedes presented a protest against the action

of the Dutch, and it was talked over, but the matter was

finally dropped. In the same year the West India Company sold

its interests on the South River to the city of Amsterdam, and

the colony of New Amstel was erected, so that the authority of

New Netherland was extinguished."

E. H. Roberts, New York, volume 1, chapter 7.

ALSO IN:

E. Armstrong, Introduction to the Record of Upland

(Historical Society of Pennsylvania Memoirs, volume 7).

B. Ferris, History of the Original Settlements on the

Delaware, part 1, chapter 6-7.

S. Hazard, Annals of Pennsylvania, pages 62-228.

Report of the Amsterdam Chamber of the W. I.  Co.

(Documents relative to Colonial History of New York,

volume 1, pages 587-646).

DELAWARE: A. D. 1664.

Conquest by the English, and annexation to New York.

"Five days after the capitulation of New Amsterdam

[surrendered by the Dutch to the English, Aug. 29, 1664 see

NEW YORK: A. D. 1664] Nicolls, with Cartwright and Maverick

... commissioned their colleague, Sir Robert Carr, to go,"

with three ships and an adequate military force, "and reduce

the Delaware settlements. Carr was instructed to promise the

Dutch the possession of all their property and all their

present privileges, 'only that they change their masters.' To

the Swedes he was to 'remonstrate their happy return under a

monarchical government, and his majesty's good inclination to

that nation.' To Lord Baltimore's officers in Maryland, he was

to declare that their proprietor's pretended right to the

Delaware being 'a doubtful case,' possession would be kept for

the king 'till his majesty is informed and satisfied

otherwise.' ... The Swedes were soon made friends," but the

Dutch attempted [October] some resistance, and yielded only

after a couple of broadsides from the ships had killed three

and wounded ten of their garrison. "Carr now landed ... and

claimed the pillage for himself as 'won by the sword.'

Assuming an authority independent of Nicolls, he claimed to be

the 'sole and chief commander and disposer' of all affairs on

the Delaware." His acts of rapacity and violence, when

reported to his fellow commissioners, at New York, were

condemned and repudiated, and Nicolls, the presiding

commissioner, went to the Delaware in person to displace him.

"Carr was severely rebuked, and obliged to give up much of his

ill-gotten spoil. Nevertheless, he could not be persuaded to

leave the place for some time. The name of New Amstel was now

changed to New Castle, and an infantry garrison established

there. ... Captain John Carr was appointed commander of the

Delaware, in subordination to the government of New York, to

which it was annexed 'as an appendage'; and thus affairs

remained for several years."

J. R. Brodhead, History of the State of New York,

volume 2, chapter 2.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1673.

The Dutch reconquest.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1674.

Final recovery by the English.

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

DELAWARE: A. D. 1674-1760.

In dispute between the Duke of York and the

Proprietary of Maryland.

Grant by the Duke to William Penn:

See PENNSYLVANIA; A. D. 1682; 1685; and 1760-1767.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1691-1702.

The practical independence of Penn's "lower counties" acquired.

"In April, 1691, with the reluctant consent of William Penn,

the 'territories,' or 'lower counties,' now known as the State

of Delaware, became for two years a government by themselves

under Markham. ... The disturbance by Keith [see PENNSYLVANIA;

A. D. 1692-1696] creating questions as to the administration

of justice, confirmed the disposition of the English

government to subject Pennsylvania to a royal commission; and

in April 1693, Benjamin Fletcher, appointed governor by

William and Mary, once more united Delaware to Pennsylvania."

But Penn, restored to his authority in 1694, could not resist

the jealousies which tended so strongly to divide the Delaware

territories from Pennsylvania proper. "In 1702, Pennsylvania

convened its legislature apart, and the two colonies were

never again united. The lower counties became almost an

independent republic; for, as they were not included in the

charter, the authority of the proprietary over them was by

sufferance only, and the executive power intrusted to the

governor of Pennsylvania was too feeble to restrain the power

of their people. The legislature, the tribunals, the

subordinate executive officers of Delaware knew little of

external control."

G. Bancroft, History of the United States.

(author's last revision), part 3, chapter 2 (volume 2).

The question of jurisdiction over Delaware was involved

throughout in the boundary dispute between the proprietaries

of Pennsylvania and Maryland.

See PENNSYLVANIA; A. D. 1685; and 1760-1767.

{657}

DELAWARE: A. D. 1760-1766.

The question of taxation by Parliament.

The Stamp Act and its repeal.

The Declaratory Act.

The First Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1766-1774

Opening events of the Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1766-1767 to 1774;

and BOSTON: A. D. 1768 to 1773.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1775.

The beginning of the war of the American Revolution.

Lexington.

Concord.

Action taken on the news.

Ticonderoga.

The siege of Boston.

Bunker Hill.

The Second Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1776.

Further introduction of slaves prohibited.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D.1776-1808.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1776-1783.

The War of Independence.

Peace with Great Britain.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 to 1783.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1777-1779.

Withholding ratification from the Articles of Confederation.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1787.

The adoption and ratification of the Federal Constitution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1787, and 1787-1789.

DELAWARE: A. D. 1861 (April).

Refusal of troops on the call of President Lincoln.

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

----------DELAWARE: End----------

DELAWARE RIVER,

Washington's passage of the.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1777.

DELAWARES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: DELAWARES.

DELFT: Assassination of the Prince of Orange (1584).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.

DELHI: 11th Century.

Capture by Mahmoud of Gazna.

See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183.

DELHI: A. D. 1192-1290.

The capital of the Mameluke or Slave dynasty.

See INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

DELHI: A. D. 1399.

Sack and massacre by Timour.

See TIMOUR.

DELHI: A. D. 1526-1605.

The founding of the Mogul Empire by Babar and Akbar.

See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.

DELHI: A. D. 1739.

Sack and massacre by Nadir Shah.

See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.

DELHI: A. D. 1760-1761.

Taken and plundered by the Mahrattas.

Then by the Afghans.

Collapse of the Mogul Empire.

See INDIA: A. D. 1747-1761.

DELHI: A. D. 1857.

The Sepoy Mutiny.

Massacre of Europeans.

Explosion of the magazine.

English siege and capture of the city.

See INDIA: A. D. 1857 (MAY-AUGUST)

and (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

----------DELHI: End----------

DELIAN CONFEDERACY.

See GREECE: B. C. 478--477;

and ATHENS: B. C. 466-454, and after.

DELIAN FESTIVAL.

See DELOS.

DELIUM, Battle of (B. C. 424).

A serious defeat suffered by the Athenians in the

Peloponnesian War, B. C. 424, at the hands of the Thebans and

other Bœotians. It was consequent upon the seizure by the

Athenians of the Bœotian temple of Delium--a temple of

Apollo--on the sea-coast, about five miles from Tanagra, which

they fortified and intended to hold. After the defeat of the

army which was returning from this exploit, the garrison left

at Delium was besieged and mostly captured. Among the hoplites

who fought at Delium was the philosopher Socrates. The

commander Hippocrates was slain.

Thucydides, History, book 4, section 89-100.

ALSO IN:

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 53.

See GREECE: B. C. 424-421.

DELOS.

Delos, the smallest island of the group called the Cyclades,

but the most important in the eyes of the Ionian Greeks, being

their sacred isle, the fabled birthplace of Apollo and long

the chief seat and center of his worship. "The Homeric Hymn to

Apollo presents to us the island of Delos as the centre of a

great periodical festival in honour of Apollo, celebrated by

all the cities, insular and continental, of the Ionic name.

What the date of this hymn is, we have no means of

determining: Thucydides quotes it, without hesitation, as the

production of Homer, and, doubtless, it was in his time

universally accepted as such,--though modern critics concur in

regarding both that and the other hymns as much later than the

Iliad and Odyssey. It cannot probably be later than 600 B. C.

The description of the Ionic visitors presented to us in this

hymn is splendid and imposing; the number of their ships, the

display of their finery, the beauty of their women, the

athletic exhibitions as well as the matches of song and

dance,--all these are represented as making an ineffaceable

impression on the spectator: 'the assembled Ionians look as if

they were beyond the reach of old age or death.' Such was the

magnificence of which Delos was the periodical theatre, and

which called forth the voices and poetical genius not merely

of itinerant bards, but also of the Delian maidens in the

temple of Apollo, during the century preceding 560 B. C. At

that time it was the great central festival of the Ionians in

Asia and Europe."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 12.

During the war with Persia, Delos was made the common treasury

of the Greeks; but Athens subsequently took the custody and

management of the treasury to herself and reduced Delos to a

dependency. The island was long the seat of an extensive

commerce, and Delian bronze was of note in the arts.

DELOS: B. C. 490.

Spared by the Persians.

See GREECE: B. C. 490.

DELOS: B. C. 477.

The Delian Confederacy.

See GREECE: B. C. 478-477;

and ATHENS: B. C. 466-454, and after.

DELOS: B. C. 461-454 (?).

Removal of the Confederate treasury to Athens.

See ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.

DELOS: B. C. 425-422.

Purifications.

"In the midst of the losses and turmoil of the [Peloponnesian]

war it had been determined [at Athens] to offer a solemn

testimony of homage to Apollo on Delos, [B. C. 425]--a homage

doubtless connected with the complete cessation of the

pestilence, which had lasted as long as the fifth year of the

war. The solemnity consisted in the renewed consecration of

the entire island to the divine Giver of grace; all the

coffins containing human remains being removed from Delos, and

Rhenea appointed to be henceforth the sole burial-place. This

solemnity supplemented the act formerly performed by the

orders of Pisistratus, and it was doubtless in the present

instance also intended, by means of a brilliant renewal of the

Delian celebration, to strengthen the power of Athens in the

island sea, to give a festive centre to the Ionic world. ...

But the main purpose was clearly one of morality and religion.

It was intended to calm and edify the minds of the citizens."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 4, chapter 2.

{658}

Three years later (B. C. 422) the Athenians found some reason

for another purification of Delos which was more radical,

consisting in the expulsion of all the inhabitants from the

island. The unfortunate Delians found an asylum at Adramyttium

in Asia, until they were restored to their homes next year,

through the influence of the Delphic oracle.

Thucydides, History, book 5, section 1.

DELOS: B. C. 88.

Pontic Massacre.

Early in the first war of Mithridates with the Romans (B. C.

88), Delos, which had been made a free port and had become the

emporium of Roman commerce in the east, was seized by a Pontic

fleet, and pillaged, 20,000 Italians being massacred on the

island. The treasures of Delos were sent to Athens and the

island restored to the Athenian control.

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 7, chapter 17.

DELOS: B. C. 69.

Ravaged by Pirates.

"Almost under the eyes of the fleet of Lucullus, the pirate

Athenodorus surprised in 685 [B. C. 69] the island of Delos,

destroyed its far-famed shrines and temples, and carried off

the whole population into slavery."

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 2.

DELOS: Slave Trade-under the Romans.

"Thrace and Sarmatia were the Guinea Coast of the Romans. The

entrepôt of this trade was Delos, which had been made a free

port by Rome after the conquest of Macedonia. Strabo tells us

that in one day 10,000 slaves were sold there in open market.

Such were the vile uses to which was put the Sacred Island,

once the treasury of Greece."

H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 48.

----------DELOS: End----------

DELPHI.--KRISSA (CRISSA).--KIRRHA (CIRRHA).

"In those early times when the Homeric Hymn to Apollo was

composed the town of Krissa [in Phocis, near Delphi] appears

to have been great and powerful, possessing all the broad

plain between Parnassus, Kirphis, and the gulf, to which

latter it gave its name,--and possessing also, what was a

property not less valuable, the adjoining sanctuary of Pytho

itself, which the Hymn identifies with Krissa, not indicating

Delphi as a separate place. The Krissæans, doubtless, derived

great profits from the number of visitors who came to visit

Delphi, both by land and by sea, and Kirrha was originally

only the name for their seaport. Gradually, however, the port

appears to have grown in importance at the expense of the

town; ... while at the same time the sanctuary of Pytho with

its administrators expanded into the town of Delphi, and came

to claim an independent existence of its own. ... In addition

to the above facts, already sufficient in themselves as seeds

of quarrel, we are told that the Kirrhæans abused their

position as masters of the avenue to the temple by sea, and

levied exorbitant tolls on the visitors who landed there. ...

Besides such offence against the general Grecian public, they

had also incurred the enmity of their Phocian neighbours by

outrages upon women, Phocian as well as Argeian, who were

returning from the temple. Thus stood the case, apparently,

about 595 B. C., when the Amphiktyonic meeting interfered ...

to punish the Kirrhæans. After a war of ten years, the first

Sacred War in Greece, this object was completely accomplished,

by a joint force of Thessalians under Eurylochus, Sikyonians

under Kleisthenes, and Athenians under Alkmæon; the Athenian

Solon being the person who originated and enforced, in the

Amphiktyonic council, the proposition of interference. Kirrha

... was destroyed, or left to subsist merely as a landing

place; and the whole adjoining plain was consecrated to the

Delphian god, whose domains thus touched the sea. ... The fate

of Kirrha in this war is ascertained: that of Krissa is not so

clear, nor do we know whether it was destroyed, or left

subsisting in a position of inferiority with regard to Delphi.

From this time forward, the Delphian community appears as

substantive and autonomous, exercising in their own right the

management of the temple; though we shall find, on more than

one occasion, that the Phocians contest this right. ... The

spoils of Kirrha were employed by the victorious allies in

founding the Pythian Games. The octennial festival hitherto

celebrated at Delphi in honour of the god, including no other

competition except in the harp and the pæan, was expanded into

comprehensive games on the model of the Olympic, with matches

not only of music, but also of gymnastics and

chariots,--celebrated, not at Delphi itself, but on the

maritime plain near the ruined Kirrha,--and under the direct

superintendence of the Amphiktyons themselves. ... They were

celebrated in the latter half of summer, or first half of

every third Olympic year. ... Nothing was conferred but

wreaths of laurel."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 28.

See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 610-586;

PYTHO; ORACLES OF THE GREEKS;

and AMPHIKTYONIC COUNCIL.

DELPHI: B. C. 357-338.

Seizure by the Phocians.

The Sacred Wars.

Deliverance by Philip of Macedon.

War with Amphissa.

See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

DELPHI: B. C. 279.

Discomfiture of the Gauls.

See GAULS: B. C. 280-279.

----------DELPHI: End----------

DELPHIC ORACLE, The.

See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

DELPHIC SIBYL, The.

See SIBYLS.

DEMES.--DEMI.

See PHYLÆ; also, ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.

DEMETES, The.

One of the tribes of ancient Wales.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

DEMETRIUS,

The Impostor.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.

Demetrius Poliorcetes, and the wars of the Diadochi.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 315-310, 310-301;

also GREECE: B. C. 307-301;

and RHODES: B. C. 305--304.

DEMIURGI.--COSMOS.--TAGOS OR TAGUS.

Of the less common titles applied among the ancient Greeks to

their supreme magistrates, are "Cosmos, or Cosmios, and Tagos

(signifying Arranger and Commander), the former of which we

find in Crete, the latter in the Thessalian cities. With the

former we may compare the title of Cosmopolis, which was in

use among the Epizephyrian Locrians. A more frequent title is

that of Demiurgi, a name which seems to imply a constitution

no longer oligarchical, but which bestowed certain rights on

the Demos. In the time of the Peloponnesian war magistrates of

this kind existed in Elis and in the Arcadian Mantinæa. ...

The title is declared by Grammarians to have been commonly

used among the Dorians. ... A similar title is that of

Demuchus, which the supreme magistrates of Thespiæ in Bœotia

seem to have borne. ... The Artyni at Epidaurus and Argos we

have already mentioned."

G. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece: The State,

part 2, chapter 5.

{659}

DEMOCRATIC OR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1789-1792; 1825-1828; 1845-1846.

DEMOSTHENES,

the general at Sphacteria and at Syracuse.

See GREECE: B. C. 425,

and SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413;

and ATHENS: B. C. 415-413.

Demosthenes the orator,

The Phillipics, and the Death of.

See GREECE: B. C. 357-336, 351-348,

and 323--322;

and ATHENS: B. C. 359-338, and 336-322.

DEMOTIC WRITING.

See HIEROGLYPHICS.

DEMUCHUS.

See DEMIURGI.

DENAIN. Battle of (1712).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1710-1712.

DENARIUS, The.

See AS.

DENDERMONDE.

Surrender to the Spaniards (1584).

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

DENIS, King of Portugal, A. D. 1279-1323.

DENMARK.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES.

DENNEWITZ, OR JÜTERBOGK, Battle of.

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

DENNIKON, Peace of (1531).

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1531-1648.

DENVER, The founding of.

See COLORADO: A. D. 1806-1876.

DEORHAM, Battle of.

Fought A. D. 577, near Bath, England, between the invading

West Saxons and the Britons. The victory of the former gave

them possession of the lower valley of the Severn and

practically completed the Saxon conquest of England.

J. R. Green, The Making of England, pages 125-131.

DERBEND, Pass of.

See JUROIPACH.

DERBY-DISRAELI MINISTRIES The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1851-1852; 1858-1859;

and 1868-1870.

DERRY.

See LONDONDERRY.

DE RUSSY, Fort, Capture of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).

DESERET, The proposed state of.

See UTAH: A. D. 1849-1850.

DESMONDS, The.

See GERALDINES.

DESMOULINS, Camille, and the French Revolution.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JULY); 1790;

1792 (AUGUST), to 1793-1794 (NOVEMBER-JUNE).

DESPOT OF EPIRUS.

"The title of despot, by which they [the mediæval princes of

Epirus] are generally distinguished, was a Byzantine honorary

distinction, never borne by the earlier members of the family

until it had been conferred on them by the Greek Emperor."

G. Finlay, History of Greece from its conquest by the

Crusaders, chapter 6, section I.

See EPIRUS: A. D. 1204-1350.

DESPOTS,

Greek.

See TYRANTS.

Italian.

See ITALY: A. D. 1250-1520.

DESSAU, Battle of (1626).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.

DESTRIERS.--PALFREYS.

"A cavaliere or man-at-arms was accompanied by one 'Destriero'

or strong war-horse, and one or two, sometimes three, mounted

squires who led the animal fully caparisoned; or carried the

helmet; lance and shield of their master: these 'Destrieri'

('rich and great horses' as Villani calls them), were so named

because they were led on the right hand without any rider, and

all ready for mounting: the squire's horses were of an

inferior kind called 'Ronzini,' and on the 'Palafreni' or

palfreys the knight rode when not in battle."

H. E. Napier, Florentine History, volume 1, page 633.

DESTROYING ANGELS, OR DANITES.

See MORMONISM: A. D. 1830-1846.

DETROIT:

First occupied by the Coureurs de Bois.

See COUREURS DE BOIS.

DETROIT: A. D. 1686-1701.

The first French forts.

Cadillac's founding of the city.

At the beginning of the war called "Queen Anne's War" (1702)

"Detroit had already been established. In June, 1701, la Mothe

Cadillac, with a Jesuit father and 100 men, was sent to

construct a fort and occupy the country; hence he is spoken of

as the founder of the city. In 1686, a fort [called Fort St.

Joseph] had been constructed to the south of the present city,

where Fort Gratiot now stands, but it soon fell into decay and

was abandoned. It was not the site selected by Cadillac."

W. Kingsford, History of Canada, volume 2, page 408.

"Fort St. Joseph was abandoned in the year 1688. The

establishment of Cadillac was destined to a better fate and

soon rose to distinguished importance among the western

outposts of Canada."

F. Parkman, The Conspiracy of Pontiac, volume 1, page 218.

DETROIT: A. D. 1701-1755.

Importance to the French.

See CANADA: A. D. 1700-1735.

DETROIT: A. D. 1712.

Siege by the Foxes and Massacre of that tribe.

See CANADA: A. D. 1711-1713.

DETROIT: A. D. 1760.

The French settlement when surrendered to the English.

"The French inhabitants here are settled on both sides of the

river for about eight miles. When I took possession of the

country soon after the surrender of Canada [see CANADA: A. D.

1760], they were about 2,500 in number, there being near 500

that bore arms (to whom I administered oaths of allegiance)

and near 300 dwelling houses. Our fort here is built of

stockadoes, is about 25 feet high, and 1,200 yards in

circumference. ... The inhabitants raise wheat and other grain

in abundance, and have plenty of cattle, but they enrich

themselves chiefly by their trade with the Indians, which is

here very large and lucrative."

Major R. Rogers, Concise Account of North America,

page 168.

DETROIT: A. D. 1763.

Pontiac's Siege.

See PONTIAC'S WAR.

DETROIT: A. D. 1775-1783.

Held by the British throughout the War of Independence.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778-1779,

CLARK'S CONQUEST.

DETROIT: A. D. 1805.

Made the seat of government of the Territory of Michigan.

See INDIANA: A. D. 1800-1818.

DETROIT: A. D. 1812.

The surrender of General Hull.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1812 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

DETROIT: A. D 1813.

American recovery.

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

{660}

DETTINGEN, Battle of (1743).

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743.

DEUSDEDIT, Pope, A. D. 615-618.

DEUTSCH. Origin of the name.

See GERMANY: THE NATIONAL NAME.

DEUTSCHBROD, Battle of (1422).

See BOHEMIA: A. D. 1419-1434.

DEVA.

One of the Roman garrison towns in

Britain, on the site of which is modern Chester,

taking its name from the castra or fortified

station of the legions. It was the station of

the 20th legion.

T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 5.

DEVE-BOYUN, Battle of (1878).

See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

DEVIL'S CAUSEWAY, The.

The popular name of an old Roman road in England which runs

from Silchester to London.

DEVIL'S HOLE,

The ambuscade and massacre at.

On the 13th of September, 1763, during the progress of

Pontiac's War, a train of wagons and packhorses, traversing

the Niagara portage between Lewiston and Fort Schlosser,

guarded by an escort of 24 soldiers, was ambuscaded by a party

of Seneca warriors at the place called the Devil's Hole, three

miles below the Niagara cataract. Seventy of the whites were

slain, and only three escaped.

F. Parkman, The Conspiracy of Pontiac, chapter 21 (volume 2).

DEVON COMMISSION, The.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1843-1848.

DEVONSHIRE, in the British age.

See DUMNONII.

DE WITT, John,

The administration and the murder of.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1651-1660, to 1672-1674.

DHIHAD.

See DAR-UL-ISLAM.

DIACRII, The.

See ATHENS: B. C. 594.

DIADOCHI, The.

The immediate successors of Alexander the Great, who divided

his empire, are sometimes so-called. "The word diadochi means

'successors,' and is used to include Antigonus, Ptolemy,

Seleucus, Lysimachus, etc.--the actual companions of

Alexander."

J. P. Mahaffy, Story of Alexander's Empire, chapter 5.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.

DIAMOND, Battle of the (1795).

See IRELAND: A. D. 1795-1796.

DIAMOND DISCOVERY IN SOUTH AFRICA (1867).

See GRIQUAS.

DIAMOND NECKLACE, The affair of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1784-1785.

DIASPORA, The.

A name applied to the Jews scattered throughout the Roman

world.

DIAZ, Porfirio, The Mexican presidency of.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1867-1888.

DICASTERIA.

The great popular court, or jury, in ancient Athens, called

the Heliæa, or Heliastæ consisting at one time of six thousand

chosen citizens, was divided into ten sections, called

Dicasteria. Their places of meeting also bore the same name.

G. F. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece:

The State, part 3, chapter 3.

See ATHENS: B. C.445-431.

DICKINSON, John, in the American Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1767-1768; 1774 (SEPTEMBER);

1776 (JULY).

DICTATOR, Roman.

See CONSULS, ROMAN.

DIDIAN LAW, The.

See ORCHIAN, FANNIAN, DIDIAN LAWS.

DIDIER, OR DESIDERIUS,

King of the Lombards, A. D. 759-774.

DIDYMÆUM, The oracle of.

See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

DIEDENHOFEN, Battle of (1639).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

DIEPPE.

Bombardment and destruction by an English fleet.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1694.

DIES ATRI.

The days on which the Romans thought it unlucky to undertake

business of importance--for example, the day after the

Calends, Nones and Ides of each month--were called Dies Atri.

W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 11.

DIES FASTI.

Dies Nefasti.

Dies Festi.

See FASTI, and LUDI.

DIET.

"An assembly, council, ... Parliament. ... The peculiar sense

of the word undoubtedly arose from a popular etymology that

connected it with the Latin 'dies,' a day, especially a set day, a

day appointed for public business; whence, by extension, a

meeting for business, an assembly."

W. W. Skeat, Etymological Dictionary

DIET:

The Germanic.

"The annual general councils and special councils of Charles

the Great did not long survive him, and neither his

descendants nor their successors revived them. They were

compelled, to be sure, both by custom and by policy to advise

with the chief men of the kingdom before taking any important

step or doing anything that depended for success on their

consent and cooperation, but they varied the number of their

counsellors and the time, place, and manner of consulting them

to suit their own convenience. Great formal assemblies of

counsellors summoned from all parts of the realm were termed

Imperial Diets (Reichstage); small, or local, or informal

assemblies of a similar kind were known as Court Diets

(Hoftage). Princes and other royal vassals, margraves,

palsgraves, Graves, barons, and even royal Dienstmannen were

indiscriminately summoned, but the Diets were in no sense

representative bodies until the Great Interregnum [see

GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272] when certain cities acquired such

influence in public affairs that they were invited to send

delegates. The first Diet in which they participated was held

at Worms in February, 1255, by King William of Holland. Most

of the cities of the Rhenish League were there represented,

and they constituted an important factor of the assembly. The

affairs of the church shared attention with temporal affairs

in the Diets until the Popes succeeded in making good their

claims to supremacy in spiritual matters. Thereafter they were

altogether left to synods and church councils. ... Imperial

Diets and Court Diets continued to be held at irregular

intervals, whenever and wherever it pleased the king to

convene them, but Imperial Diets were usually held in Imperial

cities. These were not such heterogenous assemblies as

formerly, for few royal vassals, except princes, and no royal

Dienstmannen whatever were now invited to attend. Graves and

barons, and prelates who were not princes, continued to be

summoned, but the number and influence of the Graves and

barons in the Diets steadily waned. Imperial cities were for

many years only occasionally asked to participate, that is to

say, only when the king had especial need of their good

offices, but in the latter half of the 14th century they began

to be regularly summoned.

{661}

Imperial Diets were so frequently held during the Hussite War

and thereafter, that it became pretty well settled what

persons and what cities should take part in them, and only

those persons and those cities that were entitled to take part

in them were regarded as Estates of the realm. In the 15th

century they developed into three chambers or colleges, viz.,

the College of Electors [see GERMANY: A. D. 1125-1152], the

College of Princes, Graves, and Barons, usually called the

Council of Princes of the Empire (Reichsfürstenrath), and the

College of Imperial Cities. The Archbishop of Mentz presided

in the College of Electors, and the Archbishop of Salzburg and

the Duke of Austria presided alternately in the Council of

Princes of the Empire. The office of presiding in the College

of Imperial Cities devolved upon the Imperial city in which

the Diet sat. The king and members of both the upper Colleges

sometimes sent deputies to represent them, instead of

attending in person. In 1474 the cities adopted a method of

voting which resulted in a division of their College into two

Benches, called the Rhenish Bench and the Swabian Bench,

because the Rhenish cities were conspicuous members of the

one, and the Swabian cities conspicuous members of the other.

In the Council of Princes, at least, no regard was had to the

number of votes cast, but only to the power and influence of

the voters, whence a measure might pass the Diet by less than

a majority of the votes present. Having passed, it was

proclaimed as the law of the realm, upon receiving the king's

assent, but was only effective law in so far as the members of

the Diet, present or absent, assented to it. ... Not a single

Imperial Diet was summoned between 1613 and 1640. The king

held a few Court Diets during that long interval, consisting

either of the Electors alone, or of the Electors and such

other Princes of the Empire as he chose to summon. The

conditions of membership, and the manner of voting in the

College of Electors and the College of Imperial Cities

remained unchanged. ... The cities long strove in vain to have

their votes recognized as of equal weight with the others, but

the two upper Colleges insisted on regarding them as summoned

for consultation only, until the Peace of Westphalia settled

the matter by declaring that 'a decisive vote (votum

decisivum) shall belong to the Free Imperial Cities not less

than to the rest of the Estates of the Empire.' Generally, but

not always, the sense of each College was expressed by the

majority of votes cast. The Peace of Westphalia provided that

'in religious matters and all other business, when the Estates

cannot be considered one body (corpus), as also when the

Catholic Estates and those of the Augsburg Confession go into

two parts (in duas partes euntibus), a mere amicable agreement

shall settle the differences without regard to majority of

votes.' When the 'going into parts,' (itio in partes) took

place each College deliberated in two bodies, the Corpus

Catholicorum and the Corpus Evangelicorum. The king no longer

attended the Imperial Diets in person, but sent commissioners

instead, and it was now the common practice of members of both

the upper Colleges to send deputies to represent them."

S. E. . Turner, Sketch of the Germanic

Constitution, chapter 4, 5, and 6.

"The establishment of a permanent diet, attended, not by the

electors in person, but by their representatives, is one of

the most striking peculiarities of Leopold's reign" (Leopold

I., 1657-1705). This came about rather accidentally than with

intention, as a consequence of the unusual prolongation of the

session of a general diet which Rudolph convoked at Ratisbon,

soon after his accession to the throne. "'So many new and

important objects ... occurred in the course of the

deliberations that the diet was unusually prolonged, and at

last rendered perpetual, as it exists at present, and

distinguishes the Germanic constitution as the only one of its

kind--not only for a certain length of time, as was formerly,

and as diets are generally held in other countries, where

there are national states; but the diet of the Germanic empire

was established by this event for ever. The diet acquired by

this circumstance an entirely different form. So long as it

was only of short duration, it was always expected that the

emperor, as well as the electors, princes, counts and

prelates, if not all, yet the greatest part of them, should

attend in person. ... It is true, it had long been customary

at the diets of Germany, for the states to deliver their votes

occasionally by means of plenipotentiaries; but it was then

considered only as an exception, whereas it was now

established as a general rule, that all the states should send

their plenipotentiaries, and never appear themselves. ... The

whole diet, therefore, imperceptibly acquired the form of a

congress, consisting solely of ministers, similar in a great

degree to a congress where several powers send their envoys to

treat of peace. In other respects, it may be compared to a

congress held in the name of several states in perpetual

alliance with each other, as in Switzerland, the United

Provinces, and as somewhat of a similar nature exists at

present in North America; but with this difference,--that in

Germany the assembly is held under the authority of one common

supreme head, and that the members do not appear merely as

deputies, or representatives invested with full power by their

principals, which is only the case with the imperial cities;

but so that every member of the two superior colleges of the

empire is himself an actual sovereign of a state, who permits

his minister to deliver his vote in his name and only

according to his prescription.'"

S. A. Dunham, History of the Germanic Empire,

book 3, chapter 3 (volume 3)--(quoting Putter's Historical

Development of the Germanic Constitution.)

Of the later Diet, of the Germanic Confederation, something

may be learned under GERMANY: A. D. 1814-1820, and 1848

(MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

----------DIET: End----------

DIFFIDATION, The Right of.

See LANDFRIEDE.

DIGITI.

See FOOT, THE ROMAN.

DIJON, Battle at.

See BURGUNDIANS: A. D. 500.

DIJON, Origin of.

Dijon, the old capital of the Dukes of Burgundy, was

originally a strong camp-city--an "urbs quadrata"--of the

Romans, known as the Castrum Divionense. Its walls were 30

feet high, 15 feet thick, and strengthened with 33 towers.

T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 4, chapter 9.

DILEMITES, The.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 815-945.

DIMETIA.

See BRITAIN: 6th CENTURY.

DINAN, Battle of (1597).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

{662}

DINANT, Destruction of.

In the 15th century, down to the year 1466, Dinant was a

populous and thriving town. It was included in the little

state of the prince-bishop of Liege, and was involved in the

war of the Duke of Burgundy with Liege, which ruined both

Liege and Dinant. "It was inhabited by a race of industrious

artisans, preëminent for their skill in the manufacture of

copper. The excellence of their workmanship is attested by

existing specimens--organ-screens, baptismal fonts, and other

ecclesiastical decorations. But the fame of Dinant had been

chiefly spread by its production of more common and useful

articles, especially of kitchen utensils,--'pots and pans and

similar wares,'--which, under the name of 'Dinanderie,' were

known to housewives throughout Europe." In the course of the

war a party of rude young men from Dinant gave deep,

unforgivable provocation to the Duke of Burgundy by

caricaturing and questioning the paternity of his son, the

count of Charolais, afterwards Duke Charles the Bold. To

avenge this insult nothing less than the destruction of the

whole city would satisfy the implacable and ferocious

Burgundians. It was taken by the count of Charolais in August,

1466. His first proceeding was to sack the town, in the most

thorough and deliberate manner. Then 800 of the more obnoxious

citizens were tied together in pairs and drowned in the Meuse,

while others were hanged. This accomplished, the surviving

women, children and priests were expelled from the town and

sent empty-handed to Liege, while the men were condemned to

slavery, with the privilege of ransoming themselves at a heavy

price, if they found anywhere the means. Finally, the torch

was applied, Dinant was burned, and contractors were

subsequently employed by the Duke for several months, to

demolish the ruins and remove the very materials of which the

city had been built.

J. F. Kirk, History of Charles the Bold, book 1, chapter 8-9.

ALSO IN:

E. de Monstrelet (Johnes), Chronicles,

book 3, chapter 138-139.

Philip de Commines, Memoirs, book 2, chapter 1.

DINWIDDIE COURT HOUSE, Action at.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1865 (MARCH-APRIL: VIRGINIA).

DIOBOLY, The.

Pericles "was the proposer of the law [at Athens] which

instituted the 'Dioboly,' or free gift of two obols to each

poor citizen, to enable him to pay the entrance-money at the

theatre during the Dionysia."

C. W. C. Oman, History of Greece, page 271.

See ATHENS: B. C. 435-431.

DIOCESES OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

"The civil government of the empire was distributed [under

Constantine and his successors] into thirteen great dioceses,

each of which equalled the just measure of a powerful kingdom.

The first of these dioceses was subject to the jurisdiction of

the Count of the East. The place of Augustal Præfect of Egypt

was no longer filled by a Roman knight, but the name was

retained. ... The eleven remaining dioceses--of Asiana,

Pontica, and Thrace; of Macedonia, Dacia and Pannonia, or

Western Illyricum; of Italy and Africa; of Gaul, Spain, and

Britain--were governed by twelve vicars or vice-præfects."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 17.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

See PUÆTORIAN PRÆFECTS.

DIOCLETIAN, Roman Emperor.

See ROME: A. D. 284-305..

DIOCLETIAN: Abdication.

"The ceremony of his abdication was performed in a spacious

plain about three miles from Nicomedia [May 1, A. D. 305]. The

Emperor ascended a lofty throne, and, in a speech full of

reason and dignity, declared his intention, both to the people

and to the soldiers who were assembled on this extraordinary

occasion. As soon as lie had divested himself of the purple,

he withdrew from the gazing multitude, and, traversing the

city in a covered chariot, proceeded without delay to the

favourite retirement [Salona] which he had chosen in his

native country of Dalmatia."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 13.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

See, also, SALONA.

DIOKLÉS, Laws of.

A code of laws framed at Syracuse, immediately after the

Athenian siege, by a commission of ten citizens the chief of

whom was one Dioklês. These laws were extinguished in a few

years by the Dyonisian tyranny, but revived after a lapse of

sixty years. The code is "also said to have been copied in

various other Sicilian cities, and to have remained in force

until the absorption of all Sicily under the dominion of the

Romans."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 81.

DIONYSIA AT ATHENS.

"The four principal Attik Dionysiak festivals were (1) the

Dionysia Mikra, the Lesser or Rural Dionysia; (2) the Dionysia

Lenaia; (3) the Anthesteria; and (4) the Dionysia Megala, the

Greater or City Dionysia. The Rural Dionysia, celebrated

yearly in the month Posideon (Dec.-January) throughout the

various townships of Attike, was presided over by the demarch

or mayor. The celebration occasioned a kind of rustic

carnival, distinguished like almost all Bakchik festivals, by

gross intemperance and licentiousness, and during which slaves

enjoyed a temporary freedom, with licence to insult their

superiors and behave in a boisterous and disorderly manner. It

is brought vividly before us in the 'Acharnes' of

Aristophanes. ... The Anthesteria, or Feast of Flowers,

celebrated yearly in the month Anthesterion (February-March), ...

lasted for three days, the first of which was called

Pithoigia, or Tap-barrel-day, on which they opened the casks

and tried the wine of the previous year. ... The Dionysia

Megala, the Greater or City Dionysia, celebrated yearly in the

month Elaphebolion (March-April) was presided over by the

Archon Eponymos, so-called because the year was registered in

his name, and who was first of the nine. The order of the

solemnities was as follows:

I. The great public procession.

II. The chorus of Youths.

III. The Komos, or band of Dionysiak revellers, whose

ritual is best illustrated in Milton's exquisite poem.

IV. The representation of Comedy and Tragedy; for at

Athenai the stage was religion and the theatre a temple.

At the time of this great festival the capital was filled with

rustics from the country townships, and strangers from all

parts of Hellas and the outer world."

R. Brown, The Great Dionysiak Myth, chapter 6.

DIONYSIAN TYRANNY AT SYRACUSE, The.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 397-396, and 344.

DIPLAX, The.

See PEPLUM.

DIPYLUM, The.

See CERAMICUS OF ATHENS.

DIRECTORY, The French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER);

(OCTOBER-DECEMBER); 1797 (SEPTEMBER).

{663}

DISINHERITED BARONS, The.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1332-1333.

DISRAELI-DERBY AND BEACONSFIELD MINISTRIES.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1851-1852: 1858-1859;

1868-1870: and 1873-1880.

DISRUPTION OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1843.

DISSENTERS, OR NONCONFORMISTS, English:

First bodies organized.

Persecutions under Charles II. and Anne.

Removal of Disabilities.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559-1566; 1662-1665:

1672-1673: 1711-1714; 1827-1828.

DISTRIBUTION OF THE SURPLUS, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835-1837.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, The.

See WASHINGTON (CITY): A. D. 1791.

DIVAN, The.

See SUBLIME PORTE.

DIVODURUM.

The Gallic name of the city afterwards called

Mediomatrici--now Metz.

DIVONA.

Modern Cahors.

See CADURCI.

DIWANI.

See INDIA: A. D. 1757-1772.

DIX, General John A.:

Message to New Orleans.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1860-1861 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY).

DJEM, OR JEM, Prince, The Story of.

See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

DOAB, The English acquisition of the.

See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

DOBRIN, Knights of the Order of the Brethren of.

See PRUSSIA: 13TH CENTURY.

DOBRUDJA, The.

The peninsula formed between the Danube, near its mouth, and

the Black Sea.

DOBUNI, The.

A tribe of ancient Britons who held a region between the two

Avons.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

DOCETISM.

"We note another phase of gnosticism in the doctrine so

directly and warmly combated in the epistles of John: we refer

to docetism--that is, the theory which refused to recognize

the reality of the human body of Christ."

E. Reuss, History of Christian Theology in the Apostolic

Age, page 323.

DODONA.

See HELLAS.

DOGE.

See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.

DOGGER BANKS, Naval Battle of the (1781).

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1746-1787.

DOKIMASIA.

"All magistrates [in ancient Athens] whether elected by

cheirotonia or by lot, were compelled, before entering upon

their office, to subject themselves to a Dokimasia, or

scrutiny into their fitness for the post."

G. F. Schöman, Antiquity of Greece:

The State, part 3, chapter 3.

DÖLICHOCEPHALIC MEN.

A term used in ethnology, signifying "long-headed," as

distinguishing one class of skulls among the remains of

primitive men, from another class called brachycephalic, or

"broad-headed."

DOLLINGER, Doctor, and the dogma of Papal Infallibility.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870.

DOLMENS.

See CROMLECHS.

DOMESDAY, OR DOOMSDAY BOOK.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1085-1086.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, The.

See HAYTI: A. D. 1804-1880.

DOMINICANS.

See MENDICANT ORDERS:

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

DOMINION OF CANADA.-DOMINION DAY.

See CANADA: A. D. 1867.

DOMINUS.

See IMPERATOR, FINAL SIGNIFICATION OF

THE ROMAN TITLE.

DOMITIAN, Roman Emperor, A. D. 81-96.

DOMITZ, Battle of (1635).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

DON JOHN OF AUSTRIA.

See JOHN (DON) OF AUSTRIA.

DON PACIFICO AFFAIR, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1849-1850;

and GREECE: A. D. 1846-1850.

DONALD BANE, King of Scotland, A. D. 1093-1098

(expelled during part of the period by Duncan II.)

DONATI, The.

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

DONATION OF CONSTANTINE.

See PAPACY: A. D. 774 (?).

DONATION OF THE COUNTESS MATILDA.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.

DONATIONS OF PEPIN AND CHARLEMAGNE.

See PAPACY: A. D. 755-774.

DONATISTS, The.

"The Donatist controversy was not one of doctrine, but of

ecclesiastical discipline; the contested election for the

archbishopric of Carthage. Two competitors, Cecilius and

Donatus, had been concurrently elected while the church was

yet in a depressed state, and Africa subject to the tyrant

Maxentius [A. D. 306-312]. Scarcely had Constantine subdued

that province, when the two rivals referred their dispute to

him. Constantine, who still publicly professed paganism, but

had shown himself very favourable to the Christians,

instituted a careful examination of their respective claims,

which lasted from the year 312 to 315, and finally decided in

favour of Cecilius. Four hundred African bishops protested

against this decision; from that time they were designated by

the name of Donatists. ... In compliance with an order of the

emperor, solicited by Cecilius, the property of the Donatists

was seized and transferred to the antagonist body of the

clergy. They revenged themselves by pronouncing sentence of

excommunication against all the rest of the Christian world.

... Persecution on one side and fanaticism on the other were

perpetuated through three centuries, up to the period of the

extinction of Christianity in Africa. The wandering preachers

of the Donatist faction had no other means of living than the

alms of their flocks. ... As might be expected, they outdid

each other in extravagance, and soon gave in to the most

frantic ravings: thousands of peasants, drunk with the effect

of these exhortations, forsook their ploughs and fled to the

deserts of Getulia. Their bishops, assuming the title of

captains of the saints, put themselves at their head, and they

rushed onward, carrying death and desolation into the adjacent

provinces: they were distinguished by the name of

Circumcelliones: Africa was devastated by their ravages."

J. C. L. de Sismondi, Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 4.

ALSO IN:

P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church,

volume 2, chapter 6.

DONAUWÖRTH: A. D. 1632.

Taken by Gustavus Adolphus.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1631-1632.

DONAUWÖRTH: A. D. 1704.

Taken by Marlborough.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1704.

----------DONAUWÖRTH: End----------

DONELSON, Fort, Capture of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1862 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY:

KENTUCKY-TENNESSEE).

{664}

DONGAN CHARTER, The.

See NEW YORK (CITY): A. D. 1686.

DONUM.

See TALLAGE.

DONUS I., Pope, A. D. 676-678.

Donus II., Pope, A. D. 974-975.

DONZELLO.

See DÂMOISEL.

DOOMS OF INE, The.

"These laws were republished by King Alfred as 'The Dooms of

Ine' who [Ine] came to the throne in A. D. 688. In their first

clause they claim to have been recorded by King Ine with the

counsel and teaching of his father Cenred and of Hedde, his

bishop (who was Bishop of Winchester from A. D. 676 to 705)

and of Eorcenweld, his bishop (who obtained the see of London

in 675); and so, if genuine, they seem to represent what was

settled customary law in Wessex during the last half of the

seventh century."

F. Seebohm, English Village Community, chapter 4.

DOOMSDAY, OR DOMESDAY BOOK.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1085-1086.

DOORANEES, OR DURANEES, The

See INDIA: A. D. 1747-1761.

DORDRECHT, OR DORT, Synod of.

See DORT;

also, NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

DORIA, Andrew, The deliverance of Genoa by.

See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

DORIANS AND IONIANS, The.

"Out of the great Pelasgian population [see PELASGIANS], which

covered Anterior Asia Minor and the whole European peninsular

land, a younger people had issued forth separately, which we

find from the first divided into two races. These main races

we may call, according to the two dialects of the Greek

language, the Dorian and the Ionian, although these names are

not generally used until a later period to designate the

division of the Hellenic nation. No division of so thorough a

bearing could have taken place unless accompanied by an early

local separation. We assume that the two races parted company

while yet in Asia Minor. One of them settles in the

mountain-cantons of Northern Hellas, the other along the

Asiatic coast. In the latter the historic movement begins.

With the aid of the art of navigation, learnt from the

Phœnicians the Asiatic Greeks at an early period spread over

the sea; domesticating themselves in lower Egypt, in countries

colonized by the Phœnicians, in the whole Archipelago, from

Crete to Thrace; and from their original as well as from their

subsequent seats send out numerous settlements to the coast of

European Greece, first from the East side, next, after

conquering their timidity, also taking in the country, beyond

Cape Malea from the West. At first they land as pirates and

enemies, then proceed to permanent settlements in gulfs and

straits of the sea, and by the mouths of rivers, where they

unite with the Pelasgian population. The different periods of

this colonization may be judged of by the forms of divine

worship, and by the names under which the maritime tribes were

called by the natives. Their rudest appearance is as Carians;

as Leleges their influence is more beneficent and permanent."

Dr. E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 1, chapter 2.

In the view of Dr. Curtius, the later migration of Ionian

tribes from Southern Greece to the coasts of Asia

Minor,--which is an undoubted historic fact,--was really a

return "into the home of their ancestors"--"the ancient home

of the great Ionic race." Whether that be the true view or

not, the movement in question was connected, apparently, with

important movements among the Dorian Greeks in Greece itself.

These latter, according to all accounts, and the agreement of

all historians, were long settled in Thessaly, at the foot of

Olympus (see GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS). It was there that their

moral and political development began; there that they learned

to look at Olympus as the home of the gods, which all Greeks

afterwards learned to do from them. "The service rendered by

the Dorian tribe," says Dr. Curtius, "lay in having carried

the germs of national culture out of Thessaly, where the

invasion of ruder peoples disturbed and hindered their farther

growth, into the land towards the south, where these germs

received an unexpectedly new and grand development. ... A race

claiming descent from Heracles united itself in this

Thessalian coast-district with the Dorians and established a

royal dominion among them. Ever afterwards Heraclidæ and

Dorians remained together, but without ever forgetting the

original distinction between them. In their seats by Olympus

the foundations were laid of the peculiarity of the Dorians in

political order and social customs; at the foot of Olympus was

their real home."-

Dr. E. Curtius, History of Greece,  book 1, chapter 4.

From the neighborhood of Olympus the Dorians moved southwards

and found another home in "the fertile mountain-recess between

Parnassus and Œta, ... the most ancient Doris known to us by

name." Their final movement was into Peloponnesus, which was

"the most important and the most fertile in consequences of

all the migrations of Grecian races, and which continued, even

to the latest periods to exert its influence upon the Greek

character." Thenceforwards the Dorians were the dominant race

in Peloponnesus, and to their chief state, Lacedæmonia, or

Sparta, was generally conceded the headship of the Hellenic

family. This Doric occupation of Peloponnesus, the period of

which is supposed to have been about 1100 B. C., no doubt

caused the Ionic migration from that part of Greece and

colonization of Asia Minor.

C. O. Müller, History and Antiquities of the Doric race,

book 1, chapter 3.

The subsequent division of the Hellenic world between Ionians

and Dorians is thus defined by Schömann: "To the Ionians

belong the inhabitants of Attica, the most important part of

the population of Eubœa, and the islands of the Ægean included

under the common name of Cyclades, as well as the colonists

both on the Lydian and Carian coasts of Asia Minor and in the

two larger islands Of Chios and Samos which lie opposite. To

the Dorians within the Peloponnese belong the Spartans, as

well as the dominant populations of Argos, Sicyon, Philus,

Corinth, Troezene and Epidaurus, together with the island of

Ægina; outside the Peloponnese, but nearest to it, were the

Megarid, and the small Dorian Tetrapolis [also called

Pentapolis and Tripolis] near Mount Parnassus; at a greater

distance were the majority of the scattered islands and a

large portion of the Carian coasts of Asia Minor and the

neighbouring islands, of which Cos and Rhodes were the most

important. Finally, the ruling portion of the Cretan

population was of Dorian descent."

G. F. Schömann, Antiquities of Greece:

The State, part 1, chapter 1.

See, also,

GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS; ASIA MINOR:

THE GREEK COLONIES; HERACLIDÆ; SPARTA;

and ÆOLIANS.

{665}

DORIS AND DRYOPIS.

"The little territory [in ancient Greece] called Doris and

Dryopis occupied the southern declivity of Mount Œta, dividing

Phokis on the north and northwest from the Ætolians, Ænianes

and Malians. That which was called Doris in the historical

times, and which reached in the times of Herodotus nearly as

far eastward as the Maliac gulf, is said to have formed a part

of what had been once called Dryopis; a territory which had

comprised the summit of Œta as far as the Sperchius,

northward, and which had been inhabited by an old Hellenic

tribe called Dryopes. The Dorians acquired their settlement in

Dryopis by gift from Hêraklês, who, along with the Malians (so

ran the legend), had expelled the Dryopes and compelled them

to find for themselves new seats at Hermionê, and Asinê, in

the Argolic peninsula of Peloponnesus,--at Styra and Karystus

in Eubœa,--and in the island of Kythnus; it is only in these

five last-mentioned places that history recognizes them. The

territory of Doris was distributed into four little

townships,--Pindus, or Akyphas, Bœon, Kytinion and Erineon.

... In itself this tetrapolis is so insignificant that we

shall rarely find occasion to mention it; but it acquired a

factitious consequence by being regarded as the metropolis of

the great Dorian cities in Peloponnesus, and receiving on that

ground special protection from Sparta."

G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 3.

ALSO IN:

C. O. Müller, History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,

book 1, chapter 2.

See also, DORIANS AND IONIANS.

DORMANS, Battle of (1575).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576.

DORNACH, Battle of (1499).

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1396-1499.

DORR REBELLION, The.

See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1841-1843.

DORT, OR DORDRECHT, The Synod of.

"In the low-countries the supreme government, the

states-general, interfered [in the Calvinistic controversy],

and in the year 1618 convoked the first and only synod bearing

something of the character of a general council that has been

convened by protestants. It assembled at Dort, and continued

its sittings from November till May following. Its business

was to decide the questions at issue between the Calvinists

and Arminians; the latter party were also termed remonstrants.

James [I.] was requested to send over representatives for the

English Church, and chose four divines:--Carlton bishop of

Llandaff, Hall dean of Worcester, afterwards bishop

successively of Exeter and Norwich, Davenant afterwards bishop

of Salisbury, and Dr. S. Ward of Cambridge. They were men of

learning and moderation. ... The history of this famous synod

is told in various ways. Its decisions were in favour of the

doctrines termed Calvinistic, and the remonstrants were

expelled from Holland. ... The majority were even charged by

the other party with having bound themselves by an oath before

they entered upon business, to condemn the remonstrants."

J. B. Marsden, History of Early Puritans, page 329.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

DORYLAEUM, Battle of (1097).

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

DOUAI: A. D.1667.

Taken by the French.

See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.

DOUAI: A. D. 1668.

Ceded to France.

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

DOUAI: A. D. 1710.

Siege and capture by Marlborough.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1710-1712.

----------DOUAI: End----------

DOUAI, The Catholic Seminary at.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1572-1603.

DOUBLOON.-DOBLON.

See SPANISH COINS.

DOUGHFACES.

The "Missouri Compromise," of 1820, in the United States, "was

a Northern measure, carried by Northern votes. With some the

threats of disunion were a sufficient influence; some, whom in

the debate Randolph [John Randolph, of Virginia] called

doughfaces, did not need even that. ... There has been always

a singular servility in the character of a portion of the

American people. In that class the slaveholder has always

found his Northern servitor. Randolph first gave it a name to

live by in the term doughface."

W. C. Bryant and S. H. Gay, Popular History of the

United States, volume 4, pages 270 and 294.

DOUGLAS, Stephen A.,

and the doctrine of Squatter Sovereignty.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.

Defeat in Presidential election.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1860 (APRIL.-NOVEMBER).

DOURO, Battle of the (1580).

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1579-1580.

Wellington's passage of the.

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

DOVER, Roman Origin of.

See DUBRIS

DOVER, Tennessee, Battle at.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (FEBRUARY-APRIL: TENNESSEE).

DOVER, Treaty of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1668-1670.

DOWLAH, Surajah, and the English in India.

See INDIA: A. D. 1755-1757, and 1757.

DRACHMA.

See TALENT.

DRACONIAN LAWS.

See ATHENS: B. C. 624.

DRAFT RIOTS, The.

See NEW YORK (CITY): A. D. 1863.

DRAGON.--PENDRAGON.

A title sometimes given in Welsh poetry to a king or great

military leader. Supposed to be derived from the figure of a

dragon on their flags, which they borrowed from the Romans.

See CUMBRIA.

DRAGONNADES, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1681-1698.

DRAKE'S PIRACIES, and his famous voyage.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.

DRANGIANS, The.

See SARANGIANS.

DRAPIER'S LETTERS, The.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1722-1724.

DRAVIDIAN RACES.

See TURANIAN RACES;

also, INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

DRED SCOTT CASE, The.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857.

DREPANA, Naval battle at, B. C. 249.

See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

DRESDEN: A. D. 1756.

Capture and occupation by Frederick the Great.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1756.

DRESDEN: A. D. 1759-1760.

Capture by the Austrians.

Bombardment by Frederick.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1759 (JULY-NOVEMBER), and 1760.

DRESDEN: A. D. 1813.

Occupied by the Prussians and Russians.

Taken by the French.

Invested by the Allies.

Great battle before the city and victory for Napoleon.

French reverses.

St Cyr's surrender.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1812-1813;

1813 (APRIL-MAY); (AUGUST);

(SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER);

and (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

----------DRESDEN: End----------

{666}

DRESDEN, Treaty of.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1744-1745.

DREUX, Battle of (1562).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.

DROGHEDA, OR TREDAH,

Cromwell's massacre at.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1649-1650.

DROITWICH, Origin of.

See SALINÆ.

DROMONES.

A name given to the light galleys of the Byzantine empire.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter  53.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

DRUIDS.

The priesthood of a religion which existed among the Celts of

Gaul and Britain before they were Christianized. "Greek and

Roman writers give us very little information on this subject

and the early Welsh records and poetry none at all. Modern

Welsh writers have, however, made up for this want in their

genuine literature by inventing an elaborate Druidical system

of religion and philosophy which, they pretend, survived the

introduction of Christianity and was secretly upheld by the

Welsh bards in the Middle Ages. This Neo-Druidic imposture has

found numerous adherents."

W. K. Sullivan, Article, "Celtic Literature,"

Encyclopedia Britannica.

"Pliny, alluding to the Druids' predilection for groves of

oak, adds the words: 'ut inde appellati quoque interpretatione

Græca possint Druidæ videri.' ... Had he possessed knowledge

enough of the Gaulish language, he would have seen that it

supplied an explanation which rendered it needless to have

recourse to Greek, namely in the native word 'dru,' which we

have in 'Drunemeton,' or the sacred Oak-grove, given by Strabo

as the name of the place of assembly of the Galatians. In

fact, one has, if I am not mistaken, been skeptic with regard

to this etymology, not so much on phonological grounds as from

failing exactly to see how the oak could have given its name

to such a famous organization as the druidic one must be

admitted to have been. But the parallels just indicated, as

showing the importance of the sacred tree in the worship of

Zeus and the gods representing him among nations other than

the Greek one, help to throw some light on this point.

According to the etymology here alluded to, the Druids would

be the priests of the god associated or identified with the

oak; that is, as we are told, the god who seemed to those who

were familiar with the pagan theology of the Greeks, to stand

in the same position in Gaulish theology that Zeus did in the

former. This harmonizes thoroughly with all that is known

about the Druids."

J. Rhys, Hibbert Lectures., 1886, on Celtic

Heathendom, lecture 2, part. 2.

"Our traditions of the Scottish and Irish Druids are evidently

derived from a time when Christianity had long been

established. These insular Druids are represented as being

little better than conjurors, and their dignity is as much

diminished as the power of the king is exaggerated. ... He is

a Pharaoh or Belshazzar with a troop of wizards at his

command; but his Druids are sorcerers and rain-doctors. ...

The Druids of Strabo's description walked in scarlet and gold

brocade and wore golden collars and bracelets; but their

doctrines may have been much the same as those of the

soothsayers by the Severn, the Irish medicine-men or those

rustic wizards by the Loire. ... After the conversion of

Ireland was accomplished the Druids disappear from history.

Their mystical powers were transferred without much alteration

to the abbots and bishops who ruled the 'families of the

saints.'"

C. Elton, Origins of English History, chapter 10.

ALSO IN:

Julius Cæsar, Gallic War, book 6, chapters 13-18.

Strabo, Geography, book 4, chapter 4, sections 4-6.

For an account of the final destruction of the Druids, in

their last retreat, on the island of Mona, or Anglesey,

See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.

DRUMCLOG, The Covenanters at.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1679 (MAY-JUNE).

DRURY'S BLUFF, Battle of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MAY: VIRGINIA)

THE ARMY OF THE JAMES.

DRUSUS, Germanic campaigns of.

See GERMANY: B. C. 12-9.

DRYOPIANS, The.

One of the aboriginal nations of ancient Greece, whose

territory was in the valley of the Spercheus and extended as

far as Parnassus and Thermopylæ; but who were afterwards

widely dispersed in many colonies. It is, says C. O. Müller,

"historically certain that a great part of the Dryopians were

consecrated as a subject people to the Pythian Apollo (an

usage of ancient times, of which there are many instances) and

that for a long time they served as such."

History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,

book 1, chapter 2.

See, also, DORIS; and HIERODULI.

DUBARRY, Countess, Ascendancy of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1723-1774.

DUBH GALLS.

See IRELAND: 9TH-10TH CENTURIES.

DUBIENKA, Battle of(1792).

See POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792.

DUBITZA: Taken by the Austrians (1787).

See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.

DUBLIN: The Danish Kingdom.

See IRELAND: 9TH-10TH CENTURIES:

also NORMANS.

NORTHMEN: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.

DUBLIN: A. D. 1014.

The battle of Clontarf and the great defeat of the Danes.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1014.

DUBLIN: A. D. 1170

Taken by the Norman-English.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1169-1175.

DUBLIN: A. D. 1646-1649.

Sieges in the Civil War.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1646-1649.

DUBLIN: A. D. 1750.

The importance of the city.

"In the middle of the 18th century it was in dimensions and

population the second city in the empire, containing,

according to the most trustworthy accounts, between 100,000

and 120,000 inhabitants. Like most things in Ireland, it

presented vivid contrasts, and strangers were equally struck

with the crowds of beggars, the inferiority of the inns, the

squalid wretchedness of the streets of the old town, and with

the noble proportions of the new quarter, and the brilliant

and hospitable society that inhabited it. The Liffey was

spanned by four bridges, and another on a grander scale was

undertaken in 1753. St. Stephen's Green was considered the

largest square in Europe. The quays of Dublin were widely

celebrated."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of England,

18th Century, chapter 7 (volume 2).

----------DUBLIN: End----------

DUBRIS, OR DUBRÆ.

The Roman port on the east coast of Britain which is now known

as Dover. In Roman times, as now, it was the principal

landing-place on the British side of the channel.

T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.

{667}

DUCAT, Spanish.

See SPANISH COINS.

DUCES.

See COUNT AND DUKE.

DUDLEY, Thomas,

and the colony of Massachusetts Bay.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1629-1630, and after.

DUFFERIN, Lord.

The Indian Administration of.

See INDIA: A. D. 1880-1888.

DU GUESCLIN'S CAMPAIGNS:

See FRANCE: A. D. 1360-1380.

DUKE, The Roman.

Origin of the title.

See COUNT AND DUKE.

DUKE'S LAWS, The.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1665.

DULGIBINI AND CHASAURI, The.

"These people [tribes of the ancient Germans] first resided

near the head of the Lippe, and then removed to the

settlements of the Chamavi and the Angrevarii, who had

expelled the Bructeri."

Tacitus, Germany, chapter 34, Oxford trans., note.

See also, SAXONS.

DUMBARTON, Origin of.

See ALCLYDE.

DUMBARTON CASTLE, Capture of (1571).

Dumbarton Castle, held by the party of Mary Queen of Scots, in

the civil war which followed her deposition and detention in

England, was captured in 1571, for the regent Lennox, by an

extraordinary act of daring on the part of one Capt. Crawford.

P. F. Tytler, History of Scotland, volume 3, chapter 10.

DUMNONIA, OR DAMNONIA, The kingdom of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 477-527.

DUMNONII, The.

"It is ... a remarkable circumstance that the Dumnonii, whom

we find in the time of Ptolemy occupying the whole of the

southwestern extremity of Britain, including both Devonshire

and Cornwall, and who must therefore have been one of the most

powerful nations in the island, are never once mentioned in

the history of the conquest of the country by the Romans; nor

is their name found in any writer before Ptolemy. ... The

conjecture of Mr. Beale Poste . . . that they were left in

nominal independence under a native king ... appears to me

highly probable."

E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,

chapter 23, note B.

There appears to have been a northern branch of the Dumnonii

or Damnonii, which held an extensive territory on the Clyde

and the Forth.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

DUMOURIEZ, Campaigns and treason of.

See FRANCE:

A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER);

1792-1793; and 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

DUNBAR: A. D. 1296.-Battle.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1290-1305.

DUNBAR: A. D. 1339. Siege.

The fortress of Dunbar, besieged by the English under the Earl

of Salisbury in 1339, was successfully defended in the absence

of the governor, the Earl of March, by his wife, known

afterwards in Scotch history and tradition as "Black Agnes of

Dunbar."

DUNBAR: A. D. 1650.-Battle.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (SEPTEMBER).

----------DUNBAR: End----------

DUNCAN I.,

King of Scotland, A. D. 1033-1039..

Duncan II., A. D. 1094-1095.

DUNDALK, Battle of (1318).

See IRELAND: A. D. 1314-1318.

DUNDEE (CLAVERHOUSE) AND THE COVENANTERS.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1679 (MAY-JUNE);

1681-1689; and 1689 (JULY).

DUNDEE: A. D. 1645.

Pillaged by Montrose.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

DUNDEE: A. D. 1651.

Storm and massacre by Monk.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1651 (AUGUST'--SEPTEMBER).

----------DUNDEE: End----------

DUNES, Battle of the (1658).

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1655-1658.

DUNKELD, Battle of.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1689 (AUGUST).

DUNKIRK: A. D. 1631.

Unsuccessful siege by the Dutch.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1621-1633.

DUNKIRK: A. D. 1646.

Siege and capture by the French.

Importance of the port.

Its harborage of pirates.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1645-1646.

DUNKIRK: A. D. 1652.

Recovered by the Spaniards.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1652.

DUNKIRK: A. D. 1658.

Acquired by Cromwell for England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1655-1658;

and FRANCE: A. D. 1655-1658.

DUNKIRK: A. D. 1662.

Sold by Charles II. to France.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1662.

DUNKIRK: A. D. 1713.

Fortifications and harbor destroyed.

See UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1713.

DUNKIRK: A. D. 1748.

Demolition of fortifications again stipulated.

See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

DUNKIRK: A. D. 1763.

The demolition of fortifications pledged once more.

See SEVEN YEARS WAR: THE TREATIES.

DUNKIRK: A. D. 1793.

Unsuccessful siege by the English.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY-DECEMBER);

PROGRESS OF THE WAR.

----------DUNKIRK: End----------

DUNMORE, Lord,

and the end of royal government in Virginia.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775 (JUNE); and 1775-1776.

DUNMORE'S WAR.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

DUNNICHEN, Battle of (A. D. 685).

See SCOTLAND: 7TH CENTURY.

DUPLEIX AND THE FRENCH IN INDIA.

See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.

DUPONT, Admiral Samuel F.

Naval attack on Charleston.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1863 (APRIL: SOUTH CAROLINA).

DÜPPEL, Siege and capture of (1864).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1861-1866.

DUPPELN, Battle of (1848).

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK):

A. D. 1848-1862.

DUPPLIN MOOR, Battle of (1332).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1332-1333.

DUQUESNE, Fort.

See PITTSBURGH.

DURA, Treaty of.

The humiliating treaty of peace concluded with the Persians,

A. D. 363, after the defeat and death of the Roman emperor

Julian, by his successor Jovian.

G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy chapter 10.

DURANEES, OR DOORANEES, The.

See INDIA: A. D. 1747-1761.

DURAZZO, Neapolitan dynasty of.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389; 1386-1414,

and ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

DURBAR, OR DARBAR.

An audience room in the palace of an East Indian prince. Hence

applied to a formal audience or levee given by the

governor-general of India, or by one of the native princes.

Century Dictionary

DURHAM, OR NEVILLE'S CROSS, Battle of (A. D. 1346).

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1333-1370.

{668}

DUROBRIVÆ.

A name given to two Roman towns in Britain; one of which has

been identified with modern Rochester, the other with the town

of Castor, near Peterborough.

DUROBRIVIAN WARE.

See CASTOR WARE.

DUROCOBRIVÆ.

An important market-town in Roman Britain, supposed to have

been situated at or near modern Dunstable.

T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5.

DUROTRIGES.

One of the tribes of ancient Britain whose home was in the

modern county of Dorset.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

DUROVERNUM.

A Roman town in Britain, identified with the modern

Canterbury. Durovernum was destroyed by the Jutes in 455.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

DUTCH EAST INDIA COMPANY.

See EAST INDIA COMPANY, THE DUTCH.

DUTCH GAP CANAL.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (AUGUST: VIRGINIA).

DUTCH REPUBLIC,

The constitution and declared independence of the.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581, and 1584-1585.

DUTCH WEST INDIA COMPANY.

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

and BRAZIL: A. D. 1510-1661.

DÜTLINGEN, OR TUTTLINGEN, Battle of (1643).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1643-1644.

DYAKS, OR DAYAKS, The.

See MALAYAN RACE.

DYRRHACHIUM: The founding of.

See KORKYRA.

DYRRHACHIUM: Provoking cause of the Peloponnesian War.

See GREECE: B. C. 435-432.

DYRRHACHIUM: B. C. 48.

Cæsar's reverse.

See ROME: B. C. 48.

DYRRHACHIUM: A. D. 1081-1082.

Siege by Robert Guiscard.

See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081-1085.

DYRRHACHIUM: A. D. 1204.

Acquired by the Despot of Epirus.

See EPIRUS: A. D. 1204-1350.

----------DYRRHACHIUM: End----------

DYRRHACHIUM, Peace of.

See GREECE: B. C. 214-146.

DYVED.

See BRITAIN: 6TH CENTURY.

E.

EADMUND, EADWINE, ETC.

See EDMUND, ETC.

EALDORMAN.

"The chieftains of the first settlers in our own island bore

no higher title than Ealdorman or Heretoga. ... The name of

Ealdorman is one of a large class; among a primitive people

age implies command and command implies age; hence in a

somewhat later stage of language the elders are simply the

rulers and the eldest are the highest in rank, without any

thought of the number of years which they may really have

lived. It is not perfectly clear in what the authority or

dignity of the King exceeded that of the Ealdorman. ... Even

the smallest Kingdom was probably formed by the union of the

districts of several Ealdormen."

E. A. Freeman, Norman Conquest, chapter 3, section 1.

"The organisation of the shire was of much the same character

as that of the hundred [each shire containing, however, a

number of hundreds], but it was ruled by an ealdorman as well

as by a gerefa, and in some other respects bore evidence of

its previous existence as an independent unity. Its gemot was

not only the scir-gemot but the folc-gemot also, the assembly

of the people; its ealdorman commanded not merely the military

force of the hundreds, but the lords of the franchises and the

church vassals with their men. Its gerefa or sheriff collected

the fiscal us well as the local imposts. Its ealdorman was one

of the king's witan. The ealdorman, the princeps of Tacitus,

and princeps, or satrapa, or subregulus of Bede, the dux of

the Latin chroniclers and the comes of the Normans, was

originally elected in the general assembly of the nation. ...

The hereditary principle appears however in the early days of

the kingdom as well as in those of Edward the Confessor; in

the case of an under-kingdom being annexed to a greater the

old royal dynasty seems to have continued to hand down its

delegated authority from father to son. The under-kings of

Hwiccia thus continued to act as ealdormen under Mercia for a

century; and the ealdormanship of the Gyrwas or fen-countrymen

seems likewise to have been hereditary. The title of ealdorman

is thus much older than the existing division of shires, nor

was it ever the rule for every shire to have an ealdorman to

itself as it had its sheriff. ... But each shire was under an

ealdorman, who sat with the sheriff and bishop in the

folkmoot, received a third part of the profits of the

jurisdiction, and commanded the military force of the whole

division. From the latter character he derived the name of

heretoga, leader of the host ('here'), or dux, which is

occasionally given him in charters."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,

chapter 5, sections. 48-49.

EARL.

"The title of earl had begun to supplant that of ealdorman in

the reign of Ethelred; and the Danish jarl, from whom its use

in this sense was borrowed, seems to have been more certainly

connected by the tie of comitatus with his king than the

Anglo-Saxon ealdorman need be supposed to have been."

William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,

chapter 6, section 66.

See, also, EORL and EALDORMAN.

EARLDOMS, English:

Canute's creation.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1016-1042.

EARLDOMS:

The Norman change.

See PALATINE, THE ENGLISH COUNTIES.

----------EARLDOMS: End----------

EARLY, General Jubal, Campaigns in the Shenandoah.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D. 1864 (MAY-JUNE: VIRGINIA);

(JULY: VIRGINIA-MARYLAND);

(AUGUST-OCTOBER: VIRGINIA);

and 1865 (FEBRUARY-MARCH: VIRGINIA).

EARTHQUAKE: B. C. 464.

Sparta.

See MESSENIAN WAR, THE THIRD.

EARTHQUAKE: A. D. 115.

At Antioch.

See ANTIOCH: A. D. 115.

EARTHQUAKE: A. D. 365.

In the Roman world.

"In the second year of the reign of Valentinian and Valens [A.

D. 365], on the morning of the 21st day of July, the greater

part of the Roman world was shaken by a violent and

destructive earthquake. The impression was communicated to the

waters; the shores of the Mediterranean were left dry by the

sudden retreat of the sea. ... But the tide soon returned with

the weight of an immense and irresistible deluge, which was

severely felt on the coasts of Sicily, of Dalmatia, of Greece

and of Egypt. ... The city of Alexandria annually commemorated

the fatal day on which 50,000 persons had lost their lives in

the inundation."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 26.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

{669}

EARTHQUAKE: A. D. 526.

In the reign of Justinian.

See ANTIOCH: A. D. 526;

also, BERYTUS.

EARTHQUAKE: A. D. 1692.

In Jamaica.

See JAMAICA: A. D. 1692.

EARTHQUAKE: A. D. 1755.

At Lisbon.

See LISBON: A. D. 1755.

EARTHQUAKE: A. D. 1812.

In Venezuela.

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1810-1819.

----------EARTHQUAKE: End----------

EAST AFRICA ASSOCIATIONS, British and German.

See AFRICA: A.. D. 1884-1889.

EAST ANGLIA.

The kingdom formed in Britain by that body of the Angles which

settled in the eastern district now embraced in the counties

of Norfolk and Suffolk (North-folk and South-folk).

EAST INDIA COMPANY,

The Dutch: A. D. 1602.

Its formation and first enterprises.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1594-1620.

EAST INDIA COMPANY: A. D. 1652.

Settlement at Cape of Good Hope.

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1486-1806.

EAST INDIA COMPANY: A. D. 1799.

Its dissolution.

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

----------EAST INDIA COMPANY (DUTCH): End----------

EAST INDIA COMPANY, The English: A. D. 1600-1702.

Its rise and early undertakings.

See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

EAST INDIA COMPANY: A. D. 1773.

Constitution of the Company changed by the Acts of Lord North.

See INDIA: A. D. 1770-1773.

EAST INDIA COMPANY: A. D. 1813-1833.-

Deprived of its monopoly of trade.

Reconstitution of government.

See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

EAST INDIA COMPANY: A. D. 1858.

The end of its rule.

See INDIA: A. D. 1858.

----------EAST INDIA COMPANY (ENGLISH): End----------

EAST INDIA COMPANY, The French.

See INDIA: A. D. 1665-1743.

EAST INDIES, Portuguese in the.

See INDIA: A. D. 1498-1580.

EASTERN CHURCH, The.

See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054.

EASTERN EMPIRE, The.

See ROME: 717-800;

and BYZANTINE EMPIRE.

EASTERN QUESTION, The.

"For a number of generations in Europe there has been one

question that, carelessly or maliciously touched upon, has

never failed to stimulate strife and discord among the

nations. This is 'the Eastern Question,' the problem how to

settle the disputes, political and religious, in the east of

Europe."

H. Murdock, The Reconstruction of Europe, page 17.

The first occasion in European politics on which the problems

of the Ottoman empire received the name of the Eastern

Question seems to have been that connected with the revolt of

Mehemet Ali in 1831 (see TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840). M. Guizot,

in his "Memoirs," when referring to that complication, employs

the term, and remarks: "I say the Eastern Question, for this

was in fact the name given by all the world to the quarrel

between the Sultan Mahmoud, and his subject the Pacha of

Egypt, Mehemet Ali. Why was this sounding title applied to a

local contest? Egypt is not the whole Ottoman empire. The

Ottoman empire is not the entire East. The rebellion, even the

dismemberment of a province, cannot comprise the fate of a

sovereignty. The great states of Western Europe have

alternately lost or acquired, either by internal dissension or

war, considerable territories; yet under the aspect of these

circumstances no one has spoken of the Western question. Why

then has a term never used in the territorial crises of

Christian Europe, been considered and admitted to be perfectly

natural and legitimate when the Ottoman empire is in argument?

It is that there is at present in the Ottoman empire no local

or partial question. If a shock is felt in a corner of the

edifice, if a single stone is detached, the entire building

appears to be, and is in fact, ready to fall. ... The Egyptian

question was in 1839 the question of the Ottoman empire

itself. And the question of the Ottoman empire is in reality

the Eastern question, not only of the European but of the

Asiatic East; for Asia is now the theatre of the leading

ambitions and rivalries of the great powers of Europe; and the

Ottoman empire is the highway, the gate, and the key of Asia."

F. P. Guizot, Memoirs to Illustrate the History of My Own

Time, volume 4, page 322.

The several occasions since 1840 on which the Eastern Question

has troubled Europe may be found narrated under the following

captions:

RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854, to 1854-1856;

TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877, 1877-1878, and 1878;

also BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.

Among English writers, the term "the Eastern Question" has

acquired a larger meaning, which takes in questions connected

with the advance of Russia upon the Afghan and Persian

frontiers.

Duke of Argyll, The Eastern Question.

See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1860-1881.

EATON, Dorman B., and Civil-Service Reform.

See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN THE UNITED STATES.

EBBSDORF, OR LUNEBURG HEATH, Battle of.

A great and disastrous battle of the Germans with the Danes,

or Northmen, fought February 2, 880. The Germans were terribly

beaten, and nearly all who survived the fight were swept away

into captivity and slavery. The slain received "martyrs'

honours; and their commemoration was celebrated in the

Sachsen-land churches till comparatively recent times. An

unexampled sorrow was created throughout Saxony by this

calamity, which, for a time, exhausted the country;

--Scandinavia and Jutland and the Baltic isles resounded with

exultation."

Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England,

book 1, chapter 4.

EBBSFLEET.

The supposed first landing-place in Britain of the Jutes,

under Hengest, A. D. 449 or 450, when English history, as

English, begins. It was also the landing-place, A. D. 597, of

Augustine and his fellow missionaries when they entered the

island to undertake the conversion of its new inhabitants to

Christianity. Ebbsfleet is in the Isle of Thanet, at the mouth

of the Thames.

See ENGLAND: 449-473, and 597-685.

EBERSBURG, Battle of.

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

EBIONISM.

The heresy (so branded) of a sect of Jewish Christians, which

spread somewhat extensively in the second, third and fourth

centuries. "The characteristic marks of Ebionism in all its

forms are: degradation of Christianity to the level of

Judaism; the principle of the universal and perpetual validity

of the Mosaic law; and enmity to the apostle Paul." The name

of the Ebionites came from a Hebrew word signifying "poor."

P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church,

second period, chapter 4, section 68.

{670}

EBLANI, The.

See IRELAND, TRIBES OF EARLY CELTIC INHABITANTS.

EBORACUM, OR EBURACUM.

The military capital of Roman Britain, and afterwards of the

Anglian kingdoms of Deira and Northumbria. In Old English its

name became Eorforwick, whence, by further corruption,

resulted the modern English name York. The city was one of

considerable splendor in Roman times, containing the imperial

palace with many temples and other imposing buildings.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 457-633.

EBURONES, Destruction of the.

The Eburones were a strong Germanic tribe, who occupied in

Cæsar's time the country between Liége and Cologne, and whose

ancestors were said to have formed part of the great migrant

horde of the Cimbri and Teutones. Under a young chief,

Ambiorix, they had taken the lead in the formidable revolt

which occurred among the Belgic tribes, B. C. 54-53. Cæsar,

when he had suppressed the revolt, determined to bring

destruction on the Eburones, and he executed his purpose in a

singular manner. He circulated a proclamation through all the

neighboring parts of Gaul and Germany, declaring the Eburones

to be traitors to Rome and outlaws, and offering them and

their goods as common prey to any who would fall on them. This

drew the surrounding barbarians like vultures to a feast, and

the wretched Eburones were soon hunted out of existence. Their

name disappeared from the annals of Gaul.

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 10.

ALSO IN:

Cæsar, Gallic Wars,

book 5, chapter 25-58; book 6, chapters 1-34.

G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic,

volume 4, chapters 13-14.

See, also, BELGÆ.

ECBATANA.

"The Southern Ecbatana or Agbatana,--which the Medes and

Persians themselves knew as Hagmatán,--was situated, as we

learn from Polybius and Diodorus, on a plain at the foot of

Mount Orontes, a little to the east of the Zagros range. The

notices of these authors ... and others, render it as nearly

certain as possible that the site was that of the modern town

of Hamadan. ... The Median capital has never yet attracted a

scientific expedition. ... The chief city of northern Media,

which bore in later times the names of Gaza, Gazaca, or

Canzaca, is thought to have been also called Ecbatana, and to

have been occasionally mistaken by the Greeks for the southern

or real capital."

G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Media, chapter 1.

ECCELINO, OR EZZELINO DI ROMANO,

The tyranny of, and the crusade against.

See VERONA: A. D. 1236-1259.

ECCLESIA.

The general legislative assembly of citizens in ancient Athens

and Sparta.

G. F. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece: The State, part 3.

ALSO IN:

G. Grote, History of Greece, chapter 31.

See ATHENS: B. C. 445-429.

ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL, The.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1850.

ECENI, OR ICENI, The.

See BRITAIN: A. D. 61.

ECGBERHT, King of Wessex, A. D. 800-836.

ECKMÜHL, Battle of.

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

ECNOMUS, Naval battle of (B. C. 256).

See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

ECORCHEURS, Les.

In the later period of the Hundred Years War, after the death

of the Maid of Orleans, when the English were being driven

from France and the authority of the king was not yet

established, lawless violence prevailed widely. "Adventurers

spread themselves over the provinces under a name, 'the

Skinners,' Les Ecorcheurs, which sufficiently betokens the

savage nature of their outrages, if we trace it to even its

mildest derivation, stripping shirts, not skins."

E. Smedley, History of France, part 1, chapter 14.

ECTHESIS OF HERACLIUS.

See MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY.

ÉCU, The order of the.

See BOURBON, THE HOUSE OF.

ECUADOR: Aboriginal inhabitants.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

ECUADOR:

The aboriginal kingdom of Quito and its conquest by the

Peruvians and the Spaniards.

"Of the old Quitu nation which inhabited the highlands to the

north and south of the present capital, nothing is known to

tradition but the name of its last king, Quitu, after whom his

subjects were probably called. His domains were invaded and

conquered by the nation of the Caras, or Carans, who had come

by sea in balsas (rafts) from parts unknown. These Caras, or

Carans, established the dynasty of the Scyris at Quito, and

extended their conquests to the north and south, until checked

by the warlike nation of the Puruhas, who inhabited the

present district of Riobamba. ... In the reign of Hualcopo

Duchicela, the 13th Scyri, the Peruvian Incas commenced to

extend their conquests to the north. ... About the middle of

the 15th century the Inca Tupac Yupanqui, father of

Huaynacapac, invaded the dominions of the Scyris, and after

many bloody battles and sieges, conquered the kingdom of

Puruha and returned in triumph to Cuzco. Hualcopo survived his

loss but a few years. He is said to have died of grief, and

was succeeded by his son Cacha, the 15th and last of the

Scyris. Cacha Duchicela at once set out to recover his

paternal dominions. Although of feeble health, he seems to

have been a man of great energy and intrepidity. He fell upon

the garrison which the Inca had left at Mocha, put it to the

sword, and reoccupied the kingdom of Puruha, where he was

received with open arms. He even carried his banners further

south, until checked by the Cañares, the inhabitants of what

is now the district of Cuenca, who had voluntarily submitted

to the Inca, and now detained the Scyri until Huaynacapac, the

greatest of the Inca dynasty, came to their rescue." On the

plain of Tiocajas, and again on the plain of Hatuntaqui, great

battles were fought, in both of which the Scyri was beaten,

and in the last of which he fell. "On the very field of battle

the faithful Caranquis proclaimed Pacha, the daughter of the

fallen king, as their Scyri. Huaynacapac now regulated his

conduct by policy. He ordered the dead king to be buried with

all the honors due to royalty, and made offers of marriage to

young Pacha, by whom he was not refused. ... The issue of the

marriage was Atahuallpa, the last of the native rulers of

Peru. ...

{671}

As prudent and highly politic as the conduct of Huaynacapac is

generally reputed to have been, so imprudent and unpolitic was

the division of the empire which he made on his death bed,

bequeathing his paternal dominions to his first-born and

undoubtedly legitimate son, Huascar, and to Atahuallpa the

kingdom of Quito. He might have foreseen the evil consequences

of such a partition. His death took place about the year 1525.

For five or seven years the brothers lived in peace." Then

quarrels arose, leading to civil war, resulting in the defeat

and death of Huascar. Atahuallpa had just become master of the

weakened and shaken empire of the Incas, when the invading

Spaniards, under Pizarro, fell on the doomed land and made its

riches their own. The conquest of the Spaniards did not

include the kingdom of Quito at first, but was extended to the

latter in 1533 by Sebastian de Benalcazar, whom Pizarro had

put in command of the Port of San Miguel. Excited by stories

of the riches of Quito, and invited by ambassadors from the

Canares, the old enemies of the Quito tribes, Benalcazar,

"without orders or permission from Pizarro ... left San

Miguel, at the head of about 150 men. His second in command

was the monster Juan de Ampudia." The fate of Quito was again

decided on the plain of Tiocajas, where Rumiñagui, a chief who

had seized the vacant throne, made a desperate but vain

resistance. He gained time, however, to remove whatever

treasures there may have been at Quito beyond the reach of its

rapacious conquerors, and "where he hid them is a secret to

the present day. ... Traditions of the great treasures hidden

in the mountains by Rumiñagui are eagerly repeated and

believed at Quito. ... Having removed the gold and killed the

Virgins of the Sun, and thus placed two objects so eagerly

coveted by the invaders beyond their reach, Rumiñagui set fire

to the town, and evacuated it with an his troops and

followers. It would be difficult to describe the rage,

mortification and despair of the Spaniards, on finding smoking

ruins instead of the treasures which they had expected. ...

Thousands of innocent Indians were sacrificed to their

disappointed cupidity. ... Every nook and corner of the

province was searched; but only in the sepulchres some little

gold was found. ... Of the ancient buildings of Quito no stone

was left upon the other, and deep excavations were made under

them to search for hidden treasures. Hence there is no vestige

left at Quito of its former civilization; not a ruin, not a

wall, not a stone to which the traditions of the past might

cling. ... On the 28th of August, 1534, the Spanish village of

Quito [San Francisco de Quito] was founded."

F. Hassaurek, Fours Years among Spanish Americans, chapter 16.

ALSO IN:

W. H. Prescott, History of Conquest of Peru,

book 3, chapter 2 (volume 1), and chapter 9 (volume 2).

ECUADOR:

In the empire of the Incas.

See PERU: THE EMPIRE OF THE INCAS.

ECUADOR: A. D. 1542.

The Audiencia of Quito established.

See AUDIENCIAS.

ECUADOR: A. D. 1821-1854.

Emancipation of slaves.

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1821-1854.

ECUADOR: A. D. 1822-1888.

Confederated with New Granada and Venezuela in the Colombian

Republic.

Dissolution of the Confederacy.

The rule of Flores.

In 1822 "the Province of Quito was incorporated into the

Colombian Republic [see COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1819-1830]. It

was now divided into three departments on the French system:

and the southernmost of these received its name from the

Equator (Ecuador) which passes through it. Shortly after

Venezuela had declared itself independent of the Colombian

Republic [1826--see, as above], the old province of Quito did

the same, and placed its fortunes in the hands of one of

Bolivar's lieutenants, named Flores. The name of Ecuador was

now extended to all three departments. Flores exercised the

chief authority for 15 years. The constitution limited the

Presidency to four: but Flores made an arrangement with one of

his lieutenants called Roca-Fuerte, by which they succeeded

each other, the outgoing President becoming governor of

Guayaquil. In 1843 Flores found himself strong enough to

improve upon this system. He called a convention, which

reformed the constitution in a reactionary sense, and named

him dictator for ten years. In 1845 the liberal reaction had

set in all over Colombia; and it soon became too strong for

Flores. Even his own supporters began to fail him, and he

agreed to quit the country on being paid an indemnity of

$20,000." During the next 15 years Ecuador was troubled by the

plots and attempts of Flores to regain his lost power. In

1860, with Peruvian help, he succeeded in placing one of his

party, Dr. Moreno, in the presidency, and he, himself, became

governor of Guayaquil. In August, 1875, Moreno was

assassinated.

E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, pages 251-252.

After the assassination of President Moreno, "the clergy

succeeded in seating Dr. Antonio Barrero in the presidential

chair by a peaceful and overwhelming election. ... Against his

government the liberal party made a revolution, and, September

8, 1876, succeeded in driving him from power, seating in his

place General Ygnacio de Veintemilla, who was one of Barrero's

officers, bound to him by many tics. ... He called an obedient

convention at Ambato, in 1878, which named him President ad

interim, and framed a constitution, the republicanism of which

it is difficult to find. Under this he was elected President

for four years, terminating 30th August, 1882, without right

of re-election except after an interval of four years."

G. E. Church, Report on Ecuador

(Senate Ex. Doc. 69, U. S. 47th Congress, 2d session, volume 3).

President Veintemilla seized power as a Dictator, by a

pronunciamento, April 2, 1882; but civil war ensued and he was

overthrown in 1883. Senor José M. P. Caamaño was then chosen

Provisional President, and in February, 1884, he was elected

President, by the Legislative body. He was succeeded in 1888

by Don Antonio Flores.

Statesman's Year-book, 1889.

----------ECUADOR: End----------

ECUMENICAL, OR ŒCUMENICAL COUNCIL.

A general or universal council of the Christian Church.

See COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH.

EDDAS, The.

"The chief depositories of the Norse mythology are the Elder

or Saemund's Edda (poetry) and the Younger or Snorre's Edda.

(prose). In Icelandic Edda means 'great-grand-mother,' and

some think this appellation refers to the ancient origin of

the myths it contains. Others connect it with the Indian

'Veda' and the Norse 'vide,' (Swedish 'vela,' to know)."

R. B. Anderson, Norse Mythology, chapter 7.

{672}

"The word Edda is never found at all in any of the dialects of

the Old Northern tongue, nor indeed in any other tongue known

to us. The first time it is met with is in the Lay of Righ,

where it is used as a title for great-grandmother, and from

this poem the word is cited (with other terms from the same

source) in the collection at the end of Scaldscaparmal. How or

why Snorri's book on the Poetic Art came to be called Edda we

have no actual testimony. ... Snorri's work, especially the

second part of it, Scaldscaparmal, handed down in copies and

abridgments through the Middle Ages, was looked on as setting

the standard and ideal of poetry. It seems to have kept up

indeed the very remembrance of court-poetry, the memory of

which, but for it, would otherwise have perished. But though

the mediæval poets do not copy Edda (i. e., Snorri's rules)

they constantly allude to it, and we have an unbroken series

of phrases from 1340 to 1640 in which Edda is used as a

synonym for the technical laws of the court-metre (a use, it

may be observed, entirely contrary to that of our own days)."

G. Vigfusson and F. Y. Powell, Corpus Poeticum

Boreale, volume 1, introduction, section 4.

EDESSA (Macedonia).

Edessa, or Ægre, the ancient Macedonian capital, "a place of

primitive antiquity, according to a Phrygian legend the site

of the gardens of Midas, at the northern extremity of Mount

Bermius, where the Lydias comes forth from the mountains. ...

Ægre was the natural capital of the land. With its foundation

the history of Macedonia had its beginning; Ægre is the germ

out of which the Macedonian empire grew."

E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 7, ch 1.

See, also, MACEDONIA.

EDESSA (Mesopotamia).

See OSRHŒNE.

EDESSA: The Church.

See CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100, and 100-312.

EDESSA: The Theological School.

Sec NESTORIANS.

EDESSA: A. D. 260.

Battle of.

See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

EDESSA: A. D. 1097-1144.

The Frank principality.

On the march of the armies of the First Crusade, as they

approached Syria, Baldwin, the able, selfish and self-willed

brother of Godfrey of Bouillon, left the main body of the

crusaders, with a band of followers, and moved off eastwards,

seeking the prizes of a very worldly ambition, and leaving his

devouter comrades to rescue the holy sepulchre without his

aid. Good fortune rewarded his enterprise and he secured

possession of the important city of Edessa. It was governed by

a Greek prince, who owed allegiance to the Byzantine emperor,

but who paid tribute to the Turks. "It had surrendered to

Pouzan, one of the generals of Malek-shah, in the year 1087,

but during the contests of the Turks and Saracens in the north

of Syria it had recovered its independence. Baldwin now

sullied the honour of the Franks, by exciting the people to

murder their governor Theodore, and rebel against the

Byzantine authority [other historians say that he was guilty

of no more than a passive permission of these acts]; he then

took possession of the place in his own name and founded the

Frank principality of Edessa, which lasted about 47 years."

G. Finlay, History of Byzantine and Greek Empires

A. D. 716-1453, book 3, chapter 2, section 1.

See, also, CRUSADES: A. D, 1006-1099, and 1147-1149;

also, JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.

----------EDESSA: End----------

EDGAR,

King of Scotland, A. D.1098-1107.

Edgar, King of Wessex, A. D. 958-975.

EDGECOTE, Battle of.

See BANBURY, BATTLE OF.

EDGEHILL OR KEYNTON, Battle of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1642 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

EDHEL

See ADEL.

EDHILING, OR ÆDHILING, The.

See ETHELING.

EDICT OF NANTES, and its revocation.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1508-1599, and 1681-1608.

EDICT OF RESTITUTION, The.

See GERMANY: A, D. 1627-1620.

EDICTS, Roman imperial.

See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

EDINBURGH:

Origin of the city.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 547-633.

EDINBURGH:11th Century.

Made the capital of Scotland.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1066-1003.

EDINBURGH: A. D. 1544.

Destroyed by the English.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1544-1548.

EDINBURGH: A. D. 1559-1560.

Seized by the Lords of the Congregation.

The Treaty of July, 1560.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1558-1560.

EDINBURGH: A. D. 1572-1573.

n the civil war.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1570-1573.

EDINBURGH: A. D. 1637.

Laud's Liturgy and the tumult at St. Giles'.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1637.

EDINBURGH: A. D. 1638.

The signing of the National Covenant.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1638.

EDINBURGH: A. D. 1650.

Surrender to Cromwell.

Siege and reduction of the Castle.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1650 (SEPTEMBER);

and 1651 (AUGUST).

EDINBURGH: A. D. 1688.

Rioting and revolution.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1688-1690.

EDINBURGH: A. D. 1707.

The city at the time of the union.

"Edinburgh, though still but a small town, excited the

admiration of travellers who were acquainted with the greatest

cities of England and the Continent; nor was their admiration

entirely due to the singular beauty of its situation. The

quaint architecture of the older houses--which sometimes rose

to the height of nine, ten or eleven stories--indeed, carried

back the mind to very barbarous times; for it was ascribed to

the desire of the population to live as near as possible to

the protection of the castle. The filth of the streets in the

early years of the 18th century was indescribable. ... The new

quarter, which now strikes every stranger by its spacious

symmetry, was not begun till the latter half of the 18th

century, but as early as 1723 an English traveller described

the High Street as 'the stateliest street in the world.' ...

Under the influence of the Kirk the public manners of the town

were marked by much decorum and even austerity, but the

populace were unusually susceptible of fierce political

enthusiasm, and when excited they were extremely formidable.

... A city guard, composed chiefly of fierce Highlanders,

armed and disciplined like regular soldiers, and placed under

the control of the magistrates, was established in 1606; and

it was not finally abolished till the present century.

Edinburgh, at the beginning of the 18th century, was more than

twice as large as any other Scotch town. Its population at the

time of the union slightly exceeded 30,000, while that of

Glasgow was not quite 15,000, that of Dundee not quite 10,000,

and that of Perth about 7,000."

W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th Century,

chapter 5 (volume 2).

{673}

EDINBURGH: A. D. 1736.

The Porteous Riot.

"The circumstances of the Porteous Riot are familiar wherever

the English tongue is spoken, because they were made the

dramatic opening of one of his finest stories by that

admirable genius who, like Shakespeare in his plays, has

conveyed to plain men more of the spirit and action of the

past in noble fiction, than they would find in most professed

chronicles of fact. The early scenes of the 'Heart of

Midlothian' are an accurate account of the transaction which

gave so much trouble to Queen Caroline and the minister

[Walpole]. A smuggler who had excited the popular imagination

by his daring and his chivalry was sentenced to be hanged;

after his execution the mob pressed forward to cut down his

body: Porteous, the captain of the City Guard, ordered his men

to fire, and several persons were shot dead: he was tried for

murder, convicted, and sentenced, but at the last moment a

reprieve arrived from London, to the intense indignation of a

crowd athirst for vengeance: four days later, under mysterious

ringleaders who could never afterwards be discovered, fierce

throngs suddenly gathered together at nightfall to the beat of

drum, broke into the prison, dragged out the unhappy Porteous,

and sternly hanged him on a dyer's pole close by the common

place of public execution."

J. Morley, Walpole, chapter 9.

ALSO IN:

J. McCarthy, History of the Four Georges,

chapter 24 (volume 2).

EDINBURGH: A. D. 1745.

The Young Pretender in the city.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1745-1746.

EDINBURGH: A. D. 1779.

No-Popery riots.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1778-1780.

----------EDINBURGH: End----------

EDINGTON, OR ETHANDUN, Battle of (A. D.878).

See ENGLAND: A. D. 855-880.

EDMUND,

King of Wessex, A. D. 940-947.

Edmund Ironside, King of Wessex, A. D. 1016.

EDOMITES, OR lDUMEANS, The.

"From a very early period the Edomites were the chief of the

nations of Arabia Petræa. Amongst the branches sprung,

according to Arab tradition, from the primitive Amalika, they

correspond to the Arcam, and the posterity of Esau, after

settling amongst them as we have seen, became the dominant

family from which the chiefs were chosen. The original

habitation of the Edomites was Mount Seir, whence they spread

over all the country called by the Greeks Gebalene, that is

the prolongation of the mountains joining on the north the

land of Moab, into the Valley of Arabah, and the surrounding

heights. ... Saul successfully fought the Edomites; under

David, Joab and Abishai, his generals, completely defeated

them, and David placed garrisons in their towns. In their

ports of Elath and Eziongeber were built the fleets sent to

India by Hiram and Solomon. ... After the schism of the ten

tribes, the Edomites remained dependent on the King of Judah."

F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History of the East,

book 7, chapter 4.

See, also,

NABATHEANS; JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW

HISTORY; and AMALEKITES.

EDRED, King of Wessex, A. D. 947-955.

EDRISITES, The.

After the revolt of Moorish or Mahometan Spain from the

caliphate of Bagdad, the African provinces of the Moslems

assumed independence, and several dynasties became

seated--among them that of the Edrisites, which founded the

city and kingdom of Fez, and which reigned from A. D. 829 to

907.

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

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

See, also, MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-750.

----------EDRISITES: End----------

EDUCATION.

EDUCATION: Ancient.

Egypt.

"In the education of youth [the Egyptians] were particularly

strict; and 'they knew,' says Plato, 'that children ought to

be early accustomed to such gestures, looks, and motions as

are decent and proper; and not to be suffered either to hear

or learn any verses and songs other than those which are

calculated to inspire them with virtue; and they consequently

took care that every dance and ode introduced at their feasts

or sacrifices should be subject to certain regulations.'"

Sir J. G. Wilkinson, The Manners and Customs

of the Ancient Egyptians, volume 1. page 321.

"The children were educated according to their station and

their future position in life. They were kept in strict

subjection by their parents, and respect to old age was

particularly inculcated; the children of the priests were

educated very thoroughly in writing of all kinds,

hieroglyphic, hieratic, and demotic, and in the sciences of

astronomy, mathematics, etc. The Jewish deliverer Moses was

educated after the manner of the priests, and the 'wisdom of

the Egyptians' became a proverbial expression among the

outside nations, as indicating the utmost limit of human

knowledge."

E. A. W. Budge, The Dwellers on the Nile, chapter 10.

"On the education of the Egyptians, Diodorus makes the

following remarks:--'The children of the priests are taught

two different kinds of writing,--what is called the sacred,

and the more general; and they pay great attention to geometry

and arithmetic. For the river, changing the appearance of the

country very materially every year, is the cause of many and

various discussions among neighbouring proprietors about the

extent of their property; and it would be difficult for any

person to decide upon their claims without geometrical

reasoning, founded on actual observation. Of arithmetic they

have also frequent need, both in their domestic economy, and

in the application of geometrical theorems, besides its

utility in the cultivation of astronomical studies; for the

orders and motions of the stars are observed at least as

industriously by the Egyptians as by any people whatever; and

they keep record of the motions of each for an incredible

number of years, the study of this science having been, from

the remotest times, an object of national ambition with them.

... But the generality of the common people learn only from

their parents or relations that which is required for the

exercise of their peculiar professions, ... a few only being

taught anything of literature, and those principally the

better class of artificers.' Hence it appears they were not

confined to any particular rules in the mode of educating

their children, and it depended upon a parent to choose

the degree of instruction he deemed most suitable to their

mode of life and occupations, as among other civilised

nations."

Sir J. G. Wilkinson, The Manners and Customs of

the Egyptians, volume 1, pages 175-176.

{674}

"There is nothing like being a scribe,' the wise say; 'the

scribe gets all that is upon earth.' ... The scribe is simply

a man who knows how to read and write, to draw up

administrative formulas, and to calculate interest. The

instruction which he has received is a necessary complement of

his position if he belongs to a good family, whilst if he be

poor it enables him to obtain a lucrative situation in the

administration or at the house of a wealthy personage. There

is, therefore, no sacrifice which the smaller folk deem too

great, if it enables them to give their sons the acquirements

which may raise them above the common people, or at least

insure a less miserable fate. If one of them, in his infancy,

displays any intelligence, they send him, when about six or

eight years old, to the district school, where an old

pedagogue teaches him the rudiments of reading, writing, and

arithmetic. Towards ten or twelve years old, they withdraw him

from the care of this first teacher and apprentice him to a

scribe in some office, who undertakes to make him a 'learned

scribe.' The child accompanies his master to his office or

work-yard, and there passes entire months in copying letters,

circulars, legal documents, or accounts, which he does not at

first understand, but which he faithfully remembers. There are

books for his use full of copies taken from well-known

authors, which he studies perpetually. If he requires a brief,

precise report, this is how Ennana worded one of his:--'I

reached Elephantine and accomplished my mission. I reviewed

the infantry and the chariot soldiers from the temples, as

well as the servants and subordinates who are in the houses of

Pharaoh's ... officials. As my journey is for the purpose of

making a report in the presence of his Majesty, ... the course

of my business is as rapid as that of the Nile; you need not,

therefore, feel anxious about me.' There is not a superfluous

word. If, on the other hand, a petition in a poetical style be

required, see how Pentoïrit asked for a holiday. 'My heart has

left me, it is travelling and does not know how to return, it

sees Memphis and hastens there. Would that I were in its

place. I remain here, busy following my heart, which

endeavours to draw me towards Memphis. I have no work in hand,

my heart is tormented. May it please the god Ptah to lead me

to Memphis, and do thou grant that I may be seen walking

there. I am at leisure, my heart is watching, my heart is no

longer in my bosom, languor has seized my limbs; my eye is

dim, my ear hardened, my voice feeble, it is a failure of all

my strength. I pray thee remedy all this.' The pupil copies

and recopies, the master inserts forgotten words, corrects the

faults of spelling, and draws on the margin the signs or

groups unskilfully traced. When the book is duly finished and

the apprentice can write all the formulas from memory,

portions of phrases are detached from them, which he must join

together, so as to combine new formulas; the master then

entrusts him with the composition of a few letters, gradually

increasing the number and adding to the difficulties. As soon

as he has fairly mastered the ordinary daily routine his

education is ended, and an unimportant post is sought for. He

obtains it and then marries, becoming the head of a family,

sometimes before he is twenty years old; he has no further

ambition, but is content to vegetate quietly in the obscure

circle where fate has thrown him."

G. Maspéro, Life in Ancient Egypt and Assyria, chapter 1.

"In the schools, where the poor scribe's child sat on the

same bench beside the offspring of the rich, to be trained in

discipline and wise learning, the masters knew how by timely

words to goad on the lagging diligence of the ambitious

scholars, by holding out to them the future reward which

awaited youths skilled in knowledge and letters. Thus the

slumbering spark of self-esteem was stirred to a flame in the

youthful breast, and emulation was stimulated among the boys.

The clever son of the poor man, too, might hope by his

knowledge to climb the ladder of the higher offices, for

neither his birth nor position raised any barrier, if only

the youth's mental power justified fair hopes for the future.

In this sense, the restraints of caste did not exist, and

neither descent nor family hampered the rising career of the

clever. Many a monument consecrated to the memory of some

nobleman gone to his long home, who during life had held high

rank at the court of Pharaoh, is decorated with the simple

but laudatory inscription, 'His ancestors were unknown

people.' It is a satisfaction to avow that the training and

instruction of the young interested the Egyptians in the

highest degree. For they fully recognised in this the sole

means of cultivating their national life, and of fulfilling

the high civilizing mission which Providence seemed to have

placed in their hands. But above all things they regarded

justice, and virtue had the highest price in their eyes."

H. Brugsch-Bey, History of Egypt under the

Pharaohs, volume 1, page 22.

EDUCATION:

Babylonia and Assyria.

"The primitive Chaldeans were pre-eminently a literary people,

and it is by their literary relics, by the scattered contents

of their libraries, that we can know and judge them. As

befitted the inventors of a system of writing, like the

Chinese they set the highest value on education, even though

examinations may have been unknown among them. Education,

however, was widely diffused. ... Assur-bani-pal's library was

open to the use and enjoyment of all his subjects, and the

syllabaries, grammars, lexicons, and reading-books that it

contained, show the extent to which not only their own

language was studied by the Assyrians, but the dead language

of ancient Accad as well. It became as fashionable to compose

in this extinct tongue as it is now-a-days to display one's

proficiency in Latin prose, and 'dog-Accadian' was perpetrated

with as little remorse as 'dog-Latin' at the present time. One

of the Babylonian cylinders found by General di Cesnola in the

temple-treasure of Kurium, which probably belongs to the

period of Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty, has a legend which

endeavours to imitate the inscriptions of the early Accadian

princes; but the very first word, by an unhappy error, betrays

the insufficient knowledge of the old language possessed by

its composer. Besides a knowledge of Accadian, the educated

Assyrian was required to have also a knowledge of Aramaic,

which had now become the 'lingua franca' of trade and

diplomacy; and we find the Rabshakeh (Rab-sakki), or prime

minister, who was sent against Hezekiah by Sennacherib,

acquainted with Hebrew as well.

{675}

The grammatical and lexical works in the library of

Nineveh are especially interesting, as being the earliest

attempts of the kind of which we know, and it is curious to

find the Hamiltonian method of learning languages forestalled

by the scribes of Assur-bani-pal. In this case, as in all

others, the first enquiries into the nature of speech, and the

first grammars and dictionaries, were due to the necessity of

comparing two languages together; it was the Accadian which

forced the Semitic Assyrian or Babylonian to study his own

tongue. And already in these first efforts the main principles

of Semitic grammar are laid down clearly and definitely."

A. H. Sayce, Babylonian Literature, pages 71-72.

"The Babylonians were the Chinese of the ancient world. They

were essentially a reading and writing people. ... The books

were for the most part written upon clay with a wooden reed or

metal stylus, for clay was cheap and plentiful, and easily

impressed with the wedge-shaped lines of which the characters

were composed. But besides clay, papyrus and possibly also

parchment were employed as writing materials. ... The use of

clay for writing purposes extended, along with Babylonian

culture, to the neighbouring populations of the East. ... It

is astonishing how much matter can be compressed into the

compass of a single tablet: The cuneiform system of writing

allowed the use of many abbreviations--thanks to its

'ideographic' nature--and the characters were frequently of a

very minute size. Indeed, so minute is the writing on many of

the Assyrian (as distinguished from the Babylonian) tablets

that it is clear not only that the Assyrian scribes and

readers must have been decidedly short-sighted, but also that

they must have made use of magnifying glasses. We need not be

surprised, therefore, to learn that Sir A. H. Layard

discovered a crystal lens, which had been turned on a lathe,

upon the site of the great library of Nineveh. ... To learn

the cuneiform syllabary was a task of much time and labour.

The student was accordingly provided with various means of

assistance. The characters of the syllabary were classified

and named; they were further arranged according to a certain

order, which partly depended on the number of wedges or lines

of which each was composed. Moreover, what we may term

dictionaries were compiled. ... To learn the signs, however,

with their multitudinous phonetic values and ideographic

significations, was not the whole of the labour which the

Babylonian boy had to accomplish. The cuneiform system of

writing, along with the culture which had produced it, had

been the invention of the non-Semitic Accado-Sumerian race,

from whom it had been borrowed by the Semites. In Semitic

hands the syllabary underwent further modifications and

additions, but it bore upon it to the last the stamp of its

alien origin. On this account alone, therefore, the Babylonian

student who wished to acquire a knowledge of reading and

writing was obliged to learn the extinct language of the older

population of the country. There was, however, another reason

which even more imperatively obliged him to study the earlier

tongue. A large proportion of the ancient literature, more

especially that which related to religious subjects, was

written in Accado-Sumerian. Even the law-cases of earlier

times, which formed precedents for the law of a later age,

were in the same language. In fact, Accado-Sumerian stood in

much the same relation to the Semitic Babylonians that Latin

has stood to the modern inhabitants of Europe. ... Besides

learning the syllabary, therefore, the Babylonian boy had to

learn the extinct of Accad and Sumer. ... The study of foreign

tongues naturally brought with it an inquisitiveness about the

languages of other people, as well as a passion for etymology.

... But there were other things besides languages which the

young student in the schools of Babylonia and Assyria was

called upon to learn. Geography, history, the names and nature

of plants, birds, animals, and stones, as well as the elements

of law and religion, were all objects of instruction. The

British Museum possesses what may be called the historical

exercise of some Babylonian lad in the age of Nebuchadnezzar

or Cyrus, consisting of a list of the kings belonging to one

of the early dynasties, which he had been required to learn by

heart. ... A considerable proportion of the inhabitants of

Babylonia could read and write. The contract tablets are

written in a variety of running hands, some of which are as

bad as the worst that passes through the modern post. Every

legal document required the signatures of a number of

witnesses, and most of these were able to write their own

names. ... In Assyria, however, education was by no means so

widely spread. Apart from the upper and professional classes,

including the men of business, it was confined to a special

body of men--the public scribes. ... There was none of that

jealous exclusion of women in ancient Babylonia which

characterizes the East of today, and it is probable that boys

and girls pursued their studies at the same schools. The

education of a child must have begun early."

A. H. Sayce, Social Life among the Babylonians, chapter 3.

EDUCATION:

China.

"It is not, perhaps, generally known that Peking contains an

ancient university; for, though certain buildings connected

with it have been frequently described, the institution itself

has been but little noticed. It gives, indeed, so few signs of

life that it is not surprising it should be overlooked. ... If

a local situation be deemed an essential element of identity,

this old university must yield the palm of age to many in

Europe, for in its present site it dates, at most, only from

the Yuen, or Mongol, dynasty, in the beginning of the

fourteenth century. But as an imperial institution, having a

fixed organization and definite objects, it carries its

history, or at least its pedigree, back to a period far

anterior to the founding of the Great Wall. Among the

Regulations of the House of Chow, which flourished a thousand

years before the Christian era, we meet with it already in

full-blown vigor, and under the identical name which it now

bears, that of Kwotszekien, or 'School for the Sons of the

Empire.' It was in its glory before the light of science

dawned on Greece, and when Pythagoras and Plato were pumping

their secrets from the priests of Heliopolis. And it still

exists, but it is only an embodiment of 'life in death:' its

halls are tombs, and its officers living mummies. In the 13th

Book of the Chowle (see Rites de Tcheou, traduction par

Édouard Biot), we find the functions of the heads of the

Kwotszekien laid down with a good deal of minuteness.

{676}

The presidents were to admonish the Emperor of that which is

good and just, and to instruct the Sons of the State in the

'three constant virtues' and the 'three practical duties'--in

other words, to give a course of lectures on moral philosophy.

The vice-presidents were to reprove the Emperor for his faults

(i. e., to perform the duty of official censors) and to

discipline the Sons of the State in the sciences and

arts--viz., in arithmetic, writing, music, archery,

horsemanship and ritual ceremonies. ... The old curriculum is

religiously adhered to, but greater latitude is given, as we

shall have occasion to observe, to the term 'Sons of the

State.' In the days of Chow, this meant the heir-apparent,

princes of the blood, and children of the nobility. Under the

Tatsing dynasty it signifies men of defective scholarship

throughout the provinces, who purchase literary degrees, and

more specifically certain indigent students of Peking, who are

aided by the imperial bounty. The Kwotszekien is located in

the northeastern angle of the Tartar city, with a temple of

Confucius attached, which is one of the finest in the Empire.

The main edifice (that of the temple) consists of a single

story of imposing height, with a porcelain roof of tent-like

curvature. ... It contains no seats, as all comers are

expected to stand or kneel in presence of the Great Teacher.

Neither does it boast anything in the way of artistic

decoration, nor exhibit any trace of that neatness and taste

which we look for in a sacred place. Perhaps its vast area is

designedly left to dust and emptiness, in order that nothing

may intervene to disturb the mind in the contemplation of a

great name which receives the homage of a nation. ... In an

adjacent block or square stands a pavilion known as the

'Imperial Lecture-room,' because it is incumbent on each

occupant of the Dragon throne to go there at least once in his

life-time to hear a discourse on the nature and

responsibilities of his office. ... A canal spanned by marble

bridges encircles the pavilion, and arches of glittering

porcelain, in excellent repair, adorn the grounds. But neither

these nor the pavilion itself constitutes the chief attraction

of the place. Under a long corridor which encloses the entire

space may be seen as many as one hundred and eighty-two

columns of massive granite, each inscribed with a portion of

the canonical books. These are the 'Stone Classics'--the

entire 'Thirteen,' which formed the staple of a Chinese

education, being here enshrined in a material supposed to be

imperishable. Among all the Universities in the world, the

Kwotszekien is unique in the possession of such a library.

This is not, indeed, the only stone library extant--another of

equal extent being found at Singanfu, the ancient capital of

the Tangs. But, that too, was the property of the Kwotszekien

ten centuries ago, when Singan was the seat of empire. The

'School for the Sons of the Empire' must needs follow the

migrations of the court; and that library, costly as it was,

being too heavy for transportation, it was thought best to

supply its place by the new edition which we have been

describing. ... In front of the temple stands a forest of

columns of scarcely inferior interest. They are three hundred

and twenty in number, and contain the university roll of

honor, a complete list of all who since the founding of the

institution have attained to the dignity of the doctorate.

Allow to each an average of two hundred names, and we have an

army of doctors sixty thousand strong! (By the doctorate I

mean the third or highest degree.) All these received their

investiture at the Kwotszekien, and, throwing themselves at

the feet of its president, enrolled themselves among the 'Sons

of the Empire.' They were not, however--at least the most of

them were not--in any proper sense alumni of the Kwotszekien,

having pursued their studies in private, and won their honors

by public competition in the halls of the Civil-service

Examining Board. ... There is an immense area occupied by

lecture-rooms, examination-halls and lodging-apartments. But

the visitor is liable to imagine that these, too, are

consecrated to a monumental use--so rarely is a student or a

professor to be seen among them. Ordinarily they are as

desolate as the halls of Baalbec or Palmyra. In fact, this

great school for the 'Sons of the Empire' has long ceased to

be a seat of instruction, and degenerated into a mere

appendage of the civil-service competitive examinations on

which it hangs as a dead weight, corrupting and debasing

instead of advancing the standard of national education."

W. A. P. Martin, The Chinese, their Education,

Philosophy and Letters, pages 85-90.

EDUCATION:

Persia.

"All the best authorities are agreed that great pains were

taken by the Persians--or, at any rate, by those of the

leading clans--in the education of their sons. During the

first five years of his life the boy remained wholly with the

women, and was scarcely, if at all, seen by his father. After

that time his training commenced. He was expected to rise

before dawn, and to appear at a certain spot, where he was

exercised with other boys of his age in running, slinging

stones, shooting with the bow, and throwing the javelin. At

seven he was taught to ride, and soon afterward he was allowed

to begin to hunt. The riding included, not only the ordinary

management of the horse, but the power of jumping on and off

his back when he was at speed, and of shooting with the bow

and throwing the javelin with unerring aim, while the horse

was still at full gallop. The hunting was conducted by

state-officers, who aimed at forming by its means in the

youths committed to their charge all the qualities needed in

war. The boys were made to bear extremes of heat and cold, to

perform long marches, to cross rivers without wetting their

weapons, to sleep in the open air at night, to be content with

a single meal in two days, and to support themselves

occasionally on the wild products of the country, acorns, wild

pears and the fruit of the terebinth tree. On days when there

was no hunting they passed their mornings in athletic

exercises, and contests with the bow or the javelin, after

which they dined simply on the plain food mentioned above as

that of the men in the early times, and then employed

themselves during the afternoon in occupations regarded as not

illiberal--for instance, in the pursuits of agriculture,

planting, digging for roots, and the like, or in the

construction of arms and hunting implements, such as nets and

springes. Hardy and temperate habits being secured by this

training, the point of morals on which their preceptors mainly

insisted was the rigid observance of truth. Of intellectual

education they had but little. It seems to have been no part

of the regular training of a Persian youth that he should

learn to read.

{677}

He was given religious notions and a certain amount of moral

knowledge by means of legendary poems, in which the deeds of

gods and heroes were set before him by his teachers, who

recited or sung them in his presence, and afterwards required

him to repeat what he had heard, or, at any rate, to give some

account of it. This education continued for fifteen years,

commencing when the boy was five, and terminating when he

reached the age of twenty. The effect of this training was to

render the Persian an excellent soldier and a most

accomplished horseman. ... At fifteen years of age the Persian

was considered to have attained to manhood, and was enrolled

in the ranks of the army, continuing liable to military

service from that time till he reached the age of fifty. Those

of the highest rank became the body-guard of the king, and

these formed the garrison of the capital. ... Others, though

liable to military service, did not adopt arms as their

profession, but attached themselves to the Court and looked to

civil employment, as satraps, secretaries, attendants, ushers,

judges, inspectors, messengers. ... For trade and commerce the

Persians were wont to express extreme contempt."

G. Rawlinson, The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient

Eastern World, volume 3, pages 238-242.

After the death of Cyrus, according to Xenophon, the Persians

degenerated, in the education of their youth and otherwise.

"To educate the youth at the gates of the palace is still the

custom," he says; "but the attainment and practice of

horsemanship are extinct, because they do not go where they

can gain applause by exhibiting skill in that exercise.

Whereas, too, in former times, the boys, hearing causes justly

decided there, were considered by that means to learn justice,

that custom is altogether altered; for they now see those gain

their causes who offer the highest bribes. Formerly, also,

boys were taught the virtues of the various productions of the

earth, in order that they might use the serviceable, and avoid

the noxious; but now they seem to be taught those particulars

that they may do as much harm as possible; at least there are

nowhere so many killed or injured by poison as in that

country."

Xenophon, Cyropædia and Hellenics; trans. by J. S.

Watson and H. Dale, pages 284-285.

EDUCATION:

Judæa.

"According to the statement of Josephus, Moses had already

prescribed 'that boys should learn the most important laws,

because that is the best knowledge and the cause of

prosperity.' 'He commanded to instruct children in the

elements of knowledge (reading and writing), to teach them to

walk according to the laws, and to know the deeds of their

forefathers. The latter, that they might imitate them; the

former, that growing up with the laws they might not

transgress them, nor have the excuse of ignorance.' Josephus

repeatedly commends the zeal with which the instruction of the

young was carried on. 'We take most pains of all with the

instruction of children, and esteem the observance of the laws

and the piety corresponding with them the most important

affair of our whole life.' 'If anyone should question one of

us concerning the laws, he would more easily repeat all than

his own name. Since we learn them from our first

consciousness, we have them, as it were, engraven on our

souls; and a transgression is rare, but the averting of

punishment impossible.' In like manner does Philo express

himself: 'Since the Jews esteem their laws as divine

revelations, and are instructed in the knowledge of them from

their earliest youth, they bear the image of the law in their

souls.' ... In view of all this testimony it cannot be

doubted, that in the circles of genuine Judaism boys were from

their tenderest childhood made acquainted with the demands of

the law. That this education in the law was, in the first

place, the duty and task of parents is self-evident. But it

appears, that even in the age of Christ, care was also taken

for the instruction of youth by the erection of schools on the

part of the community. ... The later tradition that Joshua ben

Gamla (Jesus the son of Gamaliel) enacted that teachers of

boys ... should be appointed in every province and in every

town, and that children of the age of six or seven should be

brought to them, is by no means incredible. The only Jesus the

son of Gamaliel known to history is the high priest of that

name, about 63-65 after Christ. ... It must therefore be he

who is intended in the above notice. As his measures

presuppose a somewhat longer existence of boys' schools, we

may without hesitation transfer them to the age of Christ,

even though not as a general and established institution. The

subject of instruction, as already appears from the above

passages of Josephus and Philo, was as good as exclusively the

law. For only its inculcation in the youthful mind, and not

the means of general education, was the aim of all this zeal

for the instruction of youth. And indeed the earliest

instruction was in the reading and inculcation of the text of

scripture. ... Habitual practice went hand in hand with

theoretical instruction. For though children were not actually

bound to fulfil the law, they were yet accustomed to it from

their youth up."

E. Schürer, History of the Jewish People in the time of

Jesus Christ, volume 2, pages 47-50.

In the fourth century B. C. the Council of Seventy Elders

"instituted regularly appointed readings from the Law; on

every sabbath and on every week day a portion from the

Pentateuch was to be read to the assembled congregation. Twice

a week, when the country people came up from the villages to

market in the neighbouring towns, or to appeal at the courts

of justice, some verses of the Pentateuch, however few, were

read publicly. At first only the learned were allowed to read,

but at last it was looked upon as so great an honour to belong

to the readers, that everyone attempted or desired to do so.

Unfortunately the characters in which the Torah was written

were hardly readable. Until that date the text of the Torah

had been written in the ancient style with Phœnician or old

Babylonian characters, which could only be deciphered by

practised scribes. ... From the constant reading of the Law,

there arose among the Judæans an intellectual activity and

vigour, which at last gave a special character to the whole

nation. The Torah became their spiritual and intellectual

property, and their own inner sanctuary. At this time there

sprang up other important institutions, namely, schools, where

the young men could stimulate their ardour and increase their

knowledge of the Law and its teachings. The intellectual

leaders of the people continually enjoined on the rising

generation, 'Bring up a great many disciples.' And what they

enjoined so strenuously they themselves must have assisted to

accomplish. One of these religious schools (Beth-Waad) was

probably established in Jerusalem.

{678}

The teachers were called scribes (sopherim) or wise men; the

disciples, pupils of the wise (Talmude Chachamim). The wise

men or scribes had a two-fold work; on the one hand they had

to explain the Torah, and on the other, to make the laws

applicable to each individual and to the community at large.

This supplementary interpretation was called 'explanation'

(Midrash); it was not altogether arbitrary, but rested upon

certain rules laid down for the proper interpretation of the

law. The supreme council and the houses of learning worked

together, and one completed the other. A hardly perceptible,

but most important movement was the result; for the

descendants of the Judæans of that age were endowed with a

characteristic, which they might otherwise have claimed as

inborn, the talent for research and the intellectual

penetration, needed for turning and returning words and data,

in order to discover some new and hidden meaning."

H. Graetz, History of the Jews, volume 1, chapter 20.

EDUCATION:

Schools of the Prophets.

"In his [Samuel's] time we first hear of what in modern

phraseology are called the Schools of the Prophets. Whatever

be the precise meaning of the peculiar word, which now came

first into use as the designation of these companies, it is

evident that their immediate mission consisted in uttering

religious hymns or songs, accompanied by musical

instruments--psaltery, tabret, pipe and harp, and cymbals. In

them, as in the few solitary instances of their predecessors,

the characteristic element was that the silent seer of visions

found an articulate voice, gushing forth in a rhythmical flow,

which at once riveted the attention of the hearer. These, or

such as these, were the gifts which under Samuel were now

organized, if one may say so, into a system."

Dean Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish

Church, lecture 18.

EDUCATION:

Greece.

A description of the Athenian education of the young is given

by Plato in one of his dialogues: "Education," he says, "and

admonition commence in the first years of childhood, and last

to the very end of life. Mother and nurse and father and tutor

are quarrelling about the improvement of the child as soon as

ever he is able to understand them: he cannot say or do

anything without their setting forth to him that this is just

and that is unjust; this is honourable, that is dishonourable;

this is holy, that is unholy; do this and abstain from that.

And if he obeys, well and good; if not, he is straightened by

threats and blows, like a piece of warped wood. At a later

stage they send him to teachers, and enjoin them to see to his

manners even more than to his reading and music; and the

teachers do as they are desired. And when the boy has learned

his letters and is beginning to understand what is written·,

as before he understood only what was spoken, they put into

his hands the works of great poets, which he reads at school;

in these are contained many admonitions, and many tales, and

praises, and encomia of ancient famous men, which he is

required to learn by heart, in order that he may imitate or

emulate them and desire to become like them. Then, again, the

teachers of the lyre take similar care that their young

disciple is temperate and gets into no mischief; and when they

have taught him the use of the lyre, they introduce him to the

poems of other excellent poets, who are the lyric poets; and

these they set to music, and make their harmonies and rhythms

quite familiar to the children, in order that they may learn

to be more gentle, and harmonious, and rhythmical, and so more

fitted for speech and action; for the life of men in every

part has need of harmony and rhythm. Then they send them to

the master of gymnastic, in order that their bodies may better

minister to the virtuous mind, and that the weakness of their

bodies may not force them to play the coward in war or on any

other occasion. This is what is done by those who have the

means, and those who have the means are the rich; their

children begin education soonest and leave off latest. When

they have done with masters, the state again compels them to

learn the laws, and live after the pattern which they furnish,

and not after their own fancies; and just as in learning to

write, the writing-master first draws lines with a style for

the use of the young beginner, and gives him the tablet and

makes him follow the lines, so the city draws the laws, which

were the invention of good law-givers who were of old times;

these are given to the young man, in order to guide him in his

conduct whether as ruler or ruled; and he who transgresses

them is to be corrected, or, in other words, called to

account, which is a term used not only in your country, but

also in many others. Now when there is all this care about

virtue private and public, why, Socrates, do you still wonder

and doubt whether virtue can be taught?"

Plato, Protagoras (Dialogue; trans. by Jowett, volume 1).

The ideas of Aristotle on the subject are in the following:

"There can be no doubt that children should be taught those

useful things which are really necessary, but not all thing's;

for occupations are divided into liberal and illiberal; and to

young children should be imparted only such kinds of knowledge

as will be useful to them without vulgarizing them. And any

occupation, art, or science, which makes the body or soul or

mind of the freeman less fit for the practice or exercise of

virtue, is vulgar; wherefore we call those arts vulgar which

tend to deform the body, and likewise all paid employments,

for they absorb and degrade the mind. There are also some

liberal arts quite proper for a freeman to acquire, but only

in a certain degree, and if he attend to them too closely, in

order to obtain perfection in them, the same evil effects will

follow. The object also which a man sets before him makes a

great difference; if he does or learns anything for his own

sake or for the sake of his friends, or with a view to

excellence, the action will not appear illiberal; but if done

for the sake of others, the very same action will be thought

menial and servile. The received subjects of instruction, as I

have already remarked, are partly of a liberal and partly of

an illiberal character. The customary branches of education

are in number four; they are--(l) reading and writing, (2)

gymnastic exercises, (3) music, to which is sometimes added

(4) drawing. Of these, reading and writing and drawing are

regarded as useful for the purposes of life in a variety of

ways, and gymnastic exercises are thought to infuse courage.

Concerning music a doubt may be raised--in our own day most

men cultivate it for the sake of pleasure, but originally it

was included in education, because nature herself, as has been

often said, requires that we should be able, not only to work

well, but to use leisure well; for, as I must repeat once and

again, the first principle of all action is leisure.

{679}

Both are required, but leisure is better than occupation; and

therefore the question must be asked in good earnest, what

ought we to do when at leisure? Clearly we ought not to be

amusing ourselves, for then amusement would be the end of

life. But if this is inconceivable, and yet amid serious

occupations amusement is needed more than at other times (for

he who is hard at work has need of relaxation, and amusement

gives relaxation, whereas occupation is always accompanied

with exertion and effort), at suitable times we should

introduce amusements, and they should be our medicines, for

the emotion which they create in the soul is a relaxation, and

from the pleasure we obtain rest. ... It is clear then that

there are branches of learning and education which we must

study with a view to the enjoyment of leisure, and these are

to be valued for their own sake; whereas those kinds of

knowledge which are useful in business are to be deemed

necessary, and exist for the sake of other things. And

therefore our fathers admitted music into education, not on

the ground either of its necessity or utility, for it is not

necessary, nor indeed useful in the same manner as reading and

writing, which are useful in money-making, in the management

of a house-hold, in the acquisition of knowledge and in

political life, nor like drawing, useful for a more correct

judgment of the works of artists, nor again like gymnastic,

which gives health and strength; for neither of these is to be

gained from music. There remains, then, the use of music for

intellectual enjoyment in leisure; which appears to have been

the reason of its introduction, this being one of the ways in

which it is thought that a freeman should pass his leisure.

... We are now in a position to say that the ancients witness

to us; for their opinion may be gathered from the fact that

music is one of the received and traditional branches of

education. Further, it is clear that children should be

instructed in some useful things,--for example, in reading and

writing,--not only for their usefulness, but also because many

other sorts of knowledge are acquired through them. With a

like view they may be taught drawing, not to prevent their

making mistakes in their own purchases, or in order that they

may not be imposed upon in the buying or selling of articles,

but rather because it makes them judges of the beauty of the

human form. To be always seeking after the useful does not

become free and exalted souls. ... We reject the professional

instruments and also the professional mode of education in

music--and by professional we mean that which is adopted in

contests, for in this the performer practises the art, not for

the sake of his own improvement, but in order to give

pleasure, and that of a vulgar sort, to his hearers. For this

reason the execution of such music is not the part of a

freeman but of a paid performer, and the result is that the

performers are vulgarized, for the end at which they aim is

bad."

Aristotle, Politics (Jowett's Translation), book 8.

"The most striking difference between early Greek education

and ours was undoubtedly this; that the physical development

of boys was attended to in a special place and by a special

master. It was not thought sufficient for them to play the

chance games of childhood; they underwent careful bodily

training under a very fixed system, which was determined by

the athletic contests of after life. ... When we compare what

the Greeks afforded to their boys, we find it divided into two

contrasted kinds of exercise: hunting, which was practised by

the Spartans very keenly, and no doubt also by the Eleans and

Arcadians, as may be seen from Xenophon's 'Tract on (Hare)

Hunting'; and gymnastics, which in the case of boys were

carried on in the so-caned palæstra, a sort of open-air

gymnasium (in our sense) kept by private individuals as a

speculation, and to which the boys were sent, as they were to

their ordinary school-master. We find that the Spartans, who

had ample scope for hunting with dogs in the glens and coverts

of Mount Taygetus, rather despised mere exercises of dexterity

in the palæstra, just as our sportsmen would think very little

of spending hours in a gymnasium. But those Greeks who lived

in towns like Athens, and in the midst of a thickly populated

and well-cultivated country, could not possibly obtain

hunting, and therefore found the most efficient substitute.

Still we find them very far behind the English in their

knowledge or taste for out-of-door games. ... The Greeks had

no playgrounds beyond the palæstra or gymnasium; they had no

playgrounds in our sense, and though a few proverbs speak of

swimming as a universal accomplishment which boys learned, the

silence of Greek literature on the subject makes one very

suspicious as to the generality of such training. ... In one

point, certainly, the Greeks agreed more with the modern

English than with any other civilised nation. They regarded

sport as a really serious thing. ... The names applied to the

exercising-places indicate their principal uses. Palæstra

means a wrestling place; gymnasium originally a place for

naked exercise, but the word early lost this connotation and

came to mean mere physical training. ... In order to leave

home and reach the palæstra safely as well as to return, Greek

boys were put under the charge of a pædagogue, in no way to be

identified (as it now is) with a schoolmaster. ... I think we

may be justified in asserting that the study of the epic

poets, especially of the Iliad and Odyssey, was the earliest

intellectual exercise of schoolboys, and, in the case of

fairly educated parents, even anticipated the learning of

letters. For the latter is never spoken of as part of a

mother's or of home education. Reading was not so universal or

so necessary as it now is. ... We may assume that books of

Homer were read or recited to growing boys, and that they were

encouraged or required to learn them off by heart. This is

quite certain to all who estimate justly the enormous

influence ascribed to Homer, and the principles assumed by the

Greeks to have underlain his work. He was universally

considered to be a moral teacher, whose characters were drawn

with a moral intent, and for the purpose of example or

avoidance. ... Accordingly the Iliad and Odyssey were supposed

to contain all that was useful, not only for godliness, but

for life. All the arts and sciences were to be derived (by

interpretation) from these sacred texts. ... In early days,

and in poor towns, the place of teaching was not well

appointed, nay, even in many places, teaching in the open air

prevailed. ... This was ... like the old hedge schools of

Ireland, and no doubt of Scotland too. They also took

advantage, especially in hot weather, of colonnades, or shady

corners among public buildings, as at Winchester the summer

term was called cloister-time, from a similar practice, even

in that wealthy foundation, of instructing in the cloisters.

On the other hand, properly appointed schools in respectable

towns were furnished with some taste, and according to

traditional notions. ...

{680}

We may be sure that there were no tables or desks, such

furniture being unusual in Greek houses; it was the universal

custom, while reading or writing, to hold the book or roll on

the knee--to us an inconvenient thing to do, but still common

in the East. There are some interesting sentences, given for

exercise in Greek and Latin, in the little known

'Interpretamenta' of Dositheus, now edited and explained by

German scholars. The entry of the boy is thus described, in

parallel Greek and Latin: 'First I salute the master, who

returns my salute: Good morning, master; good morning, school

fellows. Give me my place, my seat, my stool. Sit closer. Move

up that way. This is my place, I took it first.' This mixture

of politeness and wrangling is amusing, and no doubt to be

found in all ages. It seems that the seats were movable. ...

The usual subdivision of education was into three parts;

letters, ... including reading, writing, counting, and

learning of the poets; music in the stricter sense, including

singing and playing on the lyre; and lastly gymnastic, which

included dancing. ... It is said that at Sparta the education

in reading and writing was not thought necessary, and there

have been long discussions among the learned whether the

ordinary Spartan in classical days was able to read. We find

that Aristotle adds a fourth subject to the three above

named--drawing, which he thinks requisite, like music, to

enable the educated man to judge rightly of works of art. But

there is no evidence of a wide diffusion of drawing or

painting among the Greeks, as among us. ... Later on, under

the learned influences of Alexandria, and the paid

professoriate of Roman days, subjects multiplied with the

decline of mental vigour and spontaneity of the age, and

children began to be pestered, as they now are, with a

quantity of subjects, all thought necessary to a proper

education, and accordingly all imperfectly acquired. This was

called the encyclical education, which is preserved in our

Encyclopædia of knowledge. It included,(1) grammar,(2)

rhetoric, (3) dialectic, (4) arithmetic, (5) music, (6)

geometry, (7) astronomy, and these were divided into the

earlier Trivium, and the later Quadrivium."

J. P. Mahaffy, Old Greek Education, chapters 3-5.

"Reading was taught with the greatest pains, the utmost care

was taken with the intonation of the voice, and the

articulation of the throat. We have lost the power of

distinguishing between accent and quantity. The Greeks did not

acquire it without long and anxious training of the ear and

the vocal organs. This was the duty of the phonascus. Homer

was the common study of all Greeks. The Iliad and Odyssee were

at once the Bible, the Shakespeare, the Robinson Crusoe, and

the Arabian Nights of the Hellenic race. Long passages and

indeed whole books were learnt by heart. The Greek, as a rule,

learnt no language but his own. Next to reading and repetition

came writing, which was carefully taught. Composition

naturally followed, and the burden of correcting exercises,

which still weighs down the backs of schoolmasters, dates from

these early times. Closely connected with reading and writing

is the art of reckoning, and the science of numbers leads us

easily to music. Plato considered arithmetic as the best spur

to a sleepy and uninstructed spirit; we see from the Platonic

dialogues how mathematical problems employed the mind and

thoughts of young Athenians. Many of the more difficult

arithmetical operations were solved by geometrical methods,

but the Greeks carried the art of teaching numbers to

considerable refinement. They used the abacus, and had an

elaborate method of finger reckoning, which was serviceable up

to 10,000. Drawing was the crowning accomplishment to this

vestibule of training. By the time the fourteenth year was

completed, the Greek boy would have begun to devote himself

seriously to the practice of athletics."

O. Browning, An Introduction to the History of

Educational Theories, ch 1.

"It has sometimes been imagined that in Greece separate

edifices were not erected as with us expressly for

school-houses, but that both the didaskalos and the

philosopher taught their pupils in fields, gardens or shady

groves. But this was not the common practice, though many

schoolmasters appear to have had no other place wherein to

assemble their pupils than the portico of a temple or some

sheltered corner in the street, where in spite of the din of

business and the throng of passengers the worship of learning

was publicly performed. ... But these were the schools of the

humbler classes. For the children of the noble and the opulent

spacious structures were raised, and furnished with tables,

desks,--for that peculiar species of grammateion which

resembled the plate cupboard, can have been nothing but a

desk,--forms, and whatsoever else their studies required.

Mention is made of a school at Chios which contained one

hundred and twenty boys, all of whom save one were killed by

the falling in of the roof. ... The apparatus of an ancient

school was somewhat complicated: there were mathematical

instruments, globes, maps, and charts of the heavens, together

with boards whereon to trace geometrical figures, tablets,

large and small, of box-wood, fir, or ivory, triangular in

form, some folding with two, and others with many leaves;

books too and paper, skins of parchment, wax for covering the

tablets, which, if we may believe Aristophanes, people

sometimes ate when they were hungry. To the above were added

rulers, reed-pens, pen-cases, pen-knives, pencils, and last,

though not least, the rod which kept them to the steady use of

all these things: At Athens these schools were not provided by

the state. They were private speculations, and each master was

regulated in his charges by the reputation he had acquired and

the fortunes of his pupils. Some appear to have been extremely

moderate in their demands. ... The earliest task to be

performed at school was to gain a knowledge of the Greek

characters, large and small, to spell next, next to read. ...

In teaching the art of writing their practice nearly resembled

our own. ... These things were necessarily the first step in

the first class of studies, which were denominated music, and

comprehended everything connected with the development of the

mind; and they were carried to a certain extent before the

second division called gymnastics was commenced. They reversed

the plan commonly adopted among ourselves, for with them

poetry preceded prose, a practice which, coöperating with

their susceptible temperament, impressed upon the national

mind that imaginative character for which it was preëminently

distinguished.

{681}

And the poets in whose works they were first initiated were of

all the most poetical, the authors of lyrical and dithyrambic

pieces, selections from whose verses they committed to memory,

thus acquiring early a rich store of sentences and imagery

ready to be adduced in argument or illustration, to furnish

familiar allusions or to be woven into the texture of their

style. ... Among the other branches of knowledge most

necessary to be studied, and to which they applied themselves

nearly from the outset, was arithmetic, without some inkling

of which, a man, in Plato's opinion, could scarcely be a

citizen at all. ... The importance attached to this branch of

education, nowhere more apparent than in the dialogues of

Plato, furnishes one proof that the Athenians were

preëminently men of business, who in all their admiration for

the good and beautiful never lost sight of those things which

promote the comfort of life, and enable a man effectually to

perform his ordinary duties. With the same views were geometry

and astronomy pursued. ... The importance of music, in the

education of the Greeks, is generally understood. It was

employed to effect several purposes. First, to sooth and

mollify the fierceness of the national character, and prepare

the way for the lessons of the poets, which, delivered amid

the sounding of melodious strings, when the soul was rapt and

elevated by harmony, by the excitement of numbers, by the

magic of the sweetest associations, took a firm hold upon the

mind, and generally retained it during life. Secondly, it

enabled the citizens gracefully to perform their part in the

amusements of social life, every person being in his turn

called upon at entertainments to sing or play upon the lyre.

Thirdly, it was necessary to enable them to join in the sacred

choruses, rendered frequent by the piety of the state, and for

the due performance in old age of many offices of religion,

the sacerdotal character belonging more or less to all the

citizens of Athens. Fourthly, as much of the learning of a

Greek was martial and designed to fit him for defending his

country, he required some knowledge of music that on the field

of battle his voice might harmoniously mingle with those of

his countrymen, in chaunting those stirring, impetuous, and

terrible melodies, called pæans, which preceded the first

shock of fight. For some, or all of these reasons, the science

of music began to be cultivated among the Hellenes, at a

period almost beyond the reach even of tradition."

J. A. St. John, The Hellenes, book 2, chapter 4.

"In thinking of Greek education as furnishing a possible model

for us moderns, there is one point which it is important to

bear in mind: Greek education was intended only for the few,

for the wealthy and well-born. Upon all others, upon slaves,

barbarians, the working and trading classes, and generally

upon all persons spending their lives in pursuit of wealth or

any private ends whatsoever, it would have seemed to be thrown

away. Even well-born women were generally excluded from most

of its benefits. The subjects of education were the sons of

full citizens, themselves preparing to be full citizens, and

to exercise all the functions of such. The duties of such

persons were completely summed up under two heads, duties to

the family and duties to the State, or, as the Greeks said,

œconomic and political duties. The free citizen not only

acknowledged no other duties besides these, but he looked down

upon persons who sought occupation in any other sphere.

Œconomy and Politics, however, were very comprehensive terms.

The former included the three relations of husband to wife,

father to children, and master to slaves and property; the

latter, three public functions, legislative, administrative,

and judiciary. All occupations not included under these six

heads the free citizen left to slaves or resident foreigners.

Money-making, in the modern sense, he despised, and, if he

devoted himself to art or philosophy, he did so only for the

benefit of the State."

T. Davidson, Aristotle, book 1, chapter 4.

EDUCATION: Greek

Spartan Training.

"From his birth every Spartan belonged to the state, which

decided ... whether he was likely to prove a useful member of

the community, and extinguished the life of the sickly or

deformed infant. To the age of seven however the care of the

child was delegated to its natural guardians, yet not so as to

be left wholly to their discretion, but subject to certain

established rules of treatment, which guarded against every

mischievous indulgence of parental tenderness. At the end of

seven years began a long course of public discipline, which

grew constantly more and more severe as the boy approached

toward manhood. The education of the young was in some degree

the business of all the elder citizens; for there was none who

did not contribute to it, if not by his active interference,

at least by his presence and inspection. But it was placed

under the especial superintendence of an officer selected from

the men of most approved worth; and he again chose a number of

youths, just past the age of twenty, and who most eminently

united courage with discretion, to exercise a more immediate

command over the classes, into which the boys were divided.

The leader of each class directed the sports and tasks of his

young troop, and punished their offences with military rigour,

but was himself responsible to his elders for the mode in

which he discharged his office. The Spartan education was

simple in its objects; it was not the result of any general

view of human nature, or of any attempt to unfold its various

capacities: it aimed at training men who were to live in the

midst of difficulty and danger, and who could only be safe

themselves while they held rule over others. The citizen was

to be always ready for the defence of himself and his country,

at home and abroad, and he was therefore to be equally fitted

to command and to obey. His body, his mind, and his character

were formed for this purpose, and for no other: and hence the

Spartan system, making directly for its main end, and

rejecting all that was foreign to it, attained, within its own

sphere, to a perfection which it is impossible not to admire.

The young Spartan was perhaps unable either to read or write:

he scarcely possessed the elements of any of the arts or

sciences by which society is enriched or adorned: but he could

run, leap, wrestle, hurl the disk, or the javelin, and wield

every other weapon, with a vigour and agility, and grace which

were no where surpassed. These however were accomplishments to

be learnt in every Greek palæstra: he might find many rivals

in all that he could do; but few could approach him in the

firmness with which he was taught to suffer. From the tender

age at which he left his mother's lap for the public schools,

his life was one continued trial of patience. Coarse and

scanty fare, and this occasionally withheld, a light dress,

without any change in the depth of winter, a bed of reeds,

which he himself gathered from the Eurotas, blows exchanged

with his comrades, stripes inflicted by his governors, more by

way of exercise than of punishment, inured him to every form

of pain and hardship. ...

{682}

The Muses were appropriately honoured at Sparta with a

sacrifice on the eve of a battle, and the union of the spear

and the lyre was a favourite theme with the Laconian poets,

and those who sang of Spartan customs. Though bred in the

discipline of the camp, the young Spartan, like the hero of

the Iliad, was not a stranger to music and poetry. He was

taught to sing, and to play on the flute and the lyre: but the

strains with which his memory was stored, and to which his voice

was formed, were either sacred hymns, or breathed a martial

spirit; and it was because they cherished such sentiments that

the Homeric lays, if not introduced by Lycurgus, were early

welcomed at Sparta. ... As these musical exercises were

designed to cultivate, not so much an intellectual, as a moral

taste; so it was probably less for the sake of sharpening

their ingenuity, than of promoting presence of mind, and

promptness of decision, that the boys were led into the habit

of answering all questions proposed to them, with a ready,

pointed, sententious brevity, which was a proverbial

characteristic of Spartan conversation. But the lessons which

were most studiously inculcated, more indeed by example than

by precept, were those of modesty, obedience, and reverence

for age and rank; for these were the qualities on which, above

all others, the stability of the commonwealth reposed. The

gait and look of the Spartan youths, as they passed along the

streets, observed Xenophon, breathed modesty and reserve. In

the presence of their elders they were bashful as virgins, and

silent as statues, save when a question was put to them. ...

In truth, the respect for the laws, which rendered the Spartan

averse to innovation at home, was little more than another

form of that awe with which his early habits inspired him for

the magistrates and the aged. With this feeling was intimately

connected that quick and deep sense of shame, which shrank

from dishonour as the most dreadful of evils, and enabled him

to meet death so calmly, when he saw in it the will of his

country."

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, volume 1, chapter 8.

EDUCATION:

Free-School Ideas in Greece.

"It is a prevalent opinion that common schools, as we now have

them, were an American invention. No legislation, it is

asserted, taxing all in order that all may be taught can be

traced back further than to the early laws of Massachusetts.

Those who deny this assertion are content with showing

something of the sort in Scotland and Germany a generation or

two before the landing of the Plymouth pilgrims. The truth is,

however, that, as much of our social wit is now credited to

the ancient Greeks, something of our educational wisdom ought

to be. Two centuries ago John Locke, as an able political

writer, was invited to draw up a code of fundamental laws for

the new colony of Carolina, and in like manner, more than

2,300 years ago, Charondas, a master of a similar type in

Magna Græcia, was called to a similar task. This was to frame

a series of statutes for the government of a Greek colony

founded about 446 B. C., in the foot of Italy. This colony was

Thurii, and conspicuous among the enactments of Charondas was

the following: 'Charondas made a law unlike those of lawgivers

before him, for he enacted that the sons of the citizens

should all learn letters (or writing) ... the city making

payment to the teachers. He thought that the poor, not able to

pay wages themselves, would otherwise fail of the best

training. He counted writing the most important study, and

with reason. Through writing, most things in life, and those

the most useful, are accomplished--as ballots, epistles, laws,

covenants. Who can sufficiently praise the learning of

letters? ... Writing alone preserves the most brilliant

utterances of wise men and the oracles of gods, nay philosophy

and all culture. All these things it alone hands down to all

future generations. Wherefore nature should be viewed as the

source of life, but the source of living well we should

consider the culture derived from writing. Inasmuch, then, as

illiterates are deprived of a great good, Charondas came to

their help, judging them worthy of public care and outlay.

Former legislators had caused the sick to be attended by

physicians at the public expense, thinking their bodies worthy

of cure. He did more, for he cured souls afflicted with

ignorance. The doctors of the body we pray that we may never

need, while we would fain abide for ever with those who

minister to the mind diseased.'--This extract is from the

'Bibliotheca Historica' of Diodorus Siculus (Book x. § 13),

who was flourishing at the birth of Christ and was the most

painstaking chronicler of the Augustan age. The legislation is

worth notice for more than one reason. It rebukes the

self-conceit of those who hold that the education of all at

the charge of all is an idea born in our own time or country.

It has also been strangely unnoticed by historians who ought

to have kept it before the people."

The Nation, March 24, 1892, pages 280-231.

EDUCATION:

Socrates and the Philosophical Schools.

"Before the rise of philosophy, the teacher of the people had

been the rhapsode, or public reciter; after that event he

gradually gives place to the sophist (... one who makes wise),

or, as he later with more modesty calls himself, the

philosopher (... lover of wisdom). The history of Greece for

centuries is, on its inner side, a history of the struggle

between what the rhapsode represents and what the philosopher

represents, between popular tradition and common sense on the

one hand, and individual opinion and philosophy on the other.

The transition from the first to the second of these mental

conditions was accomplished for the world, once for all, by

the Greeks."

T. Davidson, Aristotle, book 1, chapter 5.

"There is no instance on record of a philosopher whose

importance as a thinker is so closely bound up with the

personality of the man as it was in the case of Socrates. ...

His teaching was not of a kind to be directly imparted and

faithfully handed down, but could only be left to propagate

itself freely by stirring up others to a similar self·culture.

... The youth and early manhood of Socrates fall in the most

brilliant period of Grecian history. Born during the last

years of the Persian war, he was a near contemporary of all

those great men who adorned the age of Pericles. As a citizen

of Athens he could enjoy the opportunities afforded by a city,

which united every means of culture by its unrivalled

fertility of thought. Poverty and low birth were but slender

obstacles in the Athens of Pericles. ... Socrates, no doubt,

began life by learning his father's trade, ... which he

probably never practised, and certainly soon gave up.

{683}

He considered it to be his special calling to labour for the

moral and intellectual improvement of himself and others--a

conviction which he felt so strongly that it appeared to him

in the light of a divine revelation. Moreover he was confirmed

in it by a Delphic oracle, which, of course, must not be

regarded as the cause of, but rather as an additional support

to his reforming zeal. ... To be independent, he tried, like

the Gods, to rise superior to his wants; and by carefully

practising self-denial and abstemiousness, he was really able

to boast that his life was more pleasant and more free from

troubles than that of the rest of mankind. Thus he was able to

devote his whole powers to the service of others, without

asking or taking reward; and thus he became so engrossed by

his labours for his native city, that he rarely passed its

boundaries or even went outside its gates. He did not,

however, feel himself called upon to take part in the affairs

of the state. ... Anyone convinced as he was, that care for

one's own culture must precede care for public business, and

that a thorough knowledge of self, together with a deep and

many-sided experience, was a necessary condition of public

activity, must have thought that, to educate individuals by

influence, was the more pressing need, and have held that he

was doing his country a better service by educating able

statesmen for it, than by actually discharging a statesman's

duties. Accordingly, Socrates never aimed at being anything

but a private citizen. ... Just as little was he desirous of

being a public teacher like the Sophists. He not only took no

pay, but he gave no methodical course. He did not profess to

teach, but to learn in common with others, not to force his

convictions upon them, but to examine theirs; not to pass the

truth that came to hand like a coin fresh from the mint, but

to stir up a desire for truth and virtue, to point out the way

to it, to overthrow what was spurious, and to seek out real

knowledge. Never weary of talking, he was on the look out for

every opportunity of giving an instructive and moral turn to

the conversation. Day by day he was about in the market and

public promenades, in schools and workshops, ever ready to

converse with friends or strangers, with citizens and

foreigners, but always prepared to lead them to higher

subjects; and whilst thus in his higher calling serving God,

he was persuaded that he was also serving his country in a way

that no one else could do. Deeply as he deplored the decline

of discipline and education in his native city, he felt that

he could depend but little on the Sophists, the moral teachers

of his day. The attractive powers of his discourse won for him

a circle of admirers, for the most part consisting of young

men of family, drawn to him by the most varied motives,

standing to him in various relations, and coming to him, some

for a longer, others for a shorter time. For his own part, he

made it his business not only to educate these friends, but to

advise them in everything, even in worldly matters. But out of

this changing, and in part loosely connected, society, a

nucleus was gradually formed of decided admirers,--a Socratic

school, which we must consider united far less by a common set

of doctrines, than by a common love for the person of

Socrates."

E. Zeller, Socrates and the Socratic Schools, chapter 3.

"Nowhere, except in Athens, do we hear of a philosophic body

with endowments, legal succession, and the other rights of a

corporation. This idea, which has never since died out of the

world, was due to Plato, who bequeathed his garden and

appointments in the place called after the hero Hekademus, to

his followers. But he was obliged to do it in the only form

possible at Athens. He made it a religious foundation, on the

basis of a fixed worship to the Muses. ... The head or

President of Plato's 'Association of the Muses,' was the

treasurer and manager of the common fund, who invited guests

to their feasts, to which each member contributed his share.

... The members had, moreover, a right to attend lectures and

use the library or scientific appointments, such as maps,

which belonged to the school. It was this endowment on a

religious basis which saved the income and position of Plato's

school for centuries. ... This then is the first Academy, so

often imitated in so many lands, and of which our colleges are

the direct descendants. ... The school of Plato, then governed

by Xenocrates, being the bequest of an Athenian citizen who

understood the law, seems never to have been assailed. The

schools of Epicurus and Zeno were perhaps not yet recognised.

But that of Theophrastus, perhaps the most crowded, certainly

the most distinctly philo-Macedonian, ... this was the school

which was exiled, and which owed its rehabilitation not only

to the legal decision of the courts, but still more to the

large views of King Demetrius, who would not tolerate the

persecution of opinion. But it was the other Demetrius, the

philosopher, the pupil of Aristotle, the friend of

Theophrastus, to whom the school owed most, and to whom the

world owes most in the matter of museums and academies, next

after Plato. For this was the man who took care, during his

Protectorate of Athens in the interest of Casander, to

establish a garden and 'peripatos' for the Peripatetic school,

now under Theophrastus. ... It is remarkable that the Stoic

school--it too the school of aliens--did not establish a local

foundation or succession, but taught in public places, such as

the Painted Portico. In this the Cynical tone of the Porch

comes out. Hence the succession depended upon the genius of

the leader."

J. P. Mahaffy, Greek Life and Thought, chapter 7.

An account of the Academy, the Lyceum, etc., will be found

under the caption GYMNASIA.

EDUCATION:

University of Athens.

"Some scholars ... may doubt if there was anything at Athens

which could answer to the College Life of modern times. Indeed

it must be owned that formal history is nearly silent on the

subject, that ancient writers take little notice of it, and

such evidences as we have are drawn almost entirely from a

series of inscriptions on the marble tablets, which were

covered with the ruins and the dust of ages, till one after

another came to light in recent days, to add fresh pages to

the story of the past. Happily they are both numerous and

lengthy, and may be already pieced together in an order which

extends for centuries. They are known to Epigraphic students

as the records which deal with the so-called Ephebi; with the

youths, that is, just passing into manhood, for whom a special

discipline was provided by the State, to, fit them for the

responsibilities of active life. It was a National system with

a many-sided training; the teachers were members of the Civil

Service; the registers were public documents, and, as such,

belonged to the Archives of the State.

{684}

The earlier inscriptions of the series date from the

period of Macedonian ascendency, but in much earlier times

there had been forms of public drill prescribed for the

Ephebi. ... We find from a decree, which, if genuine, dates

even from the days of Pericles, that the young men of Cos were

allowed by special favour to share the discipline of the

Athenian Ephebi. Soon afterwards others were admitted on all

sides. The aliens who had gained a competence as merchants or

as bankers, found their sons welcomed in the ranks of the

oldest families of Athens; strangers flocked thither from

distant countries, not only from the isles of Greece, and from

the coasts of the Ægean, but, as Hellenic culture made its way

through the far East, students even of the Semitic race were

glad to enrol their names upon the College registers, where we

may still see them with the marks of their several

nationalities affixed. The young men were no longer, like

soldiers upon actual service, beginning already the real work

of life, and on that account, perhaps, the term was shortened

from the two years to one; but the old associations lasted on

for ages, even in realistic Athens, which in early politics at

least had made so clean a sweep. The outward forms were still

preserved, the soldier's drill was still enforced, and though

many another feature had been added, the whole institution

bore upon its face the look rather of a Military College than

of a training school for a scholar or a statesman. The College

year began somewhat later than the opening of the civil year,

and it was usual for all the students to matriculate together;

that is, to enter formally their names upon the registers,

which were copied afterwards upon the marble tablets, of which

large fragments have survived. ... 'To put the gown on,' or,

as we should say, 'to be a gownsman,' was the phrase which

stood for being a member of the College; and the gown, too,

was of black, as commonly among ourselves. But Philostratus

tells us, by the way, that a change was made from black to

white at the prompting of Herodes Atticus, the munificent and

learned subject of the Antonines, who was for many years the

presiding genius of the University of Athens. The fragment of

an inscription lately found curiously confirms and supplements

the writer's statement. ... The members of the College are spoken

of as 'friends' and 'messmates'; and it is probable that some

form of conventual life prevailed among them, without which

the drill and supervision, which are constantly implied in the

inscriptions, could scarcely have been enforced by the

officials. But we know nothing of any public buildings for

their use save the gymnasia, which in all Greek towns were the

centres of educational routine, and of which there were

several well known at Athens. ... The College did not try to

monopolise the education of its students. It had, indeed, its

own tutors or instructors, but they were kept for humbler

drill; it did not even for a long time keep an organist or

choirmaster of its own; it sent its students out for teaching

in philosophy and rhetoric and grammar, or, in a word, for all

the larger and more liberal studies. Nor did it favour any

special set of tenets to the exclusion of the rest. It

encouraged impartially all the schools of higher thought. ...

The Head of the College held the title of Cosmetes, or of

rector. ... The Rector, appointed only for a year by popular

election, was no merely honorary head, but took an important

part in the real work of education. He was sometimes clothed

with priestly functions. ... The system of education thus

described was under the control of the government throughout.

... It may surprise us that our information comes almost

entirely from the inscriptions, and that ancient writers are

all nearly silent on the subject. ... But there was little to

attract the literary circles in arrangements so mechanical and

formal; there was too much of outward pageantry, and too

little of real character evolved."

W. W. Capes, University Life in Ancient Athens, chapter 1.

J. H. Newman, Historical Sketches, chapter 4.

The reign of the Emperor Justinian "may be signalised as the

fatal epoch at which several of the noblest institutions of

antiquity were abolished. He shut the schools of Athens (A. D.

529), in which an uninterrupted succession of philosophers,

supported by a public stipend, had taught the doctrines of

Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, and Epicurus, ever since the time of

the Antonines. They were, it is true, still attached to

paganism, and even to the arts of magic."

J. C. L. de Sismondi, Fall of the Roman Empire,

volume 1, chapter 10.

See ATHENS: A. D. 529.

EDUCATION:

Alexandria.

"Ptolemy, upon whom, on Alexander's death, devolved the

kingdom of Egypt, supplies us with the first great instance of

what may be called the establishment of Letters. He and

Eumenes may be considered the first founders of public

libraries. ... A library, however, was only one of two great

conceptions brought into execution by the first Ptolemy; and

as the first was the embalming of dead genius, so the second

was the endowment of living. ... Ptolemy, ... prompted, or at

least, encouraged, by the celebrated Demetrius of Phalerus,

put into execution a plan for the formal endowment of

literature and science. The fact indeed of the possession of

an immense library seemed sufficient to render Alexandria a

University; for what could be a greater attraction to the

students of all lands, than the opportunity afforded them of

intellectual converse, not only with the living, but with the

dead, with all who had anywhere at any time thrown light upon

any subject of inquiry? But Ptolemy determined that his

teachers of knowledge should be as stationary and as permanent

as his books; so, resolving to make Alexandria the seat of a

'Studium Generale,' he founded a College for its domicile, and

endowed that College with ample revenues. Here, I consider, he

did more than has been commonly done, till modern times. It

requires considerable knowledge of medieval Universities to be

entitled to give an opinion; as regards Germany, for instance,

or Poland, or Spain; but, as far as I have a right to speak,

such an endowment has been rare down to the sixteenth century,

as well as before Ptolemy. ... To return to the Alexandrian

College. It was called the Museum,--a name since appropriated

to another institution connected with the seats of science.

... There was a quarter of the city so distinct from the rest

in Alexandria, that it is sometimes spoken of as a suburb. It

was pleasantly situated on the water's edge, and had been set

aside for ornamental buildings, and was traversed by groves of

trees. Here stood the royal palace, here the theatre and

amphitheatre; here the gymnasia and stadium; here the famous

Serapeum.

{685}

And here it was, close upon the Port, that Ptolemy placed his

Library and College. As might be supposed, the building was

worthy of its purpose; a noble portico stretched along its

front, for exercise or conversation, and opened upon the

public rooms devoted to disputations and lectures. A certain

number of Professors were lodged within the precincts, and a

handsome hall, or refectory, was provided for the common meal.

The Prefect of the house was a priest, whose appointment lay

with the government. Over the Library a dignified person

presided. ... As to the Professors, so liberal was their

maintenance, that a philosopher of the very age of the first

foundation called the place a 'bread basket,' or a 'bird

coop';  yet, in spite of accidental exceptions, so careful on

the whole was their selection, that even six hundred years

afterwards, Ammianus describes the Museum under the title of

'the lasting abode of distinguished men.' Philostratus, too,

about a century before, calls it 'a table gathering together

celebrated men.' ... As time went on new Colleges were added

to the original Museum; of which one was a foundation of the

Emperor Claudius, and called after his name. ... A diversity

of teachers secured an abundance of students. 'Hither,' says

Cave, 'as to a public emporium of polite literature,

congregated, from every part of the world, youthful students,

and attended the lectures in Grammar, Rhetoric, Poetry,

Philosophy, Astronomy, Music, Medicine, and other arts and

sciences'; and hence proceeded, as it would appear, the great

Christian writers and doctors, 'Clement, ... Origen,

Anatolius, and Athanasius. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, in the

third century, may be added; he came across Asia Minor and

Syria from Pontus, as to a place, says his namesake of Nyssa,

'to which young men from all parts gathered together, who were

applying themselves to philosophy.' As to the subjects taught

in the Museum, Cave has already enumerated the principal; but

he has not done justice to the peculiar character of the

Alexandrian school. From the time that science got out of the

hands of the pure Greeks, into those of a power which had a

talent for administration, it became less theoretical, and

bore more distinctly upon definite and tangible objects. ...

Egyptian Antiquities were investigated, at least by the

disciples of the Egyptian Manetho, fragments of whose history

are considered to remain; while Carthaginian and Etruscan had

a place in the studies of the Claudian College. The Museum was

celebrated, moreover, for its grammarians; the work of

Hephæstion 'de Metris' still affords matter of thought to a

living Professor of Oxford; and Aristarchus, like the Athenian

Priscian, has almost become the nickname for a critic. Yet,

eminent as is the Alexandrian school in these departments of

science, its fame rests still more securely upon its

proficiency in medicine and mathematics. Among its physicians

is the celebrated Galen, who was attracted thither from

Pergamus; and we are told by a writer of the fourth century,

that in his time the very fact of a physician having studied

at Alexandria, was an evidence of his science which superseded

further testimonial. As to Mathematics, it is sufficient to

say, that, of four great ancient names, on whom the modern

science is founded, three came from Alexandria. Archimedes

indeed was a Syracusan; but the Museum may boast of Apollonius

of Perga, Diophantus, a native Alexandrian, and Euclid, whose

country is unknown. To these illustrious names, may be added,

Eratosthenes of Cyrene, to whom astronomy has obligations so

considerable; Pappus; Theon; and Ptolemy, said to be of

Pelusium, whose celebrated system, called after him the

Ptolemaic, reigned in the schools till the time of Copernicus,

and whose Geography, dealing with facts, not theories, is in

repute still. Such was the celebrated 'Studium' or University

of Alexandria; for a while in the course of the third and

fourth centuries, it was subject to reverses, principally from

war. The whole of the Bruchion, the quarter of the city in

which it was situated, was given to the flames; and, when

Hilarion came to Alexandria, the holy hermit, whose rule of

life did not suffer him to lodge in cities, took up his

lodgment with a few solitaries among the ruins of its

edifices. The schools, however, and the library continued; the

library was reserved for the Caliph Omar's famous judgment; as

to the schools, even as late as the twelfth century, the Jew,

Benjamin of Tudela, gives us a surprising report of what he

found in Alexandria."

J. H. Newman, Historical Sketches:

Rise and Progress of Universities, chapter 8.

"In the three centuries which intervened between Alexander and

Augustus, Athens was preëminently the training school for

philosophy, Rhodes, on the other hand, as the only Greek state

of political importance in which a career of grand and

dignified activity was open for the orator, distinguished

itself in the study of eloquence, while Alexandria rested its

fame chiefly on the excellence of its instruction in Philology

and Medicine. At a subsequent period the last mentioned

University obtained even greater celebrity as having given

birth to a school of philosophers who endeavored to combine

into a species of theosophic doctrine the mental science of

Europe with the more spiritual minded and profoundly human

religions of the East. In the third century Alexandria became

conspicuous as the headquarters of the Eclectics and

Neo·Platonists."

E. Kirkpatrick, Historical Development of Superior

Instruction (Barnard's American Journal of Education,

volume 24, pages 466-467).

EDUCATION:

Rome.

"If we cast a final glance at the question of education, we

shall find but little to say of it, as far as regards the

period before Cicero. In the republican times the state did

not trouble itself about the training of youth: a few

prohibitory regulations were laid down, and the rest left to

private individuals. Thus no public instruction was given;

public schools there were, but only as private undertakings

for the sake of the children of the rich. All depended on the

father; his personal character and the care taken by the

mother in education decided the development of the child's

disposition. Books there were none; and therefore they could

not be put into the hands of children. A few rugged hymns,

such as those of the Salii and Arval brothers, with the songs

in Fescennine verse, sung on festivals and at banquets, formed

the poetical literature. A child would hear, besides, the

dirges, or memorial verses, composed by women in honour of the

dead, and sometimes, too, the public panegyrics pronounced on

their departed relatives, a distinction accorded to women also

from the time of Camillus.

{686}

Whatever was taught a boy by father or mother, or acquired

externally to the house, was calculated to make the Roman

'virtus' appear in his eyes the highest aim of his ambition;

the term including self-mastery, an unbending firmness of

will, with patience, and an iron tenacity of purpose in

carrying through whatever was once acknowledged to be right.

The Greek palestra and its naked combatants always seemed

strange and offensive to Roman eyes. In the republican times

the exercises of the gymnasium were but little in fashion;

though riding, swimming, and other warlike exercises were

industriously practised, as preparations for the campaign. The

slave pædagogus, assigned to young people to take charge of

them, had a higher position with the Romans than the Greeks;

and was not allowed to let his pupils out of his sight till

their twentieth year. The Latin Odyssey of Livius Andronicus

was the school-book first in use; and this and Ennius were the

only two works to create and foster a literary taste before

the destruction of Carthage. The freedman Sp. Carvilius was

the first to open a school for higher education. After this

the Greek language and literature came into the circle of

studies, and in consequence of the wars in Sicily, Macedon,

and Asia, families of distinction kept slaves who knew Greek.

Teachers quickly multiplied, and were either liberti, or their

descendants. No free-born Roman would consent to be a paid

teacher, for that was held to be a degradation. The Greek

language remained throughout the classical [age] one for

Romans: they even made their children begin with Homer. As, by

the seventh century of the republic, Ennius, Plautus,

Pacuvius, and Terence, had already become old poets,

dictations were given to scholars from their writings. The

interpretation of Virgil began under Augustus, and by this

time the younger Romans were resorting to Athens, Rhodes,

Apollonia, and Mitylene, in order to make progress in Greek

rhetoric and philosophy. As Roman notions were based entirely

on the practical and the useful, music was neglected as a part

of education; while, as a contrast, boys were compelled to

learn the laws of the twelve tables by heart. Cicero, who had

gone through this discipline with other boys of his time,

complains of the practice having begun to be set aside; and

Scipio Æmilianus deplored, as an evil omen of degeneracy, the

sending of boys and girls to the academies of actors, where

they learnt dancing and singing, in company with young women

of pleasure. In one of these schools were to be found as many

as five hundred young persons, all being instructed in

postures and motions of the most abandoned kind. ... On the

other hand, the gymnastic exercises, which had once served the

young men as a training for war, fell into disuse, having

naturally become objectless and burdensome, now that, under

Augustus, no more Roman citizens chose to enlist in the

legions. Still slavery was, and continued to be, the foremost

cause of the depravation of youth, and of an evil education.

... It was no longer the mothers who educated their own

children: they had neither inclination nor capacity for such

duty, for mothers of the stamp of Cornelia had disappeared.

Immediately on its birth, the child was intrusted to a Greek

female slave, with some male slave, often of the worst

description, to help her. ... The young Roman was not educated

in the constant companionship of youths of his own age, under

equal discipline: surrounded by his father's slaves and

parasites, and always accompanied by a slave when he went out,

he hardly received any other impressions than such as were

calculated to foster conceit, indolence, and pride in him."

J. J. I. Döllinger, The Gentile and the Jew,

volume 2, pages 279-281.

EDUCATION:

Higher Education under the Empire.

"Besides schools of high eminence in Mytilene, Ephesus,

Smyrna, Sidon, etc., we read that Apollonia enjoyed so high a

reputation for eloquence and political science as to be

entrusted with the education of the heir-apparent of the Roman

Empire. Antioch was noted for a Museum modelled after that of

the Egyptian metropolis, and Tarsus boasted of Gymnasia and a

University which Strabo does not hesitate to describe as more

than rivaling those of Athens and Alexandria. There can be

little doubt that the philosophers, rhetoricians, and

grammarians who swarmed in the princely retinues of the great

Roman aristocracy, and whose schools abounded in all the most

wealthy and populous cities of the empire east and west, were

prepared for their several callings in some one or other of

these institutions. Strabo tells us ... that Rome was overrun

with Alexandrian and Syrian grammarians, and Juvenal describes

one of the Quirites of the ancient stamp as emigrating in

sheer disgust from a city which from these causes had become

thoroughly and utterly Greek. ... That external inducements

were held out amply sufficient to prevail upon poor and

ambitious men to qualify themselves at some cost for vocations

of this description is evident from the wealth to which, as we

are told, many of them rose from extreme indigence and

obscurity. Suetonius, in the still extant fragment of his

essay 'de claris rhetoribus,' after alluding to the immense

number of professors and doctors met with in Rome, draws

attention to the frequency with which individuals who had

distinguished themselves as teachers of rhetoric had been

elevated into the senate, and advanced to the highest

dignities of the state. That the profession of a philologist

was occasionally at least well remunerated is evident from the

facts recorded by the same author in his work 'de claris

grammaticis,' section 3. He there mentions that there were at

one time upwards of twenty well attended schools devoted to

this subject at Rome, and that one fortunate individual, Q.

Remmius Palaemon, derived four hundred thousand sesterces, or

considerably above three thousand a year, from instruction in

philology alone. Julius Caesar conferred the citizenship,

together with large bounties in money, and immunity from

public burthens, on distinguished rhetoricians and

philologists, in order to encourage their presence at Rome.

... That individuals who thus enjoyed an income not greatly

below the revenues of an English Bishopric were not, as the

name might lead us to imagine, employed in teaching the

accidents of grammar, but possessed considerable pretensions

to that higher and more thoughtful character of the scholar

which it has been reserved for modern Europe to exhibit in

perfection, is not only in itself highly probable, but

supported by the distinctest and most unimpeachable evidence.

Seneca tells us that history was amongst the subjects

professed by grammarians, and Cicero regards the most thorough

and refined perception of all that pertains to the spirit and

individuality of the author as an indispensable requisite in

those who undertake to give instruction in this subject. ...

The grammatici appear to have occupied a position very closely

analogous to that of the teachers of collegiate schools in

England, and the gymnasial professors in Germany."

E. Kirkpatrick, Historical Development of Superior

Instruction (Barnard's American Journal of Education,

volume 24, pages 468-470.)

{687}

EDUCATION: Mediæval.

The Chaos of Barbaric Conquest.

"The utter confusion subsequent upon the downfall of the Roman

Empire and the irruption of the Germanic races was causing, by

the mere brute force of circumstance, a gradual extinction of

scholarship too powerful to be arrested. The teaching of

grammar for ecclesiastical purposes was insufficient to check

the influence of many causes leading to this overthrow of

learning. It was impossible to communicate more than a mere

tincture of knowledge to students separated from the classical

tradition, for whom the antecedent history of Rome was a dead

letter. The meaning of Latin words derived from the Greek was

lost. ... Theological notions, grotesque and childish beyond

description, found their way into etymology and grammar. The

three persons of the Trinity were discovered in the verb, and

mystic numbers in the parts of speech. Thus analytical studies

like that of language came to be regarded as an open field for

the exercise of the mythologising fancy; and etymology was

reduced to a system of ingenious punning. ... Virgil, the only

classic who retained distinct and living personality, passed

from poet to philosopher, from philosopher to Sibyl, from

Sibyl to magician, by successive stages of transmutation, as

the truth about him grew more dim and the faculty to apprehend

him weakened. Forming the staple of education in the schools

of the grammarians, and metamorphosed by the vulgar

consciousness into a wizard, he waited on the extreme verge of

the dark ages to take Dante by the hand, and lead him, as the

type of human reason, through the realms of Hell and

Purgatory."

J. A. Symonds, Renaissance in Italy:

the Revival of Learning; chapter 2.

EDUCATION: Mediæval.

Gaul: 4th-5th Centuries.

"If institutions could do all, if laws supplied and the means

furnished to society could do everything, the intellectual

state of Gaulish civil society at this epoch [4th-5th

centuries] would have been far superior to that of the

religious society. The first, in fact, alone possessed all the

institutions proper to second the development of mind, the

progress and empire of ideas. Roman Gaul was covered with

large schools. The principal were those of Trèves, Bordeaux,

Autun, Toulouse, Poitiers, Lyons, Narbonne, Aries, Marseilles,

Vienne, Besançon, &c. Some were very ancient; those of

Marseilles and of Autun, for example, dated from the first

century. They were taught philosophy, medicine, jurisprudence,

literature, grammar, astrology, all the sciences of the age.

In the greater part of these schools, indeed, they at first

taught only rhetoric and grammar; but towards the fourth

century, professors of philosophy and law were everywhere

introduced. Not only were these schools numerous, and provided

with many chairs, but the emperors continually took the

professors of new measures into favor. Their interests are,

from Constantine to Theodosius the younger, the subject of

frequent imperial constitutions, which sometimes extended,

sometimes confirmed their privileges. ... After the Empire was

divided among many masters, each of them concerned himself

rather more about the prosperity of his states and the public

establishments which were in them. Thence arose a momentary

amelioration, of which the schools felt the effects,

particularly those of Gaul, under the administration of

Constantius Clorus, of Julian, and of Gratian. By the side of

the schools were, in general, placed other analogous

establishments. Thus, at Trèves there was a grand library of

the imperial palace, concerning which no special information

has reached us, but of which we may judge by the details·

which have reached us concerning that of Constantinople. This

last had a librarian and seven scribes constantly

occupied--four for Greek, and three for Latin. They copied

both ancient and new works. It is probable that the same

institution existed at Trèves, and in the great towns of Gaul.

Civil society, then, was provided with means of instruction

and intellectual development. It was not the same with

religious society. It had at this epoch no institution

especially devoted to teaching; it did not receive from the

state any aid to this particular aim. Christians, as well as

others, could frequent the public schools; but most of the

professors were still pagans. ... It was for a long time in

the inferior classes, among the people, that Christianity was

propagated, especially in the Gauls, and it was the superior

classes which followed the great schools. Moreover, it was

hardly until the commencement of the fourth century that the

Christians appeared there, and then but few in number. No

other source of study was open to them. The establishments

which, a little afterwards, became, in the Christian church,

the refuge and sanctuary of instruction, the monasteries, were

hardly commenced in the Gauls. It was only after the year 360

that the two first were founded by St. Martin--one at Ligugé,

near Poitiers, the other at Marmoutiers, near Tours; and they

were devoted rather to religious contemplation than to

teaching. Any great school, any special institution devoted to

the service and to the progress of intellect, was at that

time, therefore, wanting to the Christians. ... All things in

the fifth century, attest the decay of the civil schools. The

contemporaneous writers, Sidonius Apollinaris and Mamertius

Claudianus, for example, deplore it in every page, saying that

the young men no longer studied, that professors were without

pupils, that science languished and was being lost. ... It was

especially the young men of the superior classes who frequented

the schools; but these classes ... were in rapid dissolution.

The schools fell with them; the institutions still existed,

but they were void--the soul had quitted the body. The

intellectual aspect of Christian society was very different.

... Institutions began to rise, and to be regulated among the

Christians of Gaul. The foundation of the greater portion of

the large monasteries of the southern provinces belongs to the

first half of the fifth century. ... The monasteries of the

south of Gaul were philosophical schools of Christianity; it

was there that intellectual men meditated, discussed, taught;

it was from thence that new ideas, daring thoughts, heresies,

were sent forth. ...

{688}

Towards the end of the sixth century, everything is changed:

there are no longer civil schools; ecclesiastical schools

alone subsist. Those great municipal schools of Treves, of

Poitiers, of Vienne, of Bordeaux, &c., have disappeared; in

their place have arisen schools called cathedral or episcopal

schools, because each episcopal see had its own. The cathedral

school was not always alone; we find in certain dioceses other

schools, of an uncertain nature and origin, wrecks, perhaps,

of some ancient civil school, which, in becoming

metamorphosed, had perpetuated itself. ... The most

flourishing of the episcopal schools from the sixth to the

middle of the eighth century were those of:

1. Poitiers. There were many schools in the monasteries of the

diocese at Poitiers itself, at Ligugé, at Ansion, &c.

2. Paris.

3. LeMans.

4. Bourges.

5. Clermont. There was another school in the town where they

taught the Theodosian code; a remarkable circumstance, which I

do not find elsewhere.

6. Vienne.

7. Châlons-sur-Saone.

8. ArIes.

9. Gap.

The most flourishing of the monastic schools of the same epoch

were those of:

1. Luxeuil, in Franche-Comté.

2. Fontenelle, or Saint Vandrille, in Normandy; in which were

about 300 students.

3. Sithiu, in Normandy.

4. Saint Médard, at Soissons.

5. Lerens.

It were easy to extend this list; but the prosperity of

monastic schools was subject to great vicissitudes; they

flourished under a distinguished abbot, and declined under his

successor. Even in nunneries, study was not neglected; that

which Saint Cesaire founded at Aries contained, at the

commencement of the sixth century, two hundred nuns, for the

most part occupied in copying books, sometimes religious

books, sometimes, probably, even the works of the ancients.

The metamorphosis of civil schools into ecclesiastical schools

was complete. Let us see what was taught in them. We shall

often find in them the names of sciences formerly professed in

the civil schools, rhetoric, logic, grammar, geometry,

astrology, &c.; but these were evidently no longer taught

except in their relations to theology. This is the foundation

of the instruction: all was turned into commentary of the

Scriptures, historical, philosophical, allegorical, moral,

commentary. They desired only to form priests; all studies,

whatsoever their nature, were directed towards this result.

Sometimes they went even further: they rejected the profane

sciences themselves, whatever might be the use made of them."

F. Guizot, History of Civilization to the French

Revolution, volume 2, lecture 4 and 16.

EDUCATION:

Ireland.

Scotland.

Schools of Iona.

Popular accounts represent St. Patrick as "founding at least a

hundred monasteries, and even those who consider that the

greater number of the Irish colleges were raised by his

followers after his death, admit the fact of his having

established an episcopal monastery and school at Armagh, where

he and his clergy carried out the same rule of life that he

had seen followed in the churches of Gaul. ... The school,

which formed a portion of the Cathedral establishment, soon

rose in importance. Gildas taught here for some years before

joining St. Cadoc at Llancarvan; and in process of time the

number of students, both native and foreign, so increased that

the university, as we may justly call it, was divided into

three parts, one of which was devoted entirely to students of

the Anglo-Saxon race. Grants for the support of the schools

were made by the Irish kings in the eighth century; and all

through the troublous times of the ninth and tenth centuries,

when Ireland was overrun by the Danes, and so many of her

sanctuaries were given to the flames, the succession of

divinity professors at Armagh remained unbroken, and has been

carefully traced by Usher. We need not stop to determine how

many other establishments similar to those of Armagh were

really founded in the lifetime of St. Patrick. In any case the

rapid extension of the monastic institute in Ireland, and the

extraordinary ardour with which the Irish cœnobites applied

themselves to the cultivation of letters remain undisputed

facts. 'Within a century after the death of St. Patrick,' says

Bishop Nicholson, 'the Irish seminaries had so increased that

most parts of Europe sent their children to be educated here,

and drew thence their bishops and teachers.' The whole country

for miles round Leighlin was denominated the 'land of saints

and scholars.' By the ninth century Armagh could boast of

7,000 students, and the schools of Cashel, Dindaleathglass,

and Lismore vied with it in renown. This extraordinary

multiplication of monastic seminaries and scholars may be

explained partly by the constant immigration of British

refugees who brought with them the learning and religious

observances of their native cloisters, and partly by that

sacred and irresistible impulse which animates a newly

converted people to heroic acts of sacrifice. In Ireland the

infant church was not, as elsewhere, watered with the blood of

martyrs. ... The bards, who were to be found in great numbers

among the early converts of St. Patrick, had also a

considerable share in directing the energies of their

countrymen to intellectual labour. They formed the learned

class, and on their conversion to Christianity were readily

disposed to devote themselves to the culture of sacred

letters. ... It would be impossible, within the limits of a

single chapter, to notice even the names of all the Irish

seats of learning, or of their most celebrated teachers,

everyone of whom has his own legend in which sacred and poetic

beauties are to be found blended together. One of the earliest

monastic schools was that erected by Enda, prince of Orgiel,

in that western island called from the wild flowers which even

still cover its rocky soil, Aran-of-the-Flowers, a name it

afterwards exchanged for that of Ara-na-naomh, or

Aran-of-the-Saints. ... A little later St. Finian founded his

great school of Clonard, whence, says Usher, issued forth a

stream of saints and doctors, like the Greek warriors from the

wooden horse. .... This desolate wilderness was soon peopled

by his disciples, who are said to have numbered 3,000, of whom

the twelve most eminent are often termed the Twelve Apostles

of Ireland. ... Among them none were more famous than St.

Columba, St. Kieran, and St. Brendan. The first of these is

known to every English reader as the founder of Iona; and

Kieran, the carpenter's son, as he is called, is scarcely less

renowned among his own countrymen. ... It was in the year 563

that St. Columba, after founding the monasteries of

Doire-Calgaich and Dair-magh in his native land, and incurring

the enmity of one of the Irish kings, determined on crossing

over into Scotland in order to preach the faith to the

Northern Picts. Accompanied by twelve companions, he passed

the Channel in a rude wicker boat covered with skins, and

landed at Port-na Currachan, on a spot now marked by a heap of

huge conical stones.

{689}

Conall, king of the Albanian Scots, granted him the island of

I, Hi, or Ai, hitherto occupied by the Druids, and there he

erected the monastery which, in time, became the mother of

three hundred religious houses. ... Iona, or I-Colum-kil, as

it was called by the Irish, came to be looked on as the chief

seat of learning, not only in Britain, but in the whole

Western world. 'Thither, as from a nest,' says Odonellus,

playing on the Latin name of the founder, 'these sacred doves

took their flight to every quarter.' They studied the

classics, the mechanical arts, law, history, and physic. They

improved the arts of husbandry and horticulture, supplied the

rude people whom they had undertaken to civilise with

ploughshares and other utensils of labour, and taught them the

use of the forge, in the mysteries of which every Irish monk

was instructed from his boyhood. They transferred to their new

homes all the learning of Armagh or Clonard. ... In every

college of Irish origin, by whomsoever they were founded or on

whatever soil they flourished, we thus see study blended with

the duties of the missionary and the cœnobite. They were

religious houses, no doubt, in which the celebration of the

Church office was often kept up without intermission by day

and night; but they were also seminaries of learning, wherein

sacred and profane studies were cultivated with equal success.

Not only their own monasteries but those of every European

country were enriched with their manuscripts, and the

researches of modern bibliopolists are continually

disinterring from German or Italian libraries a Horace, or an

Ovid, or a Sacred Codex whose Irish gloss betrays the hand

which traced its delicate letters."

A. T. Drane, Christian Schools and Scholars, chapter 2.

EDUCATION:

Charlemagne.

"If there ever was a man who by his mere natural endowments

soared above other men, it was Charlemagne. His life, like his

stature, was colossal. Time never seemed wanting to him for

anything that he willed to accomplish, and during his ten

years campaign against the Saxons and Lombards, he contrived

to get leisure enough to study grammar, and render himself

tolerably proficient as a Latin writer in prose and verse. He

found his tutors in the cities that he conquered. When he

became master of Pisa, he gained the services of Peter of

Pisa, whom he set over the Palatine school, which had existed

even under the Merovingian kings, though as yet it was far

from enjoying the fame to which it was afterwards raised by

the teaching of Alcuin. He possessed the art of turning

enemies into friends, and thus drew to his court the famous

historian, Paul Warnefrid, deacon of the Church of Rome, who

had previously acted as secretary to Didier, king of the

Lombards. ... Another Italian scholar, St. Paulinus, of

Aquileja, was coaxed into the service of the Frankish

sovereign after his conquest of Friuli; I will not say that he

was bought, but he was certainly paid for by a large grant of

confiscated territory made over by diploma to 'the Venerable

Paulinus, master of the art of grammar.' But none of these

learned personages were destined to take so large a part in

that revival of learning which made the glory of Charlemagne's

reign, as our own countryman Alcuin. It was in 781, on

occasion of the king's second visit to Italy, that the meeting

took place at Parma, the result of which was to fix the

English scholar at the Frankish court. Having obtained the

consent of his own bishop and sovereign to this arrangement,

Alcuin came over to France in 782, bringing with him several

of the best scholars of York, among whom were Wizo, Fredegis,

and Sigulf. Charlemagne received him with joy, and assigned

him three abbeys for the maintenance of himself and his

disciples, those namely, of Ferrières, St. Lupus of Troyes,

and St. Josse in Ponthieu. From this time Alcuin held the

first place in the literary society that surrounded the

Frankish sovereign, and filled an office the duties of which

were as vast as they were various. Three great works at once

claimed his attention, the correction of the liturgical books,

the direction of the court academy, and the establishment of

other public schools throughout the empire. ... But it was as

head of the Palatine school that Alcuin's influence was

chiefly to be felt in the restoration of letters. Charlemagne

presented himself as his first pupil, together with the three

princes, Pepin, Charles, and Louis, his sister Gisla and his

daughter Richtrude, his councillors Adalard and Angilbert, and

Eginhard his secretary. Such illustrious scholars soon found

plenty to imitate their example, and Alcuin saw himself called

on to lecture daily to a goodly crowd of bishops, nobles, and

courtiers. The king wished to transform his court into a new

Athens preferable to that of ancient Greece, in so far as the

doctrine of Christ is to be preferred to that of Plato. All

the liberal arts were to be taught there, but in such a way as

that each should bear reference to religion, for this was

regarded as the final end of of all learning. Grammar was

studied in order better to understand the Holy Scriptures and

to transcribe them more correctly; music, to which much

attention was given, was chiefly confined to the

ecclesiastical chant; and it was principally to explain the

Fathers and refute errors contrary to the faith that rhetoric

and dialectics were studied. 'In short,' says Crevier, 'the

thought both of the king and of the scholar who laboured with

him was to refer all things to religion, nothing being

considered as truly useful which did not bear some relation to

that end.' At first Alcuin allowed the study of the classic

poets, and in his boyhood, as we know, he had been a greater

reader of Virgil than of the Scriptures. ... The authors whose

study Charlemagne and Alcuin desired to promote, were not so

much Virgil and Cicero, as St. Jerome and St. Augustine; and

Charlemagne, in his excessive admiration of those Fathers,

gave utterance to the wish that he had a dozen such men at his

court. The 'City of God' was read at the royal table, and the

questions addressed by the court students to their master

turned rather on the obscurities of Holy Writ than the

difficulties of prosody. In one thing, however, they betrayed

a classic taste, and that was in their selection of names. The

Royal Academicians all rejoiced in some literary soubriquet;

Alcuin was Flaccus; Angilbert, Homer; but Charlemagne himself

adopted the more scriptural appellation of David. The

eagerness with which this extraordinary man applied himself to

acquire learning for himself, and to extend it throughout his

dominions, is truly admirable, when we remember the enormous

labours in which he was constantly engaged."

A. T. Drane, Christian Schools and Scholars,  chapter 5.

See, also,

SCHOOL OF THE PALACE, CHARLEMAGNE'S,

{690}

EDUCATION: England

King Alfred.

King Alfred "gathered round him at his own court the sons of

his nobility to receive, in conjunction with his own children,

a better education than their parents would be able or willing

to give them in their own households. To this assemblage of

pupils Asser has attached the name of school, and a violent

controversy once distracted the literary world concerning the

sense in which the word was to be understood, and whether it

was not the beginning or origin of a learned institution still

existing. In speaking of this subject, Asser has taken

occasion to enumerate and describe the children who were born

to Alfred from his wife Elswitha, daughter of Ethelred the

'Big,' alderman of the Gaini, and a noble of great wealth and

influence in Mercia. 'The sons and daughters,' says Asser,

'which he had by his wife above mentioned, were Ethelfled the

eldest, after whom came Edward, then Ethelgiva, then

Ethelswitha, and Ethelwerd, besides those who died in their

infancy, one of whom was Edmund. Ethelfled, when she arrived

at a marriageable age, was united to Ethelred, earl of Mercia;

Ethelgiva was dedicated to God, and submitted to the rules of

a monastic life; Ethelwerd, the youngest, by the Divine

counsels and admirable prudence of the king, was consigned to

the schools of learning, where, with the children of almost

all the nobility of the country, and many also who were not

noble, he prospered under the diligent care of his teachers.

Books in both languages, namely, in Latin and Saxon, were read

in the school. They also learned to write; so that, before

they were of an age to practise manly arts, namely hunting and

such other pursuits as befit noblemen, they became studious

and clever in the liberal arts. Edward and Ethelswitha were

bred up in the king's court, and received great attention from

their servants and nurses; nay, they continue to this day,

with the love of all about them, and shew affability, and even

gentleness, towards all, both foreigners and natives, and are

in complete subjection to their father; nor, among their other

studies which appertain to this life and are fit for noble

youths, are they suffered to pass their time idly and

unprofitably, without learning the liberal arts; for they have

carefully learned the Psalms and Saxon books, especially the

Saxon Poems, and are continually in the habit of making use of

books.' The schools of learning, to which Asser alludes in

this passage, as formed for the use of the king's children and

the sons of his nobles, are again mentioned elsewhere by the

same author, as 'the school which he had studiously collected

together, consisting of many of the nobility of his own

nation:' and in a third passage, Asser speaks of the 'sons of

the nobility who were bred up in the royal household.' It is

clear, then, from these expressions, that the king's exertions

to spread learning among his nobles and to educate his own

children, were of a most active and personal nature,

unconnected with any institutions of a more public character:

the school was kept in his own household, and not in a public

seat of learning. We may perhaps adduce these expressions of

Asser as militating against the notion, that an University or

Public Seminary of Learning existed in the days of Alfred.

Though it is most probable that the several monasteries, and

other societies of monks and churchmen, would employ a portion

of their idle time in teaching youth, and prosecuting their

own studies; yet there is no proof that an authorized seat of

learning, such as the Universities of Oxford or Cambridge,

existed in England, until many hundred years after the time of

Alfred."

J. A. Giles, Life and Times of Alfred the Great, chapter 21.

EDUCATION:

Saracenic and Moorish learning.

"Even as early as the tenth century, persons having a taste

for learning and for elegant amenities found their way into

Spain from all adjoining countries; a practice in subsequent

years still more indulged in, when it became illustrated by

the brilliant success of Gilbert, who ... passed from the

Infidel University of Cordova to the papacy of Rome. The

khalifs of the West carried out the precepts of Ali, the

fourth successor of Mohammed, in the patronage of literature.

They established libraries in all their chief towns; it is

said that not fewer than seventy were in existence. To every

mosque was attached a public school, in which the children of

the poor were taught to read and write, and instructed in the

precepts of the Koran. For those in easier circumstances there

were academies, usually arranged in twenty-five or thirty

apartments, each calculated for accommodating four students;

the academy being presided over by a rector. In Cordova,

Granada, and other great cities, there were universities

frequently under the superintendence of Jews; the Mohammedan

maxim being that the real learning of a man is of more public

importance than any particular religious opinions he may

entertain. In this they followed the example of the Asiatic

khalif, Haroun Alraschid, who actually conferred the

superintendence of his schools on John Masué, a Nestorian

Christian. The Mohammedan liberality was in striking contrast

with the intolerance of Europe. ... In the universities some

of the professors of polite literature gave lectures on Arabic

classical works; others taught rhetoric or composition, or

mathematics, or astronomy. From these institutions many of the

practices observed in our colleges were derived. They held

Commencements, at which poems were read and orations delivered

in presence of the public. They had also, in addition to these

schools of general learning, professional ones, particularly

for medicine. With a pride perhaps not altogether inexcusable,

the Arabians boasted of their language as being the most

perfect spoken by man. ... It is not then surprising that, in

the Arabian schools, great attention was paid to the study of

language, and that so many celebrated grammarians were

produced. By these scholars, dictionaries, similar to those

now in use, were composed; their copiousness is indicated by

the circumstance that one of them consisted of sixty volumes,

the definition of each word being illustrated or sustained by

quotations from Arab authors of acknowledged repute. They had

also lexicons of Greek, Latin, Hebrew; and cyclopedias such as

the Historical Dictionary of Sciences of Mohammed Ibn

Abdallah, of Granada."

J. W. Draper, History of the Intellectual Development of

Europe, volume 2, chapter 2.

"The Saracenic kings formed libraries of unparalleled size and

number. That of Hakem amounted to 600,000 volumes, of which 44

were employed in the mere catalogue. Upwards of 70 public

libraries were established in his dominions. 100,000 volumes

were numbered in the library of Cairo, and were freely lent to

the studious citizen. The taste of the sovereign communicated

itself to the subject, and a private doctor declared that his

books were sufficient to load 400 camels.

{691}

Nor were the Saracens less attentive to the foundation

of schools and colleges. Eighty of the latter institutions

adorned Cordova in the reign of Hakem; in the fifteenth

century fifty were scattered over the city and plain of

Granada. 200,000 dinars (about £100,000 sterling) were

expended on the foundation of a single college at Baghdad. It

was endowed with an annual revenue of 15,000 dinars, and was

attended by 6,000 students. The princes of the house of Omeya

honoured the Spanish academies by their presence and studies,

and competed, not without success, for the prizes of learning.

Numerous schools for the purpose of elementary instruction

were founded by a long series of monarchs. ... In this manner

the Arabians, within two centuries, constructed an apparatus

for mental improvement which hitherto had not been equalled

save in Alexandria, and to which the Church, after ruling the

intellect of Europe for more than five hundred years, could

offer no parallel."

The Intellectual Revival of the Middle Ages

(Westminster Review, January, 1876).

EDUCATION:

Scholasticism.

Schoolmen.

In the later times of the Roman empire, "the loss of the

dignity of political freedom, the want of the cheerfulness of

advancing prosperity, and the substitution of the less

philosophical structure of the Latin language for the delicate

intellectual mechanism of the Greek, fixed and augmented the

prevalent feebleness and barrenness of intellect. Men forgot,

or feared, to consult nature, to seek for new truths, to do

what the great discoverers of other times had done; they were

content to consult libraries, to study and defend old

opinions, to talk of what great geniuses had said. They sought

their philosophy in accredited treatises, and dared not

question such doctrines as they there found. ... In the mean

time the Christian religion had become the leading subject of

men's thoughts; and divines had put forward its claims to be,

not merely the guide of men's lives, and the means of

reconciling them to their heavenly Master, but also to be a

Philosophy in the widest sense in which the term had been

used;--a consistent speculative view of man's condition and

nature, and of the world in which he is placed. ... It was

held, without any regulating principle, that the philosophy

which had been bequeathed to the world by the great geniuses

of heathen antiquity, and the philosophy which was deduced

from, and implied by, the Revelations made by God to man, must

be identical; and, therefore, that Theology is the only true

philosophy. ... This view was confirmed by the opinion which

prevailed, concerning the nature of philosophical truth; a

view supported by the theory of Plato, the practice of

Aristotle, and the general propensities of the human mind: I

mean the opinion that all science may be obtained by the use

of reasoning alone;--that by analyzing and combining the

notions which common language brings before us, we may learn

all that we can know. Thus Logic came to include the whole of

Science; and accordingly this Abelard expressly maintained.

... Thus a Universal Science was established, with the

authority of a Religious Creed. Its universality rested on

erroneous views of the relation of words and truth; its

pretensions as a science were admitted by the servile temper

of men's intellects; and its religious authority was assigned

it, by making all truth part of religion. And as Religion

claimed assent within her own jurisdiction under the most

solemn and imperative sanctions, Philosophy shared in her

imperial power, and dissent from their doctrines was no longer

blameless or allowable. Error became wicked, dissent became

heresy; to reject the received human doctrines, was nearly the

same as to doubt the Divine declarations. The Scholastic

Philosophy claimed the assent of all believers. The external

form, the details, and the text of this Philosophy, were

taken, in a great measure, from Aristotle; though, in the

spirit, the general notions, and the style of interpretation,

Plato and the Platonists had no inconsiderable share. ... It

does not belong to our purpose to consider either the

theological or the metaphysical doctrines which form so large

a portion of the treatises of the schoolmen. Perhaps it may

hereafter appear, that some light is thrown on some of the

questions which have occupied metaphysicians in all ages, by

that examination of the history of the Progressive Sciences in

which we are now engaged; but till we are able to analyze the

leading controversies of this kind, it would be of little

service to speak of them in detail. It may be noticed,

however, that many of the most prominent of them refer to the

great question, 'What is the relation between actual things

and general terms?' Perhaps in modern times, the actual things

would be more commonly taken as the point to start from; and

men would begin by considering how classes and universals are

obtained from individuals. But the schoolmen, founding their

speculations on the received modes of considering such

subjects, to which both Aristotle and Plato had contributed,

travelled in the opposite direction, and endeavored to

discover how individuals were deduced from genera and

species;--what was 'the Principle of Individuation.' This was

variously stated by different reasoners. Thus Bonaventura

solves the difficulty by the aid of the Aristotelian

distinction of Matter and Form. The individual derives from

the Form the property of being something, and from the Matter

the property of being that particular thing. Duns Scotus, the

great adversary of Thomas Aquinas in theology, placed the

principle of Individuation in 'a certain determining positive

entity,' which his school called Hæcceity or 'thisness.' 'Thus

an individual man is Peter, because his humanity is combined

with Petreity.' The force of abstract terms is a curious

question, and some remarkable experiments in their use had

been made by the Latin Aristotelians before this time. In the

same way in which we talk of the quantity and quality of a

thing, they spoke of its 'quiddity.' We may consider the reign

of mere disputation as fully established at the time of which

we are now speaking [the Middle Ages]; and the only kind of

philosophy henceforth studied was one in which no sound

physical science had or could have a place."

W. Whewell, History of the Inductive Sciences,

book 4, chapter 4 (volume 1).

"Scholasticism was philosophy in the service of established

and accepted theological doctrines. ... More particularly,

Scholasticism was the reproduction of ancient philosophy under

the control of ecclesiastical doctrine. ... The name of

Scholastics (doctores scholastici) which was given to the

teachers of the septem liberales artes [seven liberal arts]

(grammar, dialectic, rhetoric, in the Trivium; arithmetic,

geometry, music and astronomy, in the Quadrivium), or at least

some of them, in the Cloister-Schools founded by Charlemagne,

as also to teachers of theology, was afterwards given to all

who occupied themselves with the sciences, and especially with

philosophy. ... Johannes Scotus, or Erigena [ninth century]

is the earliest noteworthy philosopher of the Scholastic

period. He was of Scottish nationality, but was probably born

and brought up in Ireland. At the call of Charles the Bald he

emigrated to France."

F. Ueberweg, History of Philosophy,

volume 1, pages 355-484.

{692}

"Scholasticism, at the last, from the prodigious mental

activity which it kept up, became a tacit universal

insurrection against authority: it was the swelling of the

ocean before the storm. ... It was a sign of a great awakening

of the human mind when theologians thought it both their duty

and their privilege to philosophize. There was a vast waste of

intellectual labor, but still it was intellectual labor, and,

as we shall see, it was not in the end unfruitful."

C. J. Stillé, Studies in Mediæval

History, chapter 13.

"Scholasticism had its hour of glory, its erudite doctors, its

eloquent professors, chief among whom was Abelard (1070-1142).

... At a time when printing did not exist, when manuscript

copies were rare, a teacher who combined knowledge with the

gift of speech was a phenomenon of incomparable interest, and

students flocked from all parts of Europe to take advantage of

his lectures. Abelard is the most brilliant representative of

the scholastic pedagogy, with an original and personal

tendency towards the emancipation of the mind. 'It is

ridiculous,' he said, 'to preach to others what we can neither

make them understand nor understand ourselves.' With more

boldness than Saint Anselm, he applied dialectics to theology,

and attempted to reason out the grounds of his faith. The

seven liberal arts constituted what may be called the

secondary instruction of the Middle Age, such as was given in

the claustral or conventual schools, and later, in the

universities. The liberal arts were distributed into two

courses of study, known as the 'trivium' and the 'quadrivium.'

The 'trivium' comprised grammar (Latin grammar, of course),

dialectics, or logic, and rhetoric; and the 'quadrivium,'

music, arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy. It is important to

note the fact that this programme contains only abstract and

formal studies,--no real and concrete studies. The sciences

which teach us to know man and the world, such as history,

ethics, the physical and natural sciences, were omitted and

unknown, save perhaps in a few convents of the Benedictines.

Nothing which can truly educate man, and develop his faculties

as a whole, enlists the attention of the Middle Age. From a

course of study thus limited there might come skillful

reasoners and men formidable in argument, but never fully

developed men. The methods employed in the ecclesiastical

schools of the Middle Age were in accord with the spirit of

the times, when men were not concerned about liberty and

intellectual freedom; and when they thought more about the

teaching of dogmas than about the training of the

intelligence. The teachers recited or read their lectures, and

the pupils learned by heart. The discipline was harsh. Corrupt

human nature was distrusted. In 1363, pupils were forbidden

the use of benches and chairs, on the pretext that such high

seats were an encouragement to pride. For securing obedience,

corporal chastisements were used and abused. The rod is in

fashion in the fifteenth as it was in the fourteenth century.

'There is no other difference,' says an historian, 'except

that the rods in the fifteenth century are twice as long as

those in the fourteenth.'"

G. Compayré, The History of Pedagogy,

trans. by W. H. Payne, chapter 4.

EDUCATION: Universities, Their Rise.

Abelard.

"Up to the end of the eleventh century the instruction was,

speaking generally, and allowing for transitory periods of

revival, and for a few exceptional schools, a shrunken

survival of the old 'trivium et quadrivium.' The lessons, when

not dictated and learnt by heart from notes, were got up from

bald epitomes. All that was taught, moreover, was taught

solely with a view to 'pious uses.' Criticism did not exist;

the free spirit of speculation could not, of course, exist.

... As we approach the period which saw the birth of those

institutions known as Studia Publica or Generalia, and ere

long to be known as 'universities,' we have to extend our

vision and recognize the circumstances of the time, and those

changes in the social condition of Europe which made great

central schools possible--schools to be frequented not merely

by the young ecclesiastic, but by laymen. Among other causes

which led to the diffusion of a demand for education among the

laity, was, I think, the institution or reorganization of

municipalities. It was about the end of the eleventh century

that the civic Communes (Communia) began to seek and obtain,

from royal and other authorities, charters of incorporation

constituting their internal government and conferring certain

freedoms and privileges as against the encroachment of lay and

ecclesiastical feudal barons. ... About the same time, and

somewhat prior to this, trade guilds had been formed in many

cities for mutual protection, the advancement of commerce, and

the internal regulation of the various crafts. There

immediately followed a desire for schools in the more

important commercial towns. In Italy such schools arose in

Bologna, Milan, Brescia, and Florence; and in Germany they

arose in Lübeck, Hamburg, Breslau, Nordhausen, Stettin,

Leipsic, and Nürnberg. The distinctive characteristic of these

city schools was, that they do not seem to have been under the

direct control of the Church, or to have been always taught by

priests; further, that the native tongue (German or Italian,

as the case might be) was taught. Reading, writing, and a

little arithmetic seem to have formed the staple of the

instruction. The custom of dictating, writing down, and then

learning by heart what was written--universal in the schools

of the preceding centuries--was, of course, still followed in

these burgh schools. This custom was almost inevitable. ...

The increased communication with Africa and the East through

the Crusades had introduced men to a standard of learning

among the Arabs, unknown in Europe. Outside the school, the

order of chivalry had introduced a new and higher ethical

spirit than had been known in the previous centuries. Civic

communities and trade guilds were forming themselves and

seeking charters of incorporation. Above all; the Crusades, by

stimulating the ardour and exciting the intellects of men, had

unsettled old convention by bringing men of all ranks within

the sacred circle of a common enthusiasm, and into contact

with foreign civilizations.

{693}

The desire for a higher education, and the impulse to more

profound investigation, that characterized the beginning and

course of the twelfth century, was thus only a part of a

widespread movement, political and moral. ... While the

Romano-Hellenic schools had long disappeared, there still

existed, in many towns, episcopal schools of a high class,

many of which might be regarded as continuations of the old

imperial provincial institutions. ... In Bologna and Paris,

Rheims and Naples, it was so. The arts curriculum professed in

these centres was, for the time and state of knowledge, good.

These schools, indeed, had never quite lost the fresh impulse

given by Charlemagne and his successors. ... According to my

view of educational history, the great 'studia publica' or

'generalia' arose out of them. They were themselves, in a

narrow sense, already 'studia publica.' ... Looking, first, to

the germ out of which the universities grew, I think we must

say that the universities may be regarded as a natural

development of the cathedral and monastery schools; but if we

seek for an external motive force urging men to undertake the

more profound and independent study of the liberal arts, we

can find it only in the Saracenic schools of Bagdad, Babylon,

Alexandria, and Cordova. ... To fix precisely the date of the

rise of the first specialized schools or universities is

impossible, for the simple reason that they were not founded.

... The simplest account of the new university origins is the

most correct. It would appear that certain active-minded men

of marked eminence began to give instruction in medical

subjects at Salerno, and in law at Bologna, in a spirit and

manner not previously attempted, to youths who had left the

monastery and cathedral schools, and who desired to equip

themselves for professional life. Pupils flocked to them; and

the more able of these students, finding that there was a

public demand for this higher specialized instruction,

remained at headquarters, and themselves became teachers or

doctors. The Church did not found universities any more than

it founded the order of chivalry. They were founded by a

concurrence (not wholly fortuitous) of able men who had

something they wished to teach, and of youths who desired to

learn. None the less were the acquiescence and protection of

Church and State necessary in those days for the fostering of

these infant seminaries. ... Of the three great schools which

we have named, there is sufficient ground for believing that

the first to reach such a development as to entitle it to the

name of a studium generale or university was the 'Schola

Salernitana,' although it never was a university, technically

speaking."

S. S. Laurie, Rise and Early Constitution of

Universities, lectures 6-7.

"Ideas, till this time scattered, or watched over in the

various ecclesiastical schools, began to converge to a common

centre. The great name of University was recognised in the

capital of France, at the moment that the French tongue had

become almost universal. The conquests of the Normans, and the

first crusade, had spread its powerfully philosophic idiom in

every direction, to England, to Sicily, and to Jerusalem. This

circumstance alone invested France, central France, Paris,

with an immense attractive power. By degrees, Parisian French

became a proverb. Feudalism had found its political centre in

the royal city; and this city was about to become the capital

of human thought. The beginner of this revolution was not a

priest, but a handsome young man of brilliant talents, amiable

and of noble family. None wrote love verses, like his, in the

vulgar tongue; he sang them, too. Besides, his erudition was

extraordinary for that day. He alone, of his time, knew both

Greek and Hebrew. May be, he had studied at the Jewish schools

(there were many in the South), or under the rabbins of

Troyes, Vitry, or of Orleans. There were then in Paris two

leading schools: the old Episcopal school of the parvis Notre

Dame, and that of St. Geneviève, on the hill, where shone

William of Champeaux. Abelard joined his pupils, submitted to

him his doubts, puzzled him, laughed at him, and closed his

mouth. He would have served Anselm of Laon the same, had not

the professor, being a bishop, expelled him from his diocese.

In this fashion this knight-errant of logic went on, unhorsing

the most celebrated champions. He himself declared that he had

only renounced tilt and tourney through his passion for

intellectual combats. Henceforward, victorious and without a

rival, he taught at Paris and Melun, the residence of

Louis-le-Gros, and the lords flocked to hear him; anxious to

encourage one of themselves, who had discomfited the priests

on their own ground, and had silenced the ablest clerks.

Abelard's wonderful success is easily explained. All the lore

and learning which had been smothered under the heavy,

dogmatical forms of clerical instruction, and hidden in the

rude Latin of the middle age, suddenly appeared arrayed in the

simple elegance of antiquity, so that men seemed for the first

time to hear and recognise a human voice. The daring youth

simplified and explained everything; presenting philosophy in

a familiar form, and bringing it home to men's bosoms. He

hardly suffered the obscure or supernatural to rest on the

hardest mysteries of faith. It seemed as if till then the

Church had lisped and stammered; while Abelard spoke. All was

made smooth and easy. He treated religion courteously and

handled her gently, but she melted away in his hands. Nothing

embarrassed the fluent speaker: he reduced religion to

philosophy, and morality to humanity. 'Crime,' he said,

'consists not in the act, but in the intention.' It followed,

that there was no such thing as sins of habit or of

ignorance--'They who crucified Jesus, not knowing him to have

been the Saviour, were guilty of no sin.' What is original

sin?--'Less a sin, than a punishment.' But then, wherefore the

redemption and the passion, if there was no sin?--'It was an

act of pure love. God desired to substitute the law of love

for that of fear.'"

J. Michelet, History of France,

volume 1, book 4, chapter 4.

"It is difficult, by a mere perusal of Abelard's works, to

understand the effect he produced upon his hearers by the

force of his argumentation, whether studied or improvised, and

by the ardor and animation of his eloquence, and the grace and

attractiveness of his person. But the testimony of his

contemporaries is unanimous; even his adversaries themselves

render justice to his high oratorical qualities. No one ever

reasoned with more subtlety, or handled the dialectic tool

with more address; and assuredly, something of these qualities

is to be found in the writings he has left us. But the intense

life, the enthusiastic ardor which enlivened his discourses,

the beauty of his face, and the charm of his voice cannot be

imparted by cold manuscripts.

{694}

Héloise, whose name is inseparably linked with that of her

unfortunate husband, and whom Charles de Rémusat does not

hesitate to call 'the first of women'; who, in any case, was a

superior person of her time; Héloise, who loved Abelard with

'an immoderate love,' and who, under the veil of a

'religieuse' and throughout the practice of devotional duties,

remained faithful to him until death; Héloise said to him in

her famous letter of 1136: 'Thou hast two things especially

which could instantly win thee the hearts of all women: the

charm thou knowest how to impart to thy voice in speaking and

singing.' External gifts combined with intellectual qualities

to make of Abelard an incomparable seducer of minds and

hearts. Add to this an astonishing memory, a knowledge as

profound as was compatible with the resources of his time, and

a vast erudition which caused his contemporaries to consider

him a master of universal knowledge. ... How can one be

astonished that with such qualities Abelard gained an

extraordinary ascendency over his age; that, having become the

intellectual ruler and, as it were, the dictator of the

thought of the twelfth century, he should have succeeded in

attracting to his chair and in retaining around it thousands

of young men; the first germ of those assemblages of students

who were to constitute the universities several years later?

... It is not alone by the outward success of his scholastic

apostolate that Abelard merits consideration as the precursor

of the modern spirit and the promoter of the foundation of the

universities; it is also by his doctrine, or at least by his

method. ... No one claims that Abelard was the first who, in

the Middle Ages, had introduced dialectics into theology,

reason into authority. In the ninth century, Scotus Erigena

had already said: 'Authority is derived from reason.'

Scholasticism, which is nothing but logic enlightening

theology, an effort of reason to demonstrate dogma, had begun

before Abelard; but it was he who gave movement and life to

the method by lending it his power and his renown."

G. Compayré, Abelard, part 1, chapter 2-3.

EDUCATION: Latin Language.

"Greek was an unknown tongue: only a very few of the Latin

classics received a perfunctory attention: Boethius was

preferred to Cicero, and the Moral Sentences ascribed to Cato

to either. Rules couched in barbarous Latin verse were

committed to memory. Aristotle was known only in incorrect

Latin translations, which many of the taught, and some of the

teachers probably, supposed to be the originals. Matters were

not mended when the student, having passed through the

preliminary course of arts, advanced to the study of the

sciences. Theology meant an acquaintance with the 'Sentences'

of Peter Lombard, or, in other cases, with the 'Summa' of

Thomas Aquinas; in medicine, Galen was an authority from which

there was no appeal. On every side the student was fenced

round by traditions and prejudices, through which it was

impossible to break. In truth, he had no means of knowing that

there was a wider and fairer world beyond. Till the classical

revival came, every decade made the yoke of prescription

heavier, and each generation of students, therefore, a feebler

copy of the last."

C. Beard, Martin Luther and the Reformation, chapter 3.

"What at first had been everywhere a Greek became in Western

Europe a Latin religion. The discipline of Rome maintained the

body of doctrine which the thought of Greece had defined. A

new Latin version, superseding alike the venerable Greek

translation of the Old Testament and the original words of

Evangelists and Apostles, became the received text of Holy

Scripture. The Latin Fathers acquired an authority scarcely

less binding. The ritual, lessons, and hymns of the Church

were Latin. Ecclesiastics transacted the business of civil

departments requiring education. Libraries were armories of

the Church: grammar was part of her drill. The humblest

scholar was enlisted, in her service: she recruited her ranks

by founding Latin schools. 'Education in the rudiments of

Latin,' says Hallam, 'was imparted to a greater number of

individuals than at present;' and, as they had more use for it

than at present, it was longer retained. If a boy of humble

birth had a taste for letters, or if a boy of high birth had a

distaste for arms, the first step was to learn Latin. His foot

was then on the ladder. He might rise by the good offices of

his family to a bishopric, or to the papacy itself by merit

and the grace of God. Latin enabled a Greek from Tarsus

(Theodore) to become the founder of learning in the English

church; and a Yorkshireman (Alcuin) to organize the schools of

Charlemagne. Without Latin, our English Winfrid (St. Boniface)

could not have been apostle of Germany and reformer of the

Frankish Church; or the German Albert, master at Paris of

Thomas Aquinas; or Nicholas Breakspeare, Pope of Rome. With

it, Western Christendom was one vast field of labor: calls for

self-sacrifice, or offers of promotion, might come from north

or south, from east or west. Thus in the Middle Ages Latin was

made the groundwork of education; not for the beauty of its

classical literature, nor because the study of a dead language

was the best mental gymnastic, or the only means of acquiring

a masterly freedom in the use of living tongues, but because

it was the language of educated men throughout Western Europe,

employed for public business, literature, philosophy, and

science; above all, in God's providence, essential to the

unity, and therefore enforced by the authority of, the Western

Church."

C. S. Parker, Essay on the History of Classical Education

(quoted in Dr. Henry Barnard's "Letters, Essays and

Thoughts on Studies and Conduct," page 467).

EDUCATION: France.

"The countries of western Europe, leavened, all of them, by

the one spirit of the feudal and catholic Middle Age, formed

in some sense one community, and were more associated than

they have been since the feudal and catholic unity of the

Middle Age has disappeared and given place to the divided and

various life of modern Europe. In the mediæval community

France held the first place. It is now well known that to

place in the 15th century the revival of intellectual life and

the re-establishment of civilisation, and to treat the period

between the 5th century, when ancient civilisation was ruined

by the barbarians, and the 15th, when the life and intellect

of this civilisation reappeared and transformed the world, as

one chaos, is a mistake. The chaos ends about the 10th

century; in the 11th there truly comes the first

re-establishment of civilisation, the first revival of

intellectual life; the principal centre of this revival is

France, its chief monuments of literature are in the French

language, its chief monuments of art are the French cathedrals.

{695}

This revival fills the 12th and 13th centuries with its

activity and with its works; all this time France has the

lead; in the 14th century the lead passes to Italy; but now

comes the commencement of a wholly new period, the period of

the Renaissance properly so called, the beginning of modern

European life, the ceasing of the life of the feudal and

catholic Middle Age. The anterior and less glorious

Renaissance, the Renaissance within the limits of the Middle

Age itself, a revival which came to a stop and could not

successfully develop itself, but which has yet left profound

traces in our spirit and our literature,--this revival belongs

chiefly to France. France, then, may well serve as a typical

country wherein to trace the mediæval growth of intellect and

learning; above all she may so stand for us, whose connection

with her in the Middle Age, owing to our Norman kings and the

currency of her language among our cultivated class, was so

peculiarly close; so close that the literary and intellectual

development of the two countries at that time intermingles,

and no important event can happen in that of the one without

straightway affecting and interesting that of the other. ...

With the hostility of the long French Wars of Edward the Third

comes the estrangement, never afterwards diminishing but

always increasing."

M. Arnold, Schools and Universities on the Continent,

chapter 1.

EDUCATION:

University of Paris.

"The name of Abelard recalls the European celebrity and

immense intellectual ferment of this school [of Paris] in the

12th century. But it was in the first year of the following

century, the 13th, that it received a charter from Philip

Augustus, and thenceforth the name of University of Paris

takes the place of that of School of Paris. Forty-nine years

later was founded University College, Oxford, the oldest

college of the oldest English University. Four nations

composed the University of Paris,--the nation of France, the

nation of Picardy, the nation of Normandy, and (signal mark of

the close intercourse which then existed between France and

us!) the nation of England. The four nations united formed the

faculty of arts. The faculty of theology was created in 1257,

that of law in 1271, that of medicine in 1274. Theology, law,

and medicine had each their Dean; arts had four Procurators,

one for each of the four nations composing this faculty. Arts

elected the rector of the University, and had possession of

the University chest and archives. The preeminence of the

Faculty of Arts indicates, as indeed does the very development

of the University, an idea, gradually strengthening itself, of

a lay instruction to be no longer absorbed in theology, but

separable from it. The growth of a lay and modern spirit in

society, the preponderance of the crown over the papacy, of

the civil over the ecclesiastical power, is the great feature

of French history in the 14th century, and to this century

belongs the highest development of the University. ... The

importance of the University in the 13th and 14th centuries

was extraordinary. Men's minds were possessed with a wonderful

zeal for knowledge, or what was then thought knowledge, and

the University of Paris was the great fount from which this

knowledge issued. The University and those depending on it

made at this time, it is said, actually a third of the

population of Paris; when the University went on a solemn

occasion in procession to Saint Denis, the head of the

procession, it is said, had reached St. Denis before the end

of it had left its starting place in Paris. It had immunities

from taxation, it had jurisdiction of its own, and its members

claimed to be exempt from that of the provost of Paris; the

kings of France strongly favoured the University, and leaned

to its side when the municipal and academical authorities were

in conflict; if at any time the University thought itself

seriously aggrieved, it had recourse to a measure which threw

Paris into dismay,--it shut up its schools and suspended its

lectures. In a body of this kind the discipline could not be

strict, and the colleges were created to supply centres of

discipline which the University in itself,--an apparatus

merely of teachers and lecture-rooms,--did not provide. The

14th century is the time when, one after another, with

wonderful rapidity, the French colleges appeared. Navarre,

Montaigu, Harcourt, names so familiar in the school annals of

France, date from the first quarter of the 14th century. The

College of Navarre was founded by the queen of Philip the

Fair, in 1304; the College of Montaigu, where Erasmus,

Rabelais, and Ignatius Loyola were in their time students, was

founded in 1314 by two members of the family of Montaigu, one

of them Archbishop of Rouen. The majority of these colleges

were founded by magnates of the church, and designed to

maintain a certain number of bursars, or scholars, during

their university course. ... Along with the University of

Paris there existed in France, in the 14th century, the

Universities of Orleans, Angers, Toulouse, and Montpellier.

Orleans was the great French school for the study of the civil

law. ... The civil law was studiously kept away from the

University of Paris, for fear it should drive out other

studies, and especially the study of theology; so late as the

year 1679 there was no chair of Roman or even of French law in

the University of Paris. The strength of this University was

concentrated on theology and arts, and its celebrity arose

from the multitude of students which in these branches of

instruction it attracted."

M. Arnold, Schools and Universities on the Continent,

chapter 1.

EDUCATION:

The Sorbonne.

The University of Paris acquired the name of "the Sorbonne"

"from Robert of Sorbon, aulic chaplain of St. Louis, who

established one of the 63 colleges of the University. ... The

name of Sorbonne was first applied to the theological faculty

only; but at length the whole University received this

designation."

J. Alzog, Manual of Universal Church History,

volume 3, page 24, foot-note.

EDUCATION:

The Nations.

"The precise date of the organization at Paris of the four

Nations which maintained themselves there until the latest

days of the university escapes the most minute research.

Neither for the Nations nor for the Faculties was there any

sudden blossoming, but rather a slow evolution, an insensible

preparation for a definite condition. Already at the close of

the twelfth century there is mention in contemporary documents

of the various provinces of the school of Paris. The Nations

are mentioned in the bulls of Gregory IX. (1231) and of

Innocent IV. (1245). In 1245, they already elect their

attendants, the beadles. In 1249, the existence of the four

Nations--France, Picardy, Normandy, and England--is proved by

their quarrels over the election of a rector. ... Until the

definitive constitution of the Faculties, that is, until 1270

or 1280, the four Nations included the totality of students

and masters.

{696}

After the formation of the Faculties, the four Nations

comprised only the members of the Faculty of Arts and those

students of other Faculties who had not yet obtained the grade

of Bachelor of Arts. The three superior Faculties, Theology,

Medicine, and Law, had nothing in common thenceforward with

the Nations. ... At Bologna, as at Paris, the Nations were

constituted in the early years of the thirteenth century, but

under a slightly different form. There the students were

grouped in two distinct associations, the Ultramontanes and

the Citramontanes, the foreigners and the Italians, who formed

two universities, the Transalpine and the Cisalpine, each with

its chiefs, who were not styled procurators but counsellors;

the first was composed of eighteen Nations and the second of

seventeen. At Padua twenty-two Nations were enumerated.

Montpellier had only three in 1339,--the Catalans, the

Burgundians, the Provençals; each sub-divided, however, into

numerous groups. Orleans had ten: France, Germany, Lorraine,

Burgundy, Champagne, Picardy, Normandy, Touraine, Guyanne, and

Scotland; Poitiers had four: France, Aquitaine, Touraine, and

Berry; Prague had four also, in imitation of Paris; Lerida had

twelve, in imitation of Bologna, etc. But whether more or less

numerous, and whatever their special organization, the Nations

in all the universities bore witness to that need of

association which is one of the characteristics of the Middle

Ages. ... One of the consequences of their organization was to

prevent the blending and fusion of races, and to maintain the

distinction of provinces and nationalities among the pupils of

the same university."

G. Compayré, Abelard, part 2, chapter 2.

EDUCATION: Italy

Revived Study of Roman Law.

"It is known that Justinian established in Rome a school of

law, similar to those of Constantinople and Berytus. When Rome

ceased to be subject to Byzantine rule, this law-school seems

to have been transferred to Ravenna, where it continued to keep

alive the knowledge of the Justinian system. That system

continued to be known and used, from century to century, in a

tradition never wholly interrupted, especially in the free

cities of Northern Italy. It seems even to have penetrated

beyond Italy into Southern France. But it was destined to

have, at the beginning of the twelfth century, a very

extraordinary revival. This revival was part of a general

movement of the European mind which makes its appearance at

that epoch. The darkness which settled down on the world, at

the time of the barbarian invasions, had its midnight in the

ninth and tenth centuries. In the eleventh, signs of progress

and improvement begin to show themselves, becoming more

distinct towards its close, when the period of the Crusades

was opening upon Europe. Just at this time we find a famous

school of law established in Bologna, and frequented by

multitudes of pupils, not only from all parts of Italy, but

from Germany, France, and other countries. The basis of all

its instruction was the Corpus Juris Civilis [see CORPUS JURIS

CIVILIS]. Its teachers, who constitute a series of

distinguished jurists extending over a century and a half,

devoted themselves to the work of expounding the text and

elucidating the principles of the Corpus Juris, and especially

the Digest. From the form in which they recorded and handed

down the results of their studies, they have obtained the name

of glossators. On their copies of the Corpus Juris they were

accustomed to write glosses, i. e., brief marginal

explanations and remarks. These glosses came at length to be

an immense literature. ... Here, then, in this school of the

glossators, at Bologna, in the twelfth and thirteenth

centuries, the awakened mind of Europe was brought to

recognize the value of the Corpus Juris, the almost

inexhaustible treasure of juristic principles, precepts,

conceptions, reasonings, stored up in it."

Jas. Hadley, Introduction to Roman Law, lecture 2.

EDUCATION: Italy

University of Bologna.

"In the twelfth century the law school of the University of

Bologna eclipsed all others in Europe. The two great branches

of legal study in the middle ages, the Roman law and the canon

law, began in the teaching of Irnerius and Gratian at Bologna

in the first half of the twelfth century. At the beginning of

this century the name of university first replaces that of

school; and it is said that the great university degree, that

of doctor, was first instituted at Bologna, and that the

ceremony for conferring it was devised there. From Bologna the

degree and its ceremonial travelled to Paris. A bull of Pope

Honorius, in 1220, says that the study of 'bomæ literæ' had at

that time made the city of Bologna famous throughout the

world. Twelve thousand students from all parts of Europe are

said to have been congregated there at once. The different

nations had their colleges, and of colleges at Bologna there

were fourteen. These were founded and endowed by the

liberality of private persons; the university professors, the

source of attraction to this multitude of students, were paid

by the municipality, who found their reward in the fame,

business, and importance brought to their town by the

university. The municipalities of the great cities of northern

and central Italy were not slow in following the example of

Bologna; in the thirteenth century Padua, Modena, Piacenza,

Parma, Ferrara, had each its university. Frederick II. founded

that of Naples in 1224; in the fourteenth century were added

those of Pavia, Perugia, Pisa, and Turin. Colleges of

examiners, or, as we should say, boards, were created by Papal

bull to examine in theology, and by imperial decree to examine

in law and medicine. It was in these studies of law and

medicine that the Italian universities were chiefly

distinguished."

M. Arnold, Schools and Universities

on the Continent, chapter 9.

"The Bologna School of jurisprudence was several times

threatened with total extinction. In the repeated difficulties

with the city the students would march out of the town, bound

by a solemn oath not to return; and if a compromise was to be

effected, a papal dispensation from that oath must first be

obtained. Generally on such occasions, the privileges of the

university were reaffirmed and often enlarged. In other cases,

a quarrel between the pope and the city, and the ban placed

over the latter, obliged the students to leave; and then the

city often planned and furthered the removal of the

university. King Frederic II., in 1226, during the war against

Bologna, dissolved the school of jurisprudence, which seems to

have been not at all affected thereby, and he formally

recalled that ordinance in the following year. Originally the

only school in Bologna was the school of jurisprudence, and in

connection with it alone a university could be formed. ....

Subsequently eminent teachers of medicine and the liberal arts

appeared, and their pupils, too, sought to form a university

and to choose their own rector.

{697}

As late as 1295 this innovation was disputed by the jurists

and interdicted by the city, so that they had to connect

themselves with the university of jurisprudence. But a few

years later we find them already in possession again of a few

rectors, and in 1316 their right was formally recognized in a

compromise between the university of jurisprudence and the

city. The students called themselves 'philosophi et medici' or

'physici'; also by the common name of 'artistæ.' Finally a

school of theology, founded by pope Innocent VI., was added in

the second half of the 14th century; it was placed under the

bishop, and organized in imitation of the school at Paris, so

that it was a 'universitas magistrorum,' not 'scholarium.' As,

however, by this arrangement the students of theology in the

theological university had no civil privileges of their own,

they were considered individually as belonging to the

'artistæ.' From this time Bologna had four universities, two

of jurisprudence, the one of medicine and philosophy, and the

theological, the first two having no connection with the

others, forming a unit, and therefore frequently designated as

one university."

F. C. Savigny, The Universities of the Middle Ages

(Barnard's American Journal of Education,

volume 22, pages 278-279).

EDUCATION:

Other Universities.

"The oldest and most frequented university in Italy, that of

Bologna, is represented as having flourished in the twelfth

century. Its prosperity in early times depended greatly on the

personal conduct of the principal professors, who, when they

were not satisfied with their entertainment, were in the habit

of seceding with their pupils to other cities. Thus high

schools were opened from time to time in Modena, Reggio, and

elsewhere by teachers who broke the oaths that bound them to

reside in Bologna, and fixed their centre of education in a

rival town. To make such temporary changes was not difficult

in an age when what we have to call an university, consisted

of masters and scholars, without college buildings, without

libraries, without endowments, and without scientific

apparatus. The technical name for such institutions seems to

have been 'studium scholarium,' Italianised into 'studio' or

'studio pubblico.' Among the more permanent results of these

secessions may be mentioned the establishment of the high

school at Vicenza by translation from Bologna in 1204, and the

opening of a school at Arezzo under similar circumstances in

1215; the great University of Padua first saw the light in

consequence of political discords forcing the professors to

quit Bologna for a season. The first half of the thirteenth

century witnessed the foundation of these 'studi' in

considerable numbers. That of Vercelli was opened in 1228, the

municipality providing two certified copyists for the

convenience of students who might wish to purchase textbooks.

In 1224 the Emperor Frederick II., to whom the south of Italy

owed a precocious eminence in literature, established the

University of Naples by an Imperial diploma. With a view to

rendering it the chief seat of learning in his dominions, he

forbade the subjects of the Regno to frequent other schools,

and suppressed the University of Bologna by letters general.

Thereupon Bologna joined the Lombard League, defied the

Emperor, and refused to close the schools, which numbered at

that period about ten thousand students of various

nationalities. In 1227 Frederick revoked his edict, and

Bologna remained thenceforward unmolested. Political and

internal vicissitudes, affecting all the Italian universities

at this period, interrupted the prosperity of that of Naples.

In the middle of the thirteenth century Salerno proved a

dangerous rival. ... An important group of 'studi pubblici'

owed their origin to Papal or Imperial charters in the first

half of the fourteenth century. That of Perugia was founded in

1307 by a Bull of Clement V. That of Rome dated from 1303, in

which year Boniface VIII. gave it a constitution by a special

edict; but the translation of the Papal See to Avignon caused

it to fall into premature decadence. The University of Pisa

had already existed for some years, when it received a charter

in 1343 from Clement VI. That of Florence was first founded in

1321. ... The subjects taught in the high schools were Canon

and Civil Law, Medicine, and Theology. These faculties,

important for the professional education of the public, formed

the staple of the academical curriculum. Chairs of Rhetoric,

Philosophy, and Astronomy were added according to occasion,

the last sometimes including the study of judicial astrology.

If we enquire how the humanists or professors of classic

literature were related to the universities, we find that, at

first at any rate, they always occupied a second rank. The

permanent teaching remained in the hands of jurists, who

enjoyed life engagements at a high rate of pay, while the

Latinists and Grecians could only aspire to the temporary

occupation of the Chair of Rhetoric, with salaries

considerably lower than those of lawyers or physicians."

J. A. Symonds, Renaissance in Italy: the Revival of

Learning, chapter 3.

"Few of the Italian universities show themselves in their full

vigour till the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, when the

increase of wealth rendered a more systematic care for

education possible. At first there were generally three sorts

of professorships--one for civil law, another for canonical

law, the third for medicine; in course of time professorships

of rhetoric, of philosophy, and of astronomy were added, the

last commonly, though not always, identical with astrology.

The salaries varied greatly in different cases. Sometimes a

capital sum was paid down. With the spread of culture

competition became so active that the different universities

tried to entice away distinguished teachers from one another,

under which circumstances Bologna is said to have sometimes

devoted the half of its public income (20,000 ducats) to the

university. The appointments were as a rule made only for a

certain time, sometimes for only half a year, so that the

teachers were forced to lead a wandering life, like actors.

Appointments for life were, however, not unknown. ... Of the

chairs which have been mentioned, that of rhetoric was

especially sought by the humanist; yet it depended only on his

familiarity with the matter of ancient learning whether or no

he could aspire to those of law, medicine, philosophy, or

astronomy. The inward conditions of the science of the day

were as variable as the outward conditions of the teacher.

Certain jurists and physicians received by far the largest

salaries of all, the former chiefly as consulting lawyers for

the suits and claims of the state which employed them. ...

{698}

Personal intercourse between the teachers and the taught,

public disputations, the constant use of Latin and often of

Greek, the frequent changes of lecturers and the scarcity of

books, gave the studies of that time a colour which we cannot

represent to ourselves without effort. There were Latin

schools in every town of the least importance, not by any

means merely as preparatory to higher education, but because,

next to reading, writing, and arithmetic, the knowledge of

Latin was a necessity; and after Latin came logic. It is to be

noted particularly that these schools did not depend on the

Church, but on the municipality; some of them, too, were

merely private enterprises. This school system, directed by a

few distinguished humanists, not only attained a remarkable

perfection of organisation, but became an instrument of higher

education in the modern sense of the phrase."

J. Burckhardt, The Civilisation of the Period

of the Renaissance in Italy, volume 1, part 3, chapter 5.

EDUCATION: Germany.

Prague and its Offspring.

"The earliest university in Germany was that of Prague. It was

in 1348, under the Emperor Charles IV., when the taste for

letters had revived so signally in Europe, when England may be

said to have possessed her two old universities already for

three centuries, Paris her Sorbonne already for four, that

this university was erected as the first of German

Universities. The idea originated in the mind of the Emperor,

who was educated in Paris, at the university of that town, and

was eagerly taken up by the townspeople of that ancient and

wealthy city, for they foresaw that affluence would shower

upon them if they could induce a numerous crowd of students to

flock together within their walls. But the Pope and the

Emperor took an active part in favouring and authorizing the

institution; they willingly granted to it wide privileges, and

made it entirely independent of Church and State. The teaching

of the professors, and the studies of the students, were

submitted to no control whatever. After the model of the

University of Paris, they divided themselves into different

faculties, and made four such divisions--one for divinity,

another for medical science, a third for law, and a fourth for

philosophy. The last order comprised those who taught and

learned the fine arts and the sciences, which two departments

were separate at Sorbonne. All the German universities have

preserved this outward constitution, and in this, as in many

other circumstances, the precedent of Prague has had a

prevailing influence on her younger sister institutions. The

same thing may be said particularly of the disciplinary tone

of the university. In other countries, universities sprang

from rigid clerical and monastic institutions, or bore a more

or less ecclesiastical character which imposed upon them

certain more retired habits, and a severer kind of discipline.

Prague took from the beginning a course widely different. The

students, who were partly Germans, partly of Slavonian blood,

enjoyed a boundless liberty. They lodged in the houses of the

townspeople, and by their riches, their mental superiority,

and their number (they are recorded to have been as many as

twenty thousand in the year 1409), became the undisputed

masters of the city. The professors and the inhabitants of

Prague, far from checking them, rather protected the

prerogatives of the students, for they found out that all

their prosperity depended on them. ... Not two generations had

passed since the erection of an institution thus constituted,

before Huss and Jerome of Prague began to teach the necessity

of an entire reformation of the Church. The phenomenon is

characteristic of the bold spirit of inquiry that must have

grown up at the new University. However, the political

consequences that attended the promulgation of such doctrines

led almost to the dissolution of the University itself. For,

the German part of the students broke up, in consequence of

repeated and serious quarrels that had taken place with the

Bohemian and Slavonic party, and went to Leipzig, where

straightway a new and purely German University was erected.

While Prague became the seat of a protracted and sanguinary

war, a great number of Universities rose into existence around

it, and attracted the crowds that had formerly flocked to the

Bohemian capital. It appeared as if Germany, though it had

received the impulse from abroad, would leave all other

countries behind itself in the erection and promotion of these

learned institutions, for all the districts of the land vied

with each other in creating universities. Thus arose those of

Rostock, Ingolstadt, Vienna, Heidelberg, Cologne, Erfurt,

Tübingen, Greifswalde, Trèves, Mayence and Bâles-schools which

have partly disappeared again during the political storms of

subsequent ages. The beginning of the sixteenth century added

to them one at Frankfort on the Oder, and another, the most

illustrious of all, Wittenberg. Everyone who is acquainted

with the history and origin of the Reformation, knows what an

important part the latter of these universities took in the

weighty transactions of those times. ... Wittenberg remained

by no means the only champion of Protestantism. At Marburg,

Jena, Königsberg, and Helmstadt, universities of a professedly

Protestant character were erected. These schools became the

cradle and nurseries of the Reformation."

The Universities of Germany

(Dublin University Magazine, volume 46, pages 83-85).

"The German universities of the fourteenth and fifteenth

centuries were founded in the following order: Prague, 1348;

Vienna, 1388; Erfurt, 1392; Leipsic, 1409; Rostock, 1419;

Greifswald, 1456; Freiburg, 1457; Ingolstadt, 1472; Tübingen,

1477; and Mayence, 1477. Thus, it will be seen that they were

established in quick succession--an unmistakable proof of the

growing scientific interest of the age."

F. V. N. Painter, History of Education,

chapter 3, section 5 (k).

EDUCATION: Netherlands.

"Tradition reports that a school had ... been founded at

Utrecht, by some zealous missionary, in the time of Charles

Martel, at which his son Pepin received his education. However

this may have been, the renown of the Utrecht School of St.

Martin is of very ancient date. ... During the invasion by the

Normans, this school at Utrecht was suppressed, but was

reëstablished in 917, and regained its former renown. The

Emperor, Henry the Fowler, placed here his three sons, Otto,

Henry and Bruno, to be educated, of whom the last became

afterward archbishop of Cologne and archduke of Lottringen,

and was noted for his extraordinary learning and friendship

for the poet Prudentius. At the beginning of the 12th century,

Utrecht possessed no less than five flourishing schools,

several of which had each a 'rector' in addition to the

priests who had the general control. At about the same time,

several convents became distinguished as educational

institutions, especially those of Egmond, Nymwegen,

Middleburg, in Zealand, and Aduwert, near Gröningen.

{699}

In Holland, as in Belgium, in addition to the schools that

were attached to the cathedrals, convents, and chapters, there

were established in the course of the twelfth century, by the

more wealthy communities, public schools especially designed

for the instruction of the citizens and laity. It is also

worthy of notice that the authority to open such schools was

always derived from the counts--by whom it was conferred,

sometimes upon the cities as an especial privilege, and

sometimes upon merely private persons as a mark of particular

favor. The jurisdiction of the feudal lords was the same here

as in Belgium; but while in the latter country, with the

exception perhaps of the elementary schools in some of the

cities, the right of supervision everywhere devolved upon the

chapters, instruction in these public schools of Holland was

wholly withdrawn from the clergy, and they were made

essentially secular in their character. The privilege of thus

establishing schools was conferred upon some of the cities at

the following dates:

Dort, by Count Floris V., A. D. 1290;

the Hague, 1322;

Leyden, 1324;

and Rotterdam in 1328, by William III.;

Delft and Amsterdam, in 1334, by William IV.;

Leyden again, 1357;

Haarlem, 1389;

Alkmar, 1398;

Hoorn, 1358 and 1390;

the Hague, 1393;

Schiedam and Ondewater, 1394;

and Rotterdam, in 1402, by Albert of Bavaria.

These schools, adds Stallaert, on the authority of Buddingh,

were generally styled 'School en Schryfambacht,' 'Schoole en

Kostern,' (school and writing offices, schools and clerks'

houses,) and the 'Schoolmijsters' (school-masters) were looked

upon as professional men or craftsmen--as was the case also in

Belgium, where they formed distinct guilds and fraternities.

These public schools of Holland were divided into 'large' and

'small' schools, (groote en bijschoolen,) Latin being taught

in the first division. The institution at Zwolle, attained

special notoriety in the fourteenth century, under the

direction of the celebrated Johan Cele. According to Thomas à

Kempis and Ten Bussche, its pupils numbered about a thousand,

gathered from Holland, Belgium, and the principal provinces of

Germany."

Public Instruction in Holland

(Barnard's American Journal of Education, volume 14).

EDUCATION: England.

Early Oxford.

"The University of Oxford did not spring into being in any

particular year, or at the bidding of any particular founder:

it was not established by any formal charter of incorporation.

Taking its rise in a small and obscure association of teachers

and learners, it developed spontaneously into a large and

important body, long before its existence was recognised by

prince or by prelate. There were certainly schools at Oxford

in the reign of Henry I., but the previous history of the

place does not throw much light on their origin, or explain

the causes of their popularity. The town seems to have grown

up under the shadow of a nunnery, which is said to have been

founded by St. Frideswyde as far back as the eighth century.

Its authentic annals, however, begin with the year 912, when

it was occupied and annexed by Edward the Elder, King of the

West Saxons. ... Oxford was considered a place of great

strategical importance in the eleventh century. Its position

on the borders of Mercia and Wessex rendered it also,

particularly convenient for parleys between Englishmen and

Danes, and for great national assemblies. ... Retaining for a

while its rank as one of the chief centres of political life

in the south of England, and as a suitable meeting-place for

parliaments and synods, Oxford became thenceforward more and

more distinctively known as a seat of learning and a nursery

of clerks. The schools which existed at Oxford before the

reign of King John, are so seldom and so briefly noticed in

contemporary records, that it would be difficult to show how

they developed into a great university, if it were not for the

analogy of kindred institutions in other countries. There can

be little doubt, however, that the idea of a university, the

systems of degrees and faculties, and the nomenclature of the

chief academical officers, were alike imported into England

from abroad. ... In the earliest and broadest sense of the

term, a university had no necessary connexion with schools or

literature, being merely a community of individuals bound

together by some more or less acknowledged tie. Regarded

collectively in this light, the inhabitants of any particular

town might be said to constitute a university, and in point of

fact the Commonalty of the townsmen of Oxford was sometimes

described as a university in formal documents of the middle

ages. The term was, however, specially applied to the whole

body of persons frequenting the schools of a large studium.

Ultimately it came to be employed in a technical sense as

synonymous with studium, to denote the institution itself.

This last use of the term seems to be of English origin, for

the University of Oxford is mentioned as such in writs and

ordinances of the years 1238, 1240, and 1253, whereas the

greater seat of learning on the banks of the Seine was, until

the year 1263, styled 'the University of the Masters,' or 'the

University of the Scholars,' of Paris. The system of

academical degrees dates from the second half of the twelfth

century."

H. C. M. Lyte, A History of the University

of Oxford, chapter 1.

"In the early Oxford ... of the twelfth and most of the

thirteenth centuries, colleges with their statutes were

unknown. The University was the only corporation of the

learned, and she struggled into existence after hard fights

with the town, the Jews, the Friars, the Papal courts. The

history of the University begins with the thirteenth century.

She may be said to have come into being as soon as she

possessed common funds and rents, as soon as fines were

assigned, or benefactions contributed to the maintenance of

scholars. Now the first recorded fine is the payment of

fifty-two shillings by the townsmen of Oxford as part of the

compensation for the hanging of certain clerks. In the year

1214 the Papal Legate, in a letter to his 'beloved sons in

Christ, the burgesses of Oxford,' bade them excuse the

'scholars studying in Oxford' half the rent of their halls, or

hospitia, for the space of ten years. The burghers were also

to do penance, and to feast the poorer students once a year;

but the important point is, that they had to pay that large

yearly fine 'propter suspendium clericorum'--all for the

hanging of the clerks. Twenty-six years after this decision of

the Legate, Robert Grossteste, the great Bishop of Lincoln,

organized the payment and distribution of the fine, and

founded the first of the chests, the chest of St. Frideswyde.

{700}

These chests were a kind of Mont de Piété, and to found them

was at first the favourite form of benefaction. Money was left

in this or that chest, from which students and masters would

borrow, on the security of pledges, which were generally

books, cups, daggers, and so forth. Now, in this affair of

1214 we have a strange passage of history, which happily

illustrates the growth of the University. The beginning of the

whole affair was the quarrel with the town, which in 1209, had

hanged two clerks, 'in contempt of clerical liberty.' The

matter was taken up by the Legate--in those bad years of King

John, the Pope's viceroy in England--and out of the

humiliation of the town the University gained money,

privileges, and halls at low rental. These were precisely the

things that the University wanted. About these matters there

was a constant strife, in which the Kings as a rule, took part

with the University. ... Thus gradually the University got the

command of the police, obtained privileges which enslaved the

city, and became masters where they had once been despised,

starveling scholars. ... The result, in the long run, was that

the University received from Edward III. 'a most large

charter, containing many liberties, some that they had before,

and others that he had taken away from the town.' Thus Edward

granted to the University 'the custody of the assize of bread,

wine, and ale,' the supervising of measures and weights, the

sole power of clearing the streets of the town and suburbs.

Moreover, the Mayor and the chief Burghers were condemned

yearly to a sort of public penance and humiliation on St.

Scholastica's Day. Thus, by the middle of the fourteenth

century, the strife of Town and Gown had ended in the complete

victory of the latter."

A. Lang, Oxford, chapter 2.

"To mark off the Middle Age from the Modern Period of the

University is certainly very difficult. Indeed the earlier

times do not form a homogeneous whole, but appear perpetually

shifting and preparing for a new state. The main transition

however was undoubtedly about the middle of the fourteenth

century; and the Reformation, a remarkable crisis, did but

confirm what had been in progress for more than a century and

a half: so that the Middle Age of the University contained the

thirteenth century, and barely the former half of the

fourteenth. ... There is no question, that during this Middle

Age the English Universities were distinguished far more than

ever afterwards by energy and variety of intellect. Later

times cannot produce a concentration of men eminent in all the

learning and science of the age, such as Oxford and Cambridge

then poured forth, mightily influencing the intellectual

development of all Western Christendom. Their names indeed may

warn us against an undiscriminating disparagement of the

Monasteries, as 'hotbeds of ignorance and stupidity'; when so

many of those worthies were monks of the Benedictine,

Franciscan, Dominican, Carmelite, or reformed Augustinian

order. But in consequence of this surpassing celebrity, Oxford

became the focus of a prodigious congregation of students, to

which nothing afterwards bore comparison. The same was

probably true of Cambridge in relative proportion. ... A

tolerably well authenticated account, attacked of late by

undue scepticism, fixes [the number of] those of Oxford at

thirty thousand, in the middle of the thirteenth century. The

want indeed of contemporary evidence must make us cautious of

yielding absolute belief to this: in fact we have no document

on this matter even as old as the Reformation. ... Not only

did the Church and the new orders of Monks draw great numbers

thither, but the Universities themselves were vast High

Schools, comprising boys and even children. It is not

extravagant, if Cambridge was not yet in great repute, to

imagine fifteen thousand students of all ages at Oxford, and

as many more attendants. Nor was it at all difficult to

accommodate them in the town, when Oxford contained three

hundred Halls and Inns: and as several students dwelt in one

room, and were not careful for luxury, each building on an

average might easily hold one hundred persons. The style of

Architecture was of the simplest and cheapest kind, and might

have been easily run up on a sudden demand: and a rich flat

country, with abundant water carriage, needed not to want

provisions. That the numbers were vast, is implied by the

highly respectable evidence which we have, that as many as

three thousand migrated from Oxford on the riots of 1209;

although the Chronicler expressly states that not all joined

in the secession. In the reign of Henry III. the reduced

numbers are reckoned at fifteen thousand. After the middle of

the fourteenth century, they were still as many as from three

to four thousand; and after the Reformation they mount again

to five thousand. On the whole therefore the computation of

thirty thousand, as the maximum, may seem, if not positively

true, yet the nearest approximation which we can expect. Of

Cambridge we know no more than that the numbers were much

lower than at Oxford. ... While in the general, there was a

substantial identity between the scholastic learning of Oxford

and of Paris, yet Oxford was more eager in following positive

science:--and this, although such studies were disparaged by

the Church, and therefore by the public. Indeed originally the

Church had been on the opposite side; but the speculative

tendency of the times had carried her over, so that

speculation and theology went hand in hand. In the middle of

the thirteenth century we may name Robert Grosseteste and John

Basingstock, as cultivating physical science, and (more

remarkable still) the Franciscan Roger Bacon: a man whom the

vulgar held to be equal to Merlin and Michael Scott as a

magician, and whom posterity ranks by the noblest spirits of

the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, in all branches of

positive science,--except theology. A biography of Roger Bacon

should surely be written! Unfortunately, we know nothing as to

the influence of these men on their times, nor can we even

learn whether the University itself was at all interested in

their studies. ... We have ... a strange testimony to the

interest which in the beginning of the fourteenth century the

mass of the students took in the speculation of their elders;

for the street rows were carried on under the banners of

Nominalists and Realists. ... The coarse and ferocious manners

prevalent in the Universities of the Middle Ages are every

where in singular contrast to their intellectual pretensions:

but the Universities of the Continent were peaceful, decorous,

dignified,--compared with those of England. The storms which

were elsewhere occasional, were at Oxford the permanent

atmosphere. For nearly two centuries our 'Foster Mother' of

Oxford lived in a din of uninterrupted furious warfare; nation

against nation, school against school, faculty against

faculty. Halls, and finally Colleges, came forward as

combatants; and the University, as a whole, against the Town;

or against the Bishop of Lincoln; or against the Archbishop of

Canterbury. Nor was Cambridge much less pugnacious."

V. A. Huber, The English Universities,

volume 1, chapter 3.

{701}

EDUCATION:

Cambridge.

"Various facts and circumstances ... lend probability to the

belief that, long before the time when we have certain

evidence of the existence of Cambridge as a university, the

work of instruction was there going on. The Camboritum of the

Roman period, the Grantebrycgr of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,

the Grentebrige of Domesday, must always have been a place of

some importance. It was the meeting-place of two great Roman

roads,--Akeman Street, running east and west, and the Via

Devana, traversing the north and the south. ... Confined at

first to the rising ground on the left bank of the river, it

numbered at the time of the Norman Conquest as many as four

hundred houses, of which twenty-seven were pulled down to make

way for the castle erected by William the Conqueror. ... Under

the castle walls, with the view, it would seem, of making some

atonement for many a deed of violence and wrong, the Norman

sheriff, Picot by name, founded the Church of St. Giles, and

instituted in connection with it a small body of secular

canons. ... The year 1112 was marked by the occurrence of an

event of considerable importance in connection with the

subsequent history of the university. The canons of St. Giles,

attended by a large concourse of the clergy and laity, crossed

the river, and took up their abode in a new and spacious

priory at Barnwell. ... The priory at Barnwell, which always

ranked among the wealthiest of the Cambridge foundations,

seems from the first to have been closely associated with the

university; and the earliest university exhibitions were those

founded by William de Kilkenny, bishop of Ely from 1254 to

1257, for two students of divinity, who were to receive

annually the sum of two marks from the priory. In the year

1133 was founded the nunnery of St. Rhadegund, which, in the

reign of Henry VII., was converted into Jesus College; and in

1135 a hospital of Augustinian canons, dedicated to St. John

the Evangelist, was founded by Henry Frost, a burgess of the

town. ... It was ... a very important foundation, inasmuch as

it not only became by conversion in the sixteenth century the

College of St. John the Evangelist, but was also ... the

foundation of which Peterhouse, the earliest Cambridge

college, may be said to have been in a certain sense the

offshoot. ... In the year 1229 there broke out at Paris a feud

of more than ordinary gravity between the students and the

citizens. Large numbers of the former migrated to the English

shores; and Cambridge, from its proximity to the eastern

coast, and as the centre where Prince Louis, but a few years

before, had raised the royal standard, seems to have attracted

the great majority. ... The university of Cambridge, like that

of Oxford, was modelled mainly on the university of Paris. Its

constitution was consequently oligarchic rather than

democratic, the government being entirely in the hands of the

teaching body, while the bachelors and undergraduates had no

share in the passing of new laws and regulations."

J. B. Mullinger, A History of the University of

Cambridge, chapter 1-2.

"The earliest existing college at Cambridge is St. Peter's,

generally called Peterhouse, historically founded A. D. 1257,

in the reign of Henry III. The Universities are known merely

by their situation; as Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, St.

Andrews'; but each college has a name, according to the taste

of its founder or first members. These names may be divided

into two classes, those named from the founder, as Pembroke,

Clare, Gonville and Caius (this had two founders, the restorer

being Dr. Kaye, who Latinized his name into Caius, always

pronounced Keys), King's (from King Henry VI.),--Queens' (from

the queens both of Henry VI. and Edward IV.), Sidney Sussex,

and Downing;--and those named for beatified persons and

objects of worship,--St. Peter's, St. John's, St. Catharine's,

St. Mary Magdalene, Corpus Christi, Emmanuel, Jesus Christ's,

Trinity and Trinity Hall. The apparent impiety of these names,

which in one case of an ancient name now changed, was

absolutely revolting, entirely passes off with a few days'

use. St. Catharine's soon becomes Cats, and St. Mary Magdalene

is always called Maudlin. You readily admit the superiority of

Trinity over Corpus ale; go to see a friend who lives on

Christ's piece; and hear with regret, that in the boat races

Emmanuel has been bumped by Jesus; an epithet being probably

prefixed to the last name. These names of course were given in

monkish times,--Trinity by Henry VIII., but all the colleges

except one were founded before the reign of James I. ... The

seventeen colleges ... are distinct corporations. Their

foundations, resources, buildings, governing authorities and

students, are entirely separate from each other. Nor has any

one college the least control in any other. The plan, however,

is much the same in all. The presiding authority is in most

cases called the Master, or speaking more generally, the Head;

while the net proceeds of all the college funds--for the vast

wealth supposed to belong to the University really is in the

hands of the separate colleges--are distributed among certain

of the graduates, called Fellows, who with the Head constitute

the corporation. These corporations give board and lodging on

various terms to such students as choose to enter the college

and comply with its rules, in order to receive its assistance

in obtaining the honors of the University; and each college

offers its own peculiar inducements to students. ... The whole

body of the colleges, taken together, constitutes the

University. All those who after residing seven years at some

college, have taken the degree of Master of Arts, or a higher

one, and keep their name on the college lists by a small

payment, vote at the University elections for members of

Parliament and all other officers, and manage its affairs. ...

The colleges, at certain intervals; present such students as

comply with their conditions to University authorities for

matriculation, for certain examinations, and for the reception

of degrees; and until one receives the degree of Master of

Arts, he must remain a member of some college, not necessarily

one and the same, to hold any University privileges. After

this stage, he may, under certain conditions, break up all his

college connections, and yet remain in the University."

W. Everett, On the Cam., lecture 1.

{702}

EDUCATION:

Spain and Portugal.

"Salamanca was founded in the 13th-century, and received its

statutes in the year 1422, out of which was developed the

following constitution. The rector, with eight 'consiliarii,'

all students, who could appoint their successors, administered

the university. The doctors render the oath of obedience to

the rector. The 'domscholaster' is the proper judge of the

school; but he swears obedience to the rector. A bachelor of

law must have studied six years, and after five years more he

could become licentiate. In filling a paid teachership, the

doctor was chosen next in age of those holding the diploma,

unless a great majority of the scholars objected, in which

case the rector and council decided. This liberal constitution

for the scholars is in harmony with the code of Alphonzo X.,

soon after 1250, in which the liberty of instruction was made

a general principle of law. This constitution continued in

Salamanca into the 17th century, for Retes speaks of a

disputation which the rector held at that time under his

presidency. Alcala university was established by cardinal

Ximenes, in 1510, for the promotion of the study of theology

and philosophy, for which reason it contained a faculty of

canon, but not of civil law. The center of the university was

the college of St. Ildefons, consisting of thirty-three

prebendaries, who could be teachers or scholars, since for

admission were required only poverty, the age of twenty, and

the completion of the course of the preparatory colleges.

These thirty-three members elected annually a rector and three

councilors, who controlled the entire university. Salaried

teachers were elected, not by the rector and council alone,

but by all the students. It had wide reputation. When visited

by Francis I., while a prisoner of Spain, he was welcomed by

11,000 students. The Coimbra university, in Portugal, received

statutes in 1309, from king Dionysius, with a constitution

similar to those just mentioned."

F. C. Savigny, The Universities of the Middle Ages

(Barnard's American Journal of Education, volume 22, page 324).

EDUCATION:

Renaissance.

"Modern education begins with the Renaissance. The educational

methods that we then begin to discern will doubtless not be

developed and perfected till a later period; the new doctrines

will pass into practice only gradually, and with the general

progress of the times. But from the sixteenth century

education is in possession of its essential principles. ...

The men of the sixteenth century having renewed with classical

antiquity an intercourse that had been too long interrupted,

it was natural that they should propose to the young the study

of the Greeks and the Romans. What is called secondary

instruction really dates from the sixteenth century. The crude

works of the Middle Age are succeeded by the elegant

compositions of Athens and Rome, henceforth made accessible to

all through the art of printing; and, with the reading of the

ancient authors, there reappear through the fruitful effect of

imitation, their qualities of correctness in thought, of

literary taste, and of elegance in form. In France, as in

Italy, the national tongues, moulded, and, as it were,

consecrated by writers of genius, become the instruments of an

intellectual propaganda. Artistic taste, revived by the rich

products of a race of incomparable artists, gives an extension

to the horizon of life, and creates a new class of emotions.

Finally, the Protestant Reform develops individual thought and

free inquiry, and at the same time, by its success, it imposes

still greater efforts on the Catholic Church. This is not

saying that everything is faultless in the educational efforts

of the sixteenth century. First, as is natural for innovators,

the thought of the teachers of this period is marked by

enthusiasm rather than by precision. They are more zealous in

pointing out the end to be attained, than exact in determining

the means to be employed. Besides, some of them are content to

emancipate the mind, but forget to give it proper direction.

Finally, others make a wrong use of the ancients; they are too

much preoccupied with the form and the purity of language;

they fall into Ciceromania, and it is not their fault if a new

superstition, that of rhetoric, does not succeed the old

superstition, that of the Syllogism."

G. Compayré, The History of Pedagogy,

chapter 5 (section 92-93).

EDUCATION:

Rabelais' Gargantua.

Rabelais' description of the imaginary education of Gargantua

gives us the educational ideas of a man of genius in the 16th

century: "Gargantua," he writes, "awaked, then, about four

o'clock in the morning. Whilst they were rubbing him, there

was read unto him some chapter of the Holy Scripture aloud and

clearly, with a pronunciation fit for the matter, and hereunto

was appointed a young page born in Basché, named Anagnostes.

According to the purpose and argument of that lesson, he

oftentimes gave himself to revere, adore, pray, and send up

his supplications to that good God whose word did show His

majesty and marvellous judgments. Then his master repeated

what had been read, expounding unto him the most obscure and

difficult points. They then considered the face of the sky, if

it was such as they had observed it the night before, and into

what signs the sun was entering, as also the moon for that

day. This done, he was appareled, combed, curled, trimmed and

perfumed, during which time they repeated to him the lessons

of the day before. He himself said them by heart, and upon

them grounded practical cases concerning the estate of man,

which he would prosecute sometimes two or three hours, but

ordinarily they ceased as soon as he was fully clothed. Then

for three good hours there was reading. This done, they went

forth, still conferring of the substance of the reading, and

disported themselves at ball, tennis, or the 'pile trigone,'

gallantly exercising their bodies, as before they had done

their minds. All their play was but in liberty, for they left

off when they pleased, and that was commonly when they did

sweat, or were otherwise weary. Then were they very well dried

and rubbed, shifted their shirts, and walking soberly, went to

see if dinner was ready. Whilst they stayed for that, they did

clearly and eloquently recite some sentences that they had

retained of the lecture. In the mean time Master Appetite

came, and then very orderly sat they down at table. At the

beginning of the meal there was read some pleasant history of

ancient prowess, until he had taken his wine. Then, if they

thought good, they continued reading, or began to discourse

merrily together; speaking first of the virtue, propriety,

efficacy, and nature of all that was served in at that table;

of bread, of wine, of water, of salt, of flesh, fish, fruits,

herbs, roots, and of their dressing. By means whereof, he

learned in a little time all the passages that on these

subjects are to be found in Pliny, Athenæus, Dioscorides,

Julius, Pollux, Galen, Porphyrius, Oppian, Polybius,

Heliodorus, Aristotle, Œlian, and others.

{703}

Whilst they talked of these things, many times, to be the more

certain, they caused the very books to be brought to the

table, and so well and perfectly did he in his memory retain

the things above said, that in that time there was not a

physician that knew half so much as he did. Afterwards they

conferred of the lessons read in the morning, and ending their

repast with some conserve of quince, he washed his hands and

eyes with fair fresh water, and gave thanks unto God in some

fine canticle, made in praise of the divine bounty and

munificence. This done, they brought in cards, not to play,

but to learn a thousand pretty tricks and new inventions,

which were all grounded upon arithmetic. By this means he fell

in love with that numerical science, and every day after

dinner and supper he passed his time in it as pleasantly as he

was wont to do at cards and dice. ... After this they

recreated themselves with singing musically, in four or five

parts, or upon a set theme, as it best pleased them. In matter

of musical instruments, he learned to play the lute, the

spinet, the harp, the German flute, the flute with nine holes,

the violin, and the sackbut. This hour thus spent, he betook

himself to his principal study for three hours together, or

more, as well to repeat his matutinal lectures as to proceed

in the book wherein he was, as also to write handsomely, to

draw and form the antique and Roman letters. This being done,

they went out of their house, and with them a young gentleman

of Touraine, named Gymnast, who taught the art of riding.

Changing then his clothes, he mounted on any kind of horse,

which he made to bound in the air, to jump the ditch, to leap

the palisade, and to turn short in a ring both to the right

and left hand. ... The time being thus bestowed, and himself

rubbed, cleansed, and refreshed with other clothes, they

returned fair and softly; and passing through certain meadows,

or other grassy places, beheld the trees and plants: comparing

them with what is written of them in the books of the

ancients, such as Theophrastus, Dioscorides, Marinus, Pliny,

Nicander, Macer, and Galen, and carried home to the house

great handfuls of them, whereof a young page called Rhizotomos

had charge--together with hoes, picks, spuds, pruning-knives,

and other instruments requisite for herborising. Being come to

their lodging, whilst supper was making ready, they repeated

certain passages of that which had been read, and then sat

down at table. ... During that repast was continued the lesson

read at dinner as long as they thought good: the rest was

spent in good discourse, learned and profitable. After that

they had given thanks, they set themselves to sing musically,

and play upon harmonious instruments, or at those pretty

sports made with cards, dice or cups,--thus made merry till it

was time to go to bed; and sometimes they would go make visits

unto learned men, or to such as had been travellers in strange

countries. At full night they went into the most open place of

the house to see the face of the sky, and there beheld the

comets, if any were, as likewise the figures, situations,

aspects, oppositions, and conjunctions of the stars. Then with

his master did he briefly recapitulate, after the manner of

the Pythagoreans, that which he had read, seen, learned, done,

and understood in the whole course of that day. Then they

prayed unto God the Creator, falling down before Him, and

strengthening their faith towards Him, and glorifying Him for

His boundless bounty; and, giving thanks unto Him for the time

that was past, they recommended themselves to His divine

clemency for the future. Which being done, they entered upon

their repose."

W. Besant, Readings in Rabelais, pages 20-29.

EDUCATION:

Germany.

"The schools of France and Italy owed little to the great

modern movement of the Renaissance. In both these countries

that movement operated, in both it produced mighty results;

but of the official establishments for instruction it did not

get hold. In Italy the mediæval routine in those

establishments at first opposed a passive resistance to it;

presently came the Catholic reaction, and sedulously shut it

out from them. In France the Renaissance did not become a

power in the State, and the routine of the schools sufficed to

exclude the new influence till it took for itself other

channels than the schools. But in Germany the Renaissance

became a power in the State; allied with the Reformation,

where the Reformation triumphed in German countries the

Renaissance triumphed with it, and entered with it, into the

public schools. Melancthon and Erasmus were not merely enemies

and subverters of the dominion of the Church of Rome, they

were eminent humanists; and with the great but single

exception of Luther, the chief German reformers were all of

them distinguished friends of the new classical learning, as

well as of Protestantism. The Romish party was in German

countries the ignorant party also, the party untouched by the

humanities and by culture. Perhaps one reason why in England

our schools have not had the life and growth of the schools of

Germany and Holland is to be found in the separation, with us,

of the power of the Reformation and the power of the

Renaissance. With us, too, the Reformation triumphed and got

possession of our schools; but our leading reformers were not

at the same time, like those of Germany, the nation's leading

spirits in intellect and culture. In Germany the best spirits

of the nation were then the reformers; in England our best

spirits,--Shakspeare, Bacon, Spenser,--were men of the

Renaissance, not men of the Reformation, and our reformers

were men of the second order. The Reformation, therefore,

getting hold of the schools in England was a very different

force, a force far inferior in light, resources, and

prospects, to the Reformation getting hold of the schools in

Germany. But in Germany, nevertheless, as Protestant orthodoxy

grew petrified like Catholic orthodoxy, and as, in

consequence, Protestantism flagged and lost the powerful

impulse with which it started, the school flagged also, and in

the middle of the last century the classical teaching of

Germany, in spite of a few honourable names like Gesner's,

Ernesti's, and Heyne's, seems to have lost all the spirit and

power of the 16th century humanists, to have been sinking into

a mere church appendage, and fast becoming torpid. A

theological student, making his livelihood by teaching till he

could get appointed to a parish, was the usual school-master.

'The schools will never be better,' said their great

renovator, Friedrich August Wolf, the well-known critic of

Homer, 'so long as the school-masters are theologians by

profession.

{704}

A theological course in a university, with its smattering of

classics, is about as good a preparation for a classical

master as a course of feudal law would be.' Wolf's coming to

Halle in 1783, invited by Von Zedlitz, the minister for public

worship under Frederick the Great, a sovereign whose civil

projects and labours were not less active and remarkable than

his military, marks an era from which the classical schools of

Germany, reviving the dormant spark planted in them by the

Renaissance, awoke to a new life."

M. Arnold, Schools and Universities on

the Continent, chapter 14.

It is surprising to learn "how much was left untaught, in the

sixteenth century, in the schools. Geography and history were

entirely omitted in every scheme of instruction, mathematics

played but a subordinate part, while not a thought was

bestowed either upon natural philosophy or natural history.

Every moment and every effort were given to the classical

languages, chiefly to the Latin. But we should be overhasty,

should we conclude, without further inquiry, that these

branches, thus neglected in the schools, were therefore every

where untaught. Perhaps they were reserved for the university

alone, and there, too, for the professors of the philosophical

faculty, as is the case even at the present day with natural

philosophy and natural history; nay, logic, which was a

regular school study in the sixteenth century, is, in our day,

widely cultivated at the university. We must, therefore, in

order to form a just judgment upon the range of subjects

taught in the sixteenth century, as well as upon the methods

of instruction, first cast a glance at the state of the

universities of that period, especially in the philosophical

faculties. A prominent source of information on this point is

to be found in the statutes of the University of Wittenberg,

revised by Melancthon, in the year 1545. The theological

faculty appears, by these statutes, to have consisted of four

professors, who read lectures on the Old and New

Testaments,--chiefly on the Psalms, Genesis, Isaiah, the

Gospel of John, and the Epistle to the Romans. They also

taught dogmatics, commenting upon the Nicene creed and

Augustine's book, 'De spiritu et litera.' The Wittenberg

lecture schedule for the year 1561, is to the same effect;

only we have here, besides exegesis and dogmatics, catechetics

likewise. According to the statutes, the philosophical faculty

was composed of ten professors. The first was to read upon

logic and rhetoric; the second, upon physics, and the second

book of Pliny's natural history; the third, upon arithmetic

and the 'Sphere' of John de Sacro Busto; the fourth, upon

Euclid, the 'Theoriæ Planetarum' of Burbach, and Ptolemy's'

Almagest'; the fifth and sixth, upon the Latin poets and

Cicero; the seventh, who was the 'Pedagogus,' explained to the

younger class, Latin Grammar, Linacer 'de emendata structura

Latini sermonis,' Terence, and some of Plautus; the eighth,

who was the 'Physicus,' explained Aristotle's 'Physics and

Dioscorides'; the ninth gave instruction in Hebrew; and the

tenth reviewed the Greek Grammar, read lectures on Greek

Classics at intervals, also on one of St. Paul's Epistles,

and, at the same time, on ethics. ... Thus the philosophical

faculty appears to have been the most fully represented at

Wittenberg, as it included ten professors, while the

theological had but four, the medical but three. ... We have a

... criterion by which to judge of the limited nature of the

studies of that period, as compared with the wide field which

they cover at the present day, in the then almost total lack

of academical apparatus and equipments. The only exception was

to be found in the case of libraries; but, how meager and

insufficient all collections of books must have been at that

time, when books were few in number and very costly, will

appear from the fund, for example, which was assigned to the

Wittenberg library; it yielded annually but one hundred

gulden, (about $63,) with which, 'for the profit of the

university and chiefly of the poorer students therein, the

library may be adorned and enriched with books in all the

faculties and in every art, as well in the Hebrew and Greek

tongues.' Of other apparatus, such as collections in natural

history, anatomical museums, botanical gardens, and the like,

we find no mention; and the less, inasmuch as there was no

need of them in elucidation of such lectures as the professors

ordinarily gave. When Paul Eber, the theologian, read lectures

upon anatomy, he made no use of dissection."

K. von Raumer, Universities in the Sixteenth Century (Barnard's

American Journal of Education, volume 5, pages 535-540).

EDUCATION:

Luther and the Schools.

"Luther ... felt that, to strengthen the Reformation, it was

requisite to work on the young, to improve the schools, and to

propagate throughout Christendom the knowledge necessary for a

profound study of the holy Scriptures. This, accordingly, was

one of the objects of his life. He saw it in particular at the

period which we have reached, and wrote to the councillors of

all the cities of Germany, calling upon them to found

Christian schools. 'Dear sirs,' said he, 'we annually expend

so much money on arquebuses, roads, and dikes; why should we

not spend a little to give one or two schoolmasters to our

poor children? God stands at the door, and knocks; blessed are

we if we open to him. Now the word of God abounds. O my dear

Germans, buy, buy, while the market is open before your

houses. ... Busy yourselves with the children,' continues

Luther, still addressing the magistrates; 'for many parents

are like ostriches; they are hardened towards their little

ones, and satisfied with having laid the egg, they care

nothing for it afterwards. The prosperity of a city does not

consist merely in heaping up great treasures, in building

strong walls, in erecting splendid mansions, in possessing

glittering arms. If madmen fall upon it, its ruin will only be

the greater. The true wealth of a city, its safety, and its

strength, is to have many learned, serious, worthy,

well-educated citizens. And whom must we blame because there

are so few at present, except you magistrates, who have

allowed our youth to grow up like trees in a forest?' Luther

particularly insisted on the necessity of studying literature

and languages: 'What use is there, it may be asked, in

learning Latin, Greek, and Hebrew? We can read the Bible very

well in German. Without languages,' replies he, 'we could not

have received the gospel. ... Languages are the scabbard that

contains the sword of the Spirit; they are the casket that

guards the jewels; they are the vessel that holds the wine;

and as the gospel says, they are the baskets in which the

loaves and fishes are kept to feed the multitude. If we

neglect the languages, we shall not only eventually lose the

gospel, but be unable to speak or write in Latin or in German.

{705}

No sooner did men cease to cultivate them than Christendom

declined, even until it fell under the power of the pope. But

now that languages are again honored, they shed such light

that all the world is astonished, and everyone is forced to

acknowledge that our gospel is almost as pure as that of the

apostles themselves. In former times the holy fathers were

frequently mistaken, because they were ignorant of languages.

... If the languages had not made me positive as to the

meaning of the word, I might have been a pious monk, and

quietly preached the truth in the obscurity of the cloister;

but I should have left the pope, the sophists, and their

antichristian empire still unshaken."

J. H. Merle d' Aubigné, History of the Reformation of

the 16th Century, book 10, chapter 0 (volume 3).

Luther, in his appeal to the municipal magistrates of Germany,

calls for the organization of common schools to be supported

at public cost. "Finally, he gives his thought to the means of

recruiting the teaching service. 'Since the greatest evil in

every place is the lack of teachers, we must not wait till

they come forward of themselves; we must take the trouble to

educate them and prepare them.' To this end Luther keeps the

best of the pupils, boys and girls, for a longer time in

school; gives them special instructors, and opens libraries

for their use. In his thought he never distinguishes women

teachers from men teachers; he wants schools for girls as well

as for boys. Only, not to burden parents and divert children

from their daily labor, he requires but little time for school

duties. ... 'My opinion is [he says] that we must send the

boys to school one or two hours a day, and have them learn a

trade at home for the rest of the time. It is desirable that

these two occupations march side by side.' ... Luther gives

the first place to the teaching of religion: 'Is it not

reasonable that every Christian should know the Gospel at the

age of nine or ten?' Then come the languages, not, as might be

hoped, the mother tongue, but the learned languages, Latin,

Greek, and Hebrew. Luther had not yet been sufficiently rid of

the old spirit to comprehend that the language of the people

ought to be the basis of universal instruction. He left to

Comenius the glory of making the final separation of the

primary school from the Latin school. ... Physical exercises

are not forgotten in Luther's pedagogical regulations. But he

attaches an especial importance to singing. 'Unless a

school-master know how to sing, I think him of no account.'

'Music,' he says again, 'is a half discipline which makes men

more indulgent and more mild.' At the same time that he

extends the programme of studies, Luther introduces a new

spirit into methods. He wishes more liberty and more joy in

the school. 'Solomon,' he says, 'is a truly royal

schoolmaster. He does not, like the monks, forbid the young to

go into the world and be happy. Even as Anselm said: "A young

man turned aside from the world is like a young tree made to

grow in a vase." The monks have imprisoned young men like

birds in their cage. It is dangerous to isolate the young.'

... Do not let ourselves imagine, however, that Luther at once

exercised a decisive influence on the current education of his

day. A few schools were founded, called writing schools; but

the Thirty Years' War, and other events, interrupted the

movement of which Luther has the honor of having been the

originator. ... In the first half of the seventeenth century,

Ratich, a German, and Comenius, a Slave, were, with very

different degrees of merit, the heirs of the educational

thought of Luther. With something of the charlatan and the

demagogue, Ratich devoted his life to propagating a novel art

of teaching, which be called didactics, and to which he

attributed marvels. He pretended, by his method of languages,

to teach Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, in six months. But

nevertheless, out of many strange performances and lofty

promises, there issue some thoughts of practical value. The

first merit of Ratich was to give the mother tongue, the

German language, the precedence over the ancient languages."

G. Compayré, The History of Pedagogy,

chapter 6 (section 130-134).

EDUCATION:

Netherlands.

"When learning began to revive after the long sleep of the

Middle Ages, Italy experienced the first impulse. Next came

Germany and the contiguous provinces of the Low Countries. The

force of the movement in these regions is shown by an event of

great importance, not always noticed by historians. In 1400,

there was established at Deventer, in the northeastern

province of the Netherlands, an association or brotherhood,

usually called Brethren of the Life in Common [see BRETHREN OF

THE COMMON LOT]. In their strict lives, partial community of

goods, industry in manual labor, fervent devotion, and

tendency to mysticism, they bore some resemblance to the

modern Moravians. But they were strikingly distinguished from

the members of this sect by their earnest cultivation of

knowledge, which was encouraged among themselves and promoted

among others by schools, both for primary and advanced

education. In 1430, the Brethren had established forty-five

branches, and by 1460 more than thrice that number. They were

scattered through different parts of Germany and the Low

Countries, each with its school subordinate to the head

college at Deventer. It was in these schools, in the middle of

the fifteenth century, that a few Germans and Netherlanders

were, as Hallam says, roused to acquire that extensive

knowledge of the ancient languages which Italy as yet

exclusively possessed. Their names should never be omitted in

any remembrance of the revival of letters; for great was their

influence upon subsequent times. Chief among these men were

Wessels, of Groningen, 'one of those who contributed most

steadily to the purification of religion'; Hegius of Deventer,

under whom Erasmus obtained his early education, and who

probably was the first man to print Greek north of the Alps;

Dringeberg, who founded a good school in Alsace; and Longius,

who presided over one at Munster. Thanks to the influence of

these pioneers in learning, education had made great progress

among the Netherlanders by the middle of the sixteenth

century. ... We have the testimony of the Italian Guicciardini

to the fact that before the outbreak of the war with Spain

even the peasants in Holland could read and write well. As the

war went on, the people showed their determination that in

this matter there should be no retrogression. In the first

Synod of Dort, held in 1574, the clergy expressed their

opinion upon the subject by passing a resolution or ordinance

which, among other things, directed 'the servants of the

Church' to obtain from the magistrates in every locality a

permission for the appointment of schoolmasters, and an order

for their compensation as in the past.

{706}

Before many years had elapsed the civil authorities began to

establish a general school system for the country. In 1582,

the Estates of Friesland decreed that the inhabitants of towns

and villages should, within the space of six weeks, provide

good and able Reformed schoolmasters, and those who neglected

so to do would be compelled to accept the instructors

appointed for them. This seems to have been the beginning of

the supervision of education by the State, a system which soon

spread over the whole republic. In these schools, however,

although they were fostered by the State, the teachers seem,

in the main, to have been paid by their pupils. But as years

went on, a change came about in this part of the system. It

probably was aided by the noteworthy letter which John of

Nassau, the oldest brother of William the Silent, the noble

veteran who lived until 1606, wrote to his son Lewis William,

Stadtholder of Friesland. In this letter, which is worthy of a

place on the walls of every schoolhouse in America, the

gallant young stadt-holder is instructed to urge on the

States-General 'that they, according to the example of the

pope and Jesuits, should establish free schools, where

children of quality as well as of poor families, for a very

small sum, could be well and christianly educated and brought

up. This would be the greatest and most useful work, and the

highest service that you could ever accomplish for God and

Christianity, and especially for the Netherlands themselves.

... In summa, one may jeer at this as popish trickery, and

undervalue it as one will: there still remains in the work an

inexpressible benefit. Soldiers and patriots thus educated,

with a true knowledge of God and a Christian conscience, item,

churches and schools, good libraries, books, and

printing-presses, are better than all armies, arsenals,

armories, munitions, alliances, and treaties that can be had

or imagined in the world.' Such were the words in which the

Patriarch of the Nassaus urged upon his countrymen a

common-school system. In 1609, when the Pilgrim Fathers took

up their residence in Leyden, the school had become the common

property of the people, and was paid for among other municipal

expenses. It was a land of schools supported by the State--a

land, according to Motley, 'where every child went to school,

where almost every individual inhabitant could write and read,

where even the middle classes were proficient in mathematics

and the classics, and could speak two or more modern

languages.' Does any reader now ask whence the settlers of

Plymouth, who came directly from Holland, and the other

settlers of New England whose Puritan brethren were to be

found in thousands throughout the Dutch Republic, derived

their ideas of schools first directed, and then supported by

the State."

EDUCATION:

Leyden University.

To commemorate the deliverance of Leyden from the Spanish

siege in 1574 (see NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574), "and as a

reward for the heroism of the citizens, the Prince of Orange,

with the consent of the Estates of the province, founded the

University of Leyden. Still, the figment of allegiance

remained; the people were only fighting for their

constitutional rights, and so were doing their duty to the

sovereign. Hence the charter of the university ran in the name

of Philip, who was credited with its foundation, as a reward

to his subjects for their rebellion against his evil

counsellors and servants, 'especially in consideration of the

differences of religion, and the great burdens and hardships

borne by the citizens of our city of Leyden during the war

with such faithfulness.' Motley calls this 'ponderous irony,'

but the Hollanders were able lawyers and intended to build on

a legal basis. This event marks an epoch in the intellectual

history of Holland and of the world. ... The new university

was opened in 1575, and from the outset took the highest rank.

Speaking, a few years ago, of its famous senate chamber,

Niebuhr called it 'the most memorable room of Europe in the

history of learning.' The first curator was John Van der Does,

who had been military commandant of the city during the siege.

He was of a distinguished family, but was still more

distinguished for his learning, his poetical genius, and his

valor. Endowed with ample funds, the university largely owed

its marked pre-eminence to the intelligent foresight and wise

munificence of its curators. They sought out and obtained the

most distinguished scholars of all nations, and to this end

spared neither pains nor expense. Diplomatic negotiation and

even princely mediation were often called in for the

acquisition of a professor. Hence it was said that it

surpassed all the universities of Europe in the number of its

scholars of renown. These scholars were treated with princely

honors. ... The 'mechanicals' of Holland, as Elizabeth called

them, may not have paid the accustomed worship to rank, but to

genius and learning they were always willing to do homage.

Space would fail for even a brief account of the great men,

foreign and native, who illuminated Leyden with their

presence. ... But it was not alone in scholarship and in

scientific research that the University of Leyden gave an

impetus to modern thought. Theological disputes were developed

there at times, little tempests which threatened destruction

to the institution, but they were of short duration. The right

of conscience was always respected, and in the main the right

of full and public discussion. ... When it was settled that

dissenters could not be educated in the English universities,

they flocked to Leyden in great numbers, making that city,

next to Edinburgh, their chief resort. Eleven years after the

opening of the University of Leyden, the Estates of democratic

Friesland, amid the din of war, founded the University of

Franeker, an institution which was to become famous as the

home of Arminius. ... Both of these universities were

perpetually endowed with the proceeds of the ecclesiastical

property which had been confiscated during the progress of the

war."

D. Campbell, The Puritan in Holland, England,

and America, chapter 2, 20, and 3.

EDUCATION:

England.

"In contemplating the events of the fifteenth and sixteenth

centuries, in their influence on English civilisation, we are

reminded once more of the futility of certain modern

aspirations. No amount of University Commissions, nor of

well-meant reforms, will change the nature of Englishmen. It

is impossible, by distributions of University prizes and

professorships, to attract into the career of letters that

proportion of industry and ingenuity which, in Germany for

example, is devoted to the scholastic life.

{707}

Politics, trade, law, sport, religion, will claim their own in

England, just as they did at the Revival of Letters. The

illustrious century which Italy employed in unburying,

appropriating, and enjoying the treasures of Greek literature

and art, our fathers gave, in England, to dynastic and

constitutional squabbles, and to religious broils. The

Renaissance in England, and chiefly in Oxford, was like a

bitter and changeful spring. There was an hour of genial

warmth, there breathed a wind from the south, in the lifetime

of Chaucer; then came frosts and storms; again the brief

sunshine of court favour shone on literature for a while, when

Henry VIII. encouraged study, and Wolsey and Fox founded

Christ Church and Corpus Christi College, once more the bad

days of religious strife returned, and the promise of learning

was destroyed. Thus the chief result of the awakening thought

of the fourteenth century in England was not a lively delight

in literature, but the appearance of the Lollards. The

intensely practical genius of our race turned, not to letters,

but to questions about the soul and its future, about property

and its distribution. The Lollards were put down in Oxford;

'the tares were weeded out' by the House of Lancaster, and in

the process the germs of free thought, of originality, and of

a rational education, were destroyed. 'Wyclevism did domineer

among us,' says Wood; and, in fact, the intellect of the

University was absorbed, like the intellect of France during

the heat of the Jansenist controversy, in defending or

assailing '267 damned conclusions,' drawn from the books of

Wyclife. The University 'lost many of her children through the

profession of Wyclevism.'"

A. Lang, Oxford, chapter 3.

EDUCATION:

Colet and St. Paul's School.

Dr. John Colet, appointed Dean of St. Paul's in 1505,

"resolved, whilst living and in health, to devote his

patrimony to the foundation of a school in St. Paul's

Churchyard, wherein 153 children, without any restriction as

to nation or country, who could already read and write, and

were of 'good parts and capacities,' should receive a sound

Christian education. The 'Latin adulterate, which ignorant

blind fools brought into this world,' poisoning thereby 'the

old Latin speech, and the very Roman tongue used in the time

of Tully and Sallust, and Virgil and Terence, and learned by

St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine,'--all that

'abusion which the later blind world brought in, and which may

rather be called Blotterature than Literature,'--should be

'utterly abanished and excluded' out of this school. The

children should be taught good literature, both Latin and

Greek, 'such authors that have with wisdom joined pure chaste

eloquence'--'specially Christian authors who wrote their

wisdom in clean and chaste Latin, whether in prose or verse;

for,' said Colet, 'my intent is by this school specially to

increase knowledge, and worshipping of God and Our Lord Jesus

Christ, and good Christian life and manners in the children.'

... The building consisted of one large room, divided into an

upper and lower school by a curtain, which could be drawn at

pleasure; and the charge of the two schools devolved upon a

high-master and a sub-master respectively. The forms were

arranged so as each to seat sixteen boys, and were provided

each with a raised desk, at which the head-boy sat as

president. The building also embraced an entrance-porch and a

little chapel for divine service. Dwelling-houses were

erected, adjoining the school, for the residence of the two

masters; and for their support, Colet obtained, in the spring

of 1510, a royal license to transfer to the Wardens and Guild

of Mercers in London, real property to the value of £53 per

annum (equivalent to at least £530 of present money). Of this

the head-master was to receive as his salary £35 (say £350)

and the under-master £18 (say £180) per annum. Three or four

years after, Colet made provision for a chaplain to conduct

divine service in the chapel, and to instruct the children in

the Catechism, the Articles of the faith, and the Ten

Commandments,--in English; and ultimately, before his death,

he appears to have increased the amount of the whole endowment

to £122 (say £1,200) per annum. So that it, may be considered,

roughly, that the whole endowment, including the buildings,

cannot have represented a less sum than £30,000 or £40,000 of

present money. And if Colet thus sacrificed so much of his

private fortune to secure a liberal (and it must be conceded

his was a liberal) provision for the remuneration of the

masters who should educate his 153 boys, he must surely have

had deeply at heart the welfare of the boys themselves. And,

in truth, it was so. Colet was like a father to his

schoolboys. ... It was not to be expected that he should find

the school-books of the old grammarians in any way adapted to

his purpose. So at once he set his learned friends to work to

provide him with new ones. The first thing wanted was a Latin

Grammar for beginners. Linacre undertook to provide this want,

and wrote with great pains and labour, a work in six books,

which afterwards came into general use. But when Colet saw it,

at the risk of displeasing his friend, he put it altogether

aside. It was too long and too learned for his 'little

beginners.' So he condensed within the compass of a few pages

two little treatises, an 'Accidence' and a 'Syntax,' in the

preface to the first of which occur the gentle words quoted

above. These little books, after receiving additions from the

hands of Erasmus, Lilly, and others, finally became generally

adopted and known as Lilly's Grammar. This rejection of his

Grammar seems to have been a sore point with Linacre, but

Erasmus told Colet not to be too much concerned about it. ...

Erasmus, in the same letter in which he spoke of Linacre's

rejected Grammar ... put on paper his notions of what a

schoolmaster ought to be, and the best method of teaching

boys, which he fancied Colet might not altogether approve, as

he was wont somewhat more to despise rhetoric than Erasmus

did. He stated his opinion that--'In order that the teacher

might be thoroughly up to his work, he should not merely be a

master of one particular branch of study. He should himself

have travelled through the whole circle of knowledge. In

philosophy he should have studied Plato and Aristotle,

Theophrastus and Plotinus; in Theology the Sacred Scriptures,

and after them Origen, Chrysostom, and Basil among the Greek

fathers, and Ambrose and Jerome among the Latin fathers; among

the poets, Homer and Ovid; in geography, which is very

important in the study of history, Pomponins Mela, Ptolemy,

Pliny, Strabo. He should know what ancient names of rivers,

mountains, countries, cities, answer to the modern ones; and

the same of trees, animals, instruments, clothes, and, gems,

with regard to which it is incredible how ignorant even

educated men are.

{708}

He should take note of little facts about agriculture,

architecture, military and culinary arts, mentioned by

different authors. He should be able to trace the origin of

words, their gradual corruption in the languages of

Constantinople, Italy, Spain, and France. Nothing should be

beneath his observation which can illustrate history or the

meaning of the poets. But you will say what a load you are

putting on the back of the poor teacher! It is so; but I

burden the one to relieve the many. I want the teacher to have

traversed the whole range of knowledge, that it may spare each

of his scholars doing it. A diligent and thoroughly competent

master might give boys a fair proficiency in both Latin and

Greek, in a shorter time and with less labour than the common

run of pedagogues take to teach their babble.' On receipt of

this ... Colet wrote to Erasmus: ... '"What! I shall not

approve!" So you say! What is there of Erasmus's that I do not

approve?'"

F. Seebohm, The Oxford Reformers, chapter 6.

EDUCATION:

Ascham and "The Scholemaster."

Roger Ascham, the friend of Lady Jane Grey and the tutor of

Queen Elizabeth, was born in 1515, and died in 1568. "It was

partly with the view to the instruction of his own children,

that he commenced the 'Schole-master,' the work by which he is

most and best known, to which he did not live to set the last

hand. He communicated the design and import of the book in a

letter to Sturmius, in which he states, that not being able to

leave his sons a large fortune, he was resolved to provide

them with a preceptor, not one to be hired for a great sum of

money, but marked out at home with a homely pen. In the same

letter he gives his reasons for employing the English

language, the capabilities of which he clearly perceived and

candidly acknowledged, a high virtue for a man of that age,

who perhaps could have written Latin to his own satisfaction

much more easily than his native tongue. But though the

benefit of his own offspring might be his ultimate object, the

immediate occasion of the work was a conversation at Cecil's,

at which Sir Richard Sackville expressed great indignation at

the severities practiced at Eton and other great schools, so

that boys actually ran away for fear of merciless

flagellation. This led to the general subject of school

discipline, and the defects in the then established modes of

tuition. Ascham coinciding with the sentiments of the company,

and proceeding to explain his own views of improvement,

Sackville requested him to commit his opinions to paper and

the 'Schole-master' was the result. It was not published till

1670. ... We ... quote a few passages, which throw light upon

the author's good sense and good nature. To all violent

coercion, and extreme punishment, he was decidedly

opposed:--'I do agree,' says he, 'with all good school-masters

in all these points, to have children brought to good

perfectness in learning, to all honesty in manners; to have

all faults rightly amended, and every vice severely corrected,

but for the order and way that leadeth rightly to these

points, we somewhat differ.' 'Love is better than fear,

gentleness than beating, to bring up a child rightly in

learning.' 'I do assure you there is no such whetstone to

sharpen a good wit, and encourage a will to learning, as is

praise.'... 'The scholar is commonly beat for the making, when

the master were more worthy to be beat for the mending, or

rather marring, of the same; the master many times being as

ignorant as the child what to say properly and fitly to the

matter.' ... This will I say, that even the wisest of your

great beaters do as oft punish nature as they do correct

faults. Yea many times the better nature is the sorer

punished. For if one by quickness of wit take his lesson

readily, another by hardness of wit taketh it not so speedily;

the first is always commended, the other is commonly punished,

when a wise school-master should rather discreetly consider

the right disposition of both their natures, and not so much

weigh what either of them is able to do, as what either of

them is likely to do hereafter. For this I know, not only by

reading of books in my study, but also by experience of life

abroad in the world, that those which be commonly the wisest,

the best learned, and best men also, when they be old, were

never commonly the quickest of wit when they were young. Quick

wits commonly be apt to take, unapt to keep. Some are more

quick to enter speedily than be able to pierce far, even like

unto oversharp tools, whose edges be very soon turned.'"

H. Coleridge, Biographia Borealis, pages 328-330.

EDUCATION:

Jesuit Teaching and Schools.

"The education of youth is set forth in the Formula of

Approval granted by Paul III. in 1540," to the plans of

Ignatius Loyola for the foundation of the Society of Jesus,

"as the first duty embraced by the new Institute. ... Although

the new religious were not at once able to begin the

establishment of colleges, yet the plan of those afterwards

founded, was gradually ripening in the sagacious mind of St.

Ignatius, who looked to these institutions as calculated to

oppose the surest bulwarks against the progress of heresy. The

first regular college of the Society was that established at

Gandia in 1546, through the zeal of St. Francis Borgia, third

General of the Society; and the regulations by which it was

governed, and which were embodied in the constitutions, were

extended to all the Jesuit colleges afterwards founded. The

studies were to include theology, both positive and

scholastic, as well as grammar, poetry, rhetoric, and

philosophy. The course of philosophy was to last three years,

that of theology four; and the Professors of Philosophy were

enjoined to treat their subject in such a way as to dispose

the mind for the study of theology, instead of setting up

faith and reason in opposition to one another. The theology of

St. Thomas, and the philosophy of Aristotle, were to be

followed, except on those points where the teaching of the

latter was opposed to the Catholic faith."

A. T. Drane, Christian Schools and Scholars, page 708.

"As early as the middle of the sixteenth century ... [the

Society of Jesus] had several colleges in France, particularly

those of Billom, Mauriac, Rodez, Tournon, and Pamiers. In 1561

it secured a footing in Paris, notwithstanding the resistance

of the Parliament, of the university, and of the bishops

themselves. A hundred years later it counted nearly fourteen

thousand pupils in the province of Paris alone. The college of

Clermont, in 1651, enrolled more than two thousand young men.

The middle and higher classes assured to the colleges of the

society an ever-increasing membership.

{709}

At the end of the seventeenth century, the Jesuits could

inscribe on the roll of honor of their classes a hundred

illustrious names, among others those of Condé and Luxembourg,

Fléchier and Bossuet, Lamoignon and Séguier, Descartes,

Comeille, and Moliere. In 1710 they controlled six hundred and

twelve colleges and a large number of universities. They were

the real masters of education, and they maintained this

educational supremacy till the end of the eighteenth century.

Voltaire said of these teachers: 'The Fathers taught me

nothing but Latin and nonsense.' But from the seventeenth

century, opinions are divided, and the encomiums of Bacon and

Descartes must be offset by the severe judgment of Leibnitz.

'In the matter of education, says this great philosopher, 'the

Jesuits have remained below mediocrity.' Directly to the

contrary, Bacon had written: 'As to whatever relates to the

instruction of the young, we must consult the schools of the

Jesuits, for there can be nothing that is better done.' ... A

permanent and characteristic feature of the educational policy

of the Jesuits is, that, during the whole course of their

history, they have deliberately neglected and disdained

primary instruction. The earth is covered with their Latin

colleges; and wherever they have been able, they have put

their hands on the institutions for university education; but

in no instance have they founded a primary school. Even in

their establishment for secondary instruction, they entrust

the lower classes to teachers who do not belong to their

order, and reserve to themselves the direction of the higher

classes."

G. Compayré, History of Pedagogy, pages 141-143.

See, also, JESUITS: A. D. 1540-1556.

"The Jesuits owed their success partly to the very narrow task

which they set themselves, little beyond the teaching of Latin

style, and partly to the careful training which they gave

their students, a training which often degenerated into mere

mechanical exercise. But the mainspring of their influence was

the manner in which they worked the dangerous force of

emulation. Those pupils who were most distinguished at the end

of each month received the rank of prætor, censor, and

decurion. The class was divided into two parts, called Romans

and Carthaginians, Greeks and Trojans. The students sat

opposite each other, the master in the middle, the walls were

hung with swords, spears and shields which the contending

parties carried off in triumph as the prize of victory. These

pupils' contests wasted a great deal of time. The Jesuits

established public school festivals, at which the pupils might

be exhibited, and the parents flattered. They made their own

school books, in which the requirements of good teaching were

not so important as the religious objects of the order. They

preferred extracts to whole authors; if they could not prune

the classics to their fancy they would not read them at all.

What judgment are we to pass on the Jesuit teaching as a

whole? It deserves praise on two accounts. First, it

maintained the dignity of literature in an age which was too

liable to be influenced by considerations of practical

utility. It maintained the study of Greek in France at a

higher level than the University, and resisted the assaults of

ignorant parents on the fortress of Hellenism. Secondly, it

seriously set itself to understand the nature and character of

the individual pupil, and to suit the manner of education to

the mind that was to receive it. Whatever may have been the

motives of Jesuits in gaining the affections, and securing the

devotion of the children under their charge; whether their

desire was to develop the individuality which they probed, or

to destroy it in its germ, and plant a new nature in its

place; it must be admitted that the loving care which they

spent upon their charge was a new departure in education, and

has become a part of every reasonable system since their time.

Here our praise must end. ... They amused the mind instead of

strengthening it. They occupied in frivolities such as Latin

verses the years which they feared might otherwise be given to

reasoning and the acquisition of solid knowledge. ...

Celebrated as the Jesuit schools have been, they have owed

much more to the fashion which filled them with promising

scholars, than to their own excellence in dealing with their

material. ... They have never stood the test of modern

criticism. They have no place in a rational system of modern

education."

O. Browning, Introduction to the History

of Educational Theories, chapter 8.

EDUCATION: Modern: European Countries.

Austria.

"The annual appropriations passed by Parliament allow the

minister of public instruction $8,307,774 for all kinds of

public educational institutions, elementary and secondary

schools, universities, technical and art schools, museums, and

philanthropic institutions. Generally, this principle is

adhered to by the state, to subsidize the highest institutions

of learning most liberally, to share the cost of maintaining

secondary schools with church and community, and to leave the

burden of maintaining elementary schools almost entirely to

the local or communal authorities. ... In the Austrian public

schools no distinctions are made with the pupils as regards

their religious confessions. The schools are open to all, and

are therefore common schools in the sense in which that term

is employed with us. In Prussia it is the policy of the

Government to separate the pupils of different religious

confessions in ... elementary, but not to separate them in

secondary schools. In Austria and Hungary, special teachers of

religion for the elementary and secondary schools are

employed; in Prussia this is done only in secondary schools,

while religion is taught by the secular teachers in elementary

schools. This is a very vital difference, and shows how much

nearer the Austrian schools have come to our ideal of a common

school."

United States Commissioner of Education,

Report, 1889-90, pages 465-466.

EDUCATION: Modern: European Countries.

Belgium.

"The treaty of Paris, of March 30, 1814, fixed the boundaries

of the Netherlands, and united Holland and Belgium. In these

new circumstances, the system of public instruction became the

subject of much difficulty between the Calvinists of the

northern provinces and the Catholics of the southern. The

government therefore undertook itself to manage the

organization of the system of instruction in its three grades.

... William I. desired to free the Belgians from French

influence, and with this object adopted the injudicious

measure of attempting to force the Dutch language upon them.

He also endeavored to familiarize them with Protestant ideas,

and to this end determined to get the care of religious

instruction exclusively into the hands of the state. But the

clergy were energetic in asserting their rights; the boldness

of the Belgian deputies to the States-General increased daily;

and the project for a system of public and private instruction

which was laid before the second chamber on the 26th November,

1829, was very unfavorably received by the Catholics. The

government very honorably confessed its error by repealing the

obnoxious ordinances of 1825. But it was too late, and the

Belgian provinces were lost to Holland. On the 12th October,

1830, the provisory government repealed all laws restricting

the freedom of instruction, and the present system, in which

liberty of instruction and governmental aid and supervision

are recognized, commenced."

Public Instruction in Belgium (Barnard's American

Journal of Education, volume 8, pages 582-583).

{710}

EDUCATION: Modern: European Countries.

Denmark.

"Denmark has long been noted for the excellence of her

schools. ... The perfection and extension of the system of

popular instruction date from the beginning of the eighteenth

century, when Bishop Thestrup, of Aalberg, caused 6 parish

schools to be established in Copenhagen and when King

Frederick IV. (1699-1730) had 240 school-houses built. ...

Christian VI. (17301746), ... ordained in 1739 the

establishment of common or parish schools in every town and in

every larger village. The branches of instruction were to be

religion, reading, writing, and arithmetic. No one was to be

allowed to teach unless he had shown himself qualified to the

satisfaction of the clergyman of the parish. .... Many

difficulties, however (especially the objections of the landed

proprietors, who had their own schools on their estates),

hindered the free development of the common school system, and

it was not until 1814 that a new and more favorable era was

inaugurated by the law of July 29 of that year. According to

this law the general control of the schools is in the hands of

a minister of public instruction and subordinate

superintendents for the several departments of the kingdom."

Education in Denmark

(United States Bureau of Education,

Circulars of Information, 1877, no. 2), pages 40-41.

"With a population in 1890 of 2,185,157, the pupils enrolled

in city and rural schools in Denmark numbered 231,940, or

about 10 per cent. of the population receiving the foundation

of an education. In 1881 the illiterates to 100 recruits

numbered 0.36; in Sweden at that date, the per cent. was

0.39."

United States Commissioner of Education,

Report, 1889-90, page 523.

EDUCATION: Modern: European Countries.

England: Oxford and Cambridge.

"Oxford and Cambridge, as establishments for education,

consist of two parts--of the University proper, and of the

Colleges. The former, original and essential, is founded,

controlled, and privileged by public authority, for the

advantage of the nation. The latter, accessory and contingent,

are created, regulated, and endowed by private munificence,

for the interest of certain favored individuals. Time was,

when the Colleges did not exist, and the University was there;

and were the Colleges again abolished, the University would

remain entire. The former, founded solely for education,

exists only as it accomplishes the end of its institution; the

latter, founded principally for aliment and habitation, would

still exist, were all education abandoned within their walls.

The University, as a national establishment, is necessarily

open to the lieges in general; the Colleges, as private

institutions, might universally do, as some have actually

done--close their gates upon all, except their foundation

members. The Universities and Colleges are thus neither

identical, nor vicarious of each other. If the University

ceases to perform its functions, it ceases to exist; and the

privileges accorded by the nation to the system of public

education legally organized in the University, can not,

without the consent of the nation--far less without the

consent of the academical legislature--be lawfully transferred

to the system of private education precariously organized in

the Colleges, and over which neither the State nor the

University have any control. They have, however, been

unlawfully usurped. Through the suspension of the University,

and the usurpation of its functions and privileges by the

Collegial bodies, there has arisen the second of two systems,

diametrically opposite to each other.--The one, in which the

University was paramount, is ancient and statutory; the other,

in which the Colleges have the ascendant, is recent and

illegal.--In the former, all was subservient to public

utility, and the interests of science; in the latter, all is

sacrificed to private monopoly, and to the convenience of the

teacher. ... In the original constitution of Oxford, as in

that of all the older Universities of the Parisian model, the

business of instruction was not confided to a special body of

privileged professors. The University was governed, the

University was taught, by the graduates at large. Professor,

Master, Doctor, were originally synonymous. Every graduate had

an equal right of teaching publicly in the University the

subjects competent to his faculty, and to the rank of his

degree; nay, every graduate incurred the obligation of

teaching publicly, for a certain period, the subjects of his

faculty, for such was the condition involved in the grant of

the degree itself."

Sir William Hamilton, Discussions on Philosophy and

Literature, etc.: Education, chapter 4.

EDUCATION: Modern: European Countries.

England: The "Great Public Schools."

What is a public school in England? "The question is one of

considerable difficulty. To some extent, however, the answer

has been furnished by the Royal Commission appointed in 1861

to inquire into the nature and application of the endowments

and revenues, and into the administration and management of

certain specified colleges and schools commonly known as the

Public Schools Commission. Nine are named in the Queen's

letter of appointment, viz., Eton, Winchester, Westminster,

the Charterhouse, St. Paul's, Merchant Taylors', Harrow,

Rugby, and Shrewsbury. The reasons probably which suggested

this selection were, that the nine named foundations had in

the course of centuries emerged from the mass of endowed

grammar-schools, and had made for themselves a position which

justified their being placed in a distinct category, and

classed as 'public schools.' It will be seen as we proceed

that all these nine have certain features in common,

distinguishing them from the ordinary grammar-schools which

exist in almost every country town in England. Many of these

latter are now waking up to the requirements of the new time

and following the example of their more illustrious sisters.

The most notable examples of this revival are such schools as

those at Sherborne, Giggleswick, and Tunbridge Wells, which,

while remodelling themselves on the lines laid down by the

Public Schools Commissioners, are to some extent providing a

training more adapted to the means and requirements of our

middle classes in the nineteenth century than can be found at

any of the nine public schools.

{711}

But twenty years ago the movement which has since made such

astonishing progress was scarcely felt in quiet country places

like these, and the old endowments were allowed to run to

waste in a fashion which is now scarcely credible. The same

impulse which has put new life into the endowed

grammar-schools throughout England has worked even more

remarkably in another direction. The Victorian age bids fair

to rival the Elizabethan in the number and importance of the

new schools which it has founded and will hand on to the

coming generation. Marlborough, Haileybury, Uppingham,

Rossall, Clifton, Cheltenham, Radley, Malvern, and Wellington

College, are nine schools which have taken their place in the

first rank. ... In order, then, to get clear ideas on the

general question, we must keep these three classes of schools

in mind--the nine old foundations recognized in the first

instance by the Royal Commission of 1861; the old foundations

which have remained local grammar-schools until within the

last few years, but are now enlarging their bounds, conforming

more or less to the public-school system, and becoming

national institutions; and, lastly, the modern foundations

which started from the first as public schools, professing to

adapt themselves to the new circumstances and requirements of

modern English life. The public schools of England fall under

one or other of these categories. ... We may now turn to the

historic side of the question, dealing first, as is due to

their importance, with the nine schools of our first category.

The oldest, and in some respects most famous of these, is

Winchester School, or, as it was named by its founder William

of Wykeham, the College of St. Mary of Winchester, founded in

1382. Its constitution still retains much of the impress left

on it by the great Bishop of the greatest Plantagenet King,

five centuries ago. Toward the end of the fourteenth century

Oxford was already the center of English education, but from

the want of grammar-schools boys went up by hundreds untaught

in the simplest rudiments of learning, and when there lived in

private hostels or lodging-houses, in a vast throng, under no

discipline, and exposed to many hardships and temptations. In

view of this state of things, William of Wykeham founded his

grammar-school at Winchester and his college at Oxford,

binding the two together, so that the school might send up

properly trained scholars to the university, where they would

be received at New College, in a suitable academical home,

which should in its turn furnish governors and masters for the

school. ... Next in date comes the royal foundation of Eton,

or 'The College of the Blessed Mary of Eton, near Windsor.' It

was founded by Henry VI., A. D. 1446, upon the model of

Winchester, with a collegiate establishment of a provost, ten

fellows (reduced to seven in the reign of Edward IV.), seventy

scholars, and ten chaplains (now reduced to two; who are

called 'conducts'), and a head and lower master, ten lay

clerks, and twelve choristers. The provost and fellows are the

governing body, who appoint the head master. ... Around this

center the great school, numbering now a thousand boys, has

gathered, the college, however, still retaining its own

separate organization and traditions. Besides the splendid

buildings and playing-fields at Eton, the college holds real

property of the yearly value of upward of £20,000, and forty'

livings ranging from £100 to £1,200 of yearly value. ... The

school next in date stands out in sharp contrast to Winchester

and Eton. It is St. Paul's School, founded by Dean Colet. ...

Shrewsbury School, which follows next in order of seniority,

claims a royal foundation, but is in reality the true child of

the town's folk. The dissolution of the monasteries destroyed

also the seminaries attached to many of them, to the great

injury of popular education. This was specially the case in

Shropshire, so in 1551 the bailiffs, burgesses, and

inhabitants of Shrewsbury and the neighborhood petitioned

Edward VI. for a grant of some portion of the estates of the

dissolved collegiate churches for the purpose of founding a

free school. The King consented, and granted to the

petitioners the appropriated tithes of several livings and a

charter, but died before the school was organized. It was in

abeyance during Mary's reign, but opened in the fourth year of

Elizabeth, 1562, by Thomas Aston. ... We have now reached the

great group of Elizabethan schools, to which indeed Shrewsbury

may also be said to belong, as it was not opened until the

Queen had been three years on the throne. The two metropolitan

schools of Westminster and Merchant Taylors' were in fact

founded in 1560, two years before the opening of Shrewsbury.

Westminster as a royal foundation must take precedence. It is

a grammar-school attached by the Queen to the collegiate

church of St. Peter, commonly called Westminster Abbey, and

founded for the free education of forty scholars in Latin,

Greek, and Hebrew. The Queen, with characteristic thriftiness,

provided no endowment for her school, leaving the cost of

maintenance as a charge on the general revenues of the dean

and chapter, which indeed were, then as now, fully competent

to sustain the burden. ... Merchant Taylors', the other

metropolitan school founded in 1560, owes its origin to Sir

Thomas White, a member of the Court of Assistants of the

company, and founder of St. John's College, Oxford. It was

probably his promise to connect the school with his college

which induced the Company to undertake the task. ... Sir

Thomas White redeemed his promise by endowing the school with

thirty-seven fellowships at St. John's College. ... Rugby, or

the free school of Lawrence Sheriff, follows next in order,

having been founded in 1567 by Lawrence Sheriff, grocer, and

citizen of London. His 'intent' (as the document expressing

his wishes is called) declares that his lands in Rugby and

Brownsover, and his 'third of a pasture-ground in Gray's Inn

Fields, called Conduit Close,' shall be applied to maintain a

free grammar school for the children of Rugby and Brownsover,

and the places adjoining, and four poor almsmen of the same

parishes. These estates, after providing a fair schoolhouse

and residences for the master and almsmen, at first produced a

rental of only £24 13s. 4d. In due time, however, Conduit

Close became a part of central London, and Rugby School the

owner of eight acres of houses in and about the present Lamb's

Conduit Street. The income of the whole trust property amounts

now to about £6,000, of which £255 is expended on the

maintenance of the twelve almsmen. ... Harrow School was

founded in 1571, four years later than Rugby, by John Lyon, a

yeoman of the parish.

{712}

He was owner of certain small estates in and about Harrow and

Barnet, and of others at Paddington and Kilburn. All these he

devoted to public purposes, but unfortunately gave the former

for the perpetual education of the children and youth of the

parish, and the latter for the maintenance and repair of the

highways from Harrow and Edgeware to London. The present

yearly revenue of the school estates is barely over £1,000,

while that of the highway trust is nearly £4,000. But, though

the poorest in endowments, Harrow, from its nearness to

London, and consequent attractions for the classes who spend a

large portion of their year in the metropolis either in

attendance in Parliament, or for pleasure, has become the

rival of Eton as a fashionable school. ... Last on the list of

the nine schools comes the Charterhouse (the Whitefriars of

Thackeray's novels). It may be fairly classed with the

Elizabethan schools, though actually founded in 1609, after

the accession of James I. In that year a substantial yeoman,

Thomas Sutton by name, purchased from Lord Suffolk the lately

dissolved Charterhouse, by Smithfield, and obtained letters

patent empowering him to found a hospital and school on the

old site."

T. Hughes, The Public Schools of England

(North American Review, April, 1879).

EDUCATION: England

Fagging.

"In rougher days it was found, that in large schools the

stronger and larger boys reduced the smaller and weaker to the

condition of Helots. Here the authorities stepped in, and

despairing of eradicating the evil, took the power which mere

strength had won, and conferred it upon the seniors of the

school--the members, that is, of the highest form or forms. As

in those days, promotion was pretty much a matter of rotation,

everyone who remained his full time at the school, was pretty

sure to reach in time the dominant class, and the humblest fag

looked forward to the day when he would join the ranks of the

ruling aristocracy. Meantime he was no longer at the beck of

any stronger or ruder classfellow. His 'master' was in theory,

and often in practice, his best protector: he imposed upon him

very likely what may be called menial offices--made him carry

home his 'Musæ'--field for him at cricket--brush his coat; if

we are to believe school myths and traditions, black his

shoes, and even take the chill off his sheets. The boy,

how-ever, saw the son of a Howard or a Percy similarly

employed by his side, and in cheerfully submitting to an

ancient custom, he was but following out the tendencies of the

age and class to which he belonged. ... The mere abolition of

the right of fagging, vague and undefined as were the duties

attached to it, would have been a loss rather than a gain to

the oppressed as a class. It would merely have substituted for

the existing law, imperfect and anomalous as that law might

be, the licence of brute force and the dominion of boyish

truculence. ... Such was, more or less, the state of things

when he to whom English education owes so incalculable a debt,

was placed at the head of Rugby School. ... It was hoped that

he who braved the anger of his order by his pamphlet on Church

Reform--at whose bold and uncompromising language bishops

stood aghast and courtly nobles remonstrated in vain--would

make short work of ancient saws and mediæval traditions--that

a revolution in school life was at hand. And they were not

mistaken. ... What he did was to seize on the really valuable

part of the existing system--to inspire it with that new life,

and those loftier purposes, without which mere institutions,

great or small, must, sooner or later, wither away and perish.

His first step was to effect an important change in the actual

machinery of the school--one which, in itself, amounted to a

revolution. The highest form in the school was no longer open

to all whom a routine promotion might raise in course of time

to its level. Industry and talent as tested by careful

examinations (in the additional labour of which he himself

bore the heaviest burden), were the only qualifications

recognised. The new-modelled 'sixth form' were told, that the

privileges and powers which their predecessors had enjoyed for

ages were not to be wrested from them; but that they were to

be held for the common good, as the badges and instruments of

duties and responsibilities, such as anyone with less

confidence in those whom he addressed would have hesitated to

impose. They were told plainly that without their co-operation

there was no hope of keeping in check the evils inherent in a

society of boys. Tyranny, falsehood, drinking, party-spirit,

coarseness, selfishness--the evil spirits that infest

schools--these they heard Sunday after Sunday put in their

true light by a majestic voice and a manly presence, with

words, accents, and manner which would live in their memory

for years; but they were warned that, to exercise such

spirits, something more was needed than the watchfulness of

masters and the energy of their chief. They themselves must

use their large powers, entrusted to them in recognition of

the principle, or rather of the fact, that in a large society

of boys some must of necessity hold sway, to keep down, in

themselves and those about them, principles and practices

which are ever ready, like hideous weeds, to choke the growth

of all that is fair and noble in such institutions. Dr. Arnold

persevered in spite of opposition, obloquy, and

misrepresentation. ... But he firmly established his system,

and his successors, men differing in training and temperament

from himself and from each other, have agreed in cordially

sustaining it. His pupils and theirs, men in very different

walks of life, filling honourable posts at the universities

and public schools, or ruling the millions of India, or

working among the blind and toiling multitudes of our great

towns, feel daily how much of their usefulness and power they

owe to the sense of high trust and high duty which they

imbibed at school."

Our Public Schools--Their Discipline and

Instruction (Fraser's Magazine, volume 1, pages 407--409).

EDUCATION: England: A. D. 1699-1870.

The rise of Elementary Schools.

"The recognition by the English State of its paramount duty in

aiding the work of national education is scarcely more than a

generation old. The recognition of the further and far more

extensive work of supplementing by State aid, or by State

agency, all deficiencies in the supply of schools, dates only

thirteen years back [to 1870]; while the equally pressing duty

of enforcing, by a universal law, the use of the opportunities

of education thus supplied, is a matter almost of yesterday.

The State has only slowly stepped into its proper place; more

slowly in the case of England than in the case of any other of

the leading European nations. ... In 1699 the Society for the

Propagation of Christian Knowledge was founded, and by it

various schools were established throughout the country.

{713}

In 1782 Robert Raikes established his first Sunday school, and

in a few years the Union, of which he was the founder, had

under its control schools scattered all over the country. But

the most extensive efforts made for popular education were

those of Andrew Bell and Joseph Lancaster towards the close of

the eighteenth century. ... They misconceived and misjudged

the extent of the work that had to be accomplished. They

became slaves to their system--that which was called the

Monitorial system ... and by elevating it to undue importance

they did much to discredit the very work in which they were

engaged. ... Amongst the Nonconformist followers of Lancaster

there arose the British and Foreign School Society; while by

those of Bell there was established, on the side representing

the Church, the National Society. The former became the

recognised agency of the Dissenters, the latter of the Church;

and through one or other of these channels State aid, when it

first began to flow, was obliged to take its course. ... In

1802 the first Sir Robert Peel passed a Bill which restricted

children's labour in factories, and required that reading,

writing, and arithmetic should be taught to them during a part

of each day. This was the beginning of the factory

legislation. ... In 1807 Mr. Whitebread introduced a Bill for

the establishment of parochial schools through the agency of

local vestries, who were empowered to draw on the rates for

the purpose. The House of Commons accepted the Bill, but it

was thrown out in the House of Lords. ... The movement for a

State recognition of education was pressed more vigorously

when the fears and troubles of European war were clearing

away. It was in 1816 that Brougham obtained his Select

Committee for Inquiring into the Education of the Poor in the

Metropolis. ... In 1820 Brougham introduced, on the basis of

his previous inquiries, an Education Bill. ... By this Bill

the issue between the contending parties in the State, which

was henceforward destined to be the chief stumbling-block in

the way of a State education, was placed on a clear and

well-defined basis. ... The Church was alarmed at anything

which seemed to trench upon what she naturally thought to be

her appointed task. The Dissenters dreaded what might add to

the impregnability of the Church's strongholds. ... When the

beginning was actually made it came ... as an almost unnoticed

proposal of the Executive. In 1832 the sum of £20,000 for

public education was placed in the estimates; it was passed by

the Committee of Supply; and the first step was taken on that

course from which the State has never since drawn back. No

legislation was necessary. ... The next great step was taken

in 1839, when the annual vote was increased from £20,000 to

£30,000, and when a special department was created to

supervise the work. Hitherto grants had been administered by

the Treasury to meet a certain amount of local exertion, and

in general reliance upon vague assurances as to maintenance of

the schools by local promoters. ... The conditions which were

soon found to be necessary as securities, either for

continuance or for efficiency, were not yet insisted upon. To

do this it was necessary to have a Department specially

devoted to this work; and the means adopted for creating such

a Department was one which had the advantage of requiring no

Act of Parliament. By an order in Council a Special Committee

of the Privy Council was established, and, in connection with

this Committee, a special staff of officers was engaged. The

same year saw the appointment of the first inspectors of

schools. It was thus that the Education Department was

constituted. The plan which the advisers of the Government in

this new attempt had most at heart was that of a Normal

Training College for teachers. ... But it was surrounded with

so much matter for dispute, gathered during a generation of

contention, that the proposal all but wrecked the Government

of Lord Melbourne. The Church objected to the scheme. ... In

the year 1844, after five years of the new administration, it

was possible to form some estimate, not only of the solid work

accomplished, but of the prospects of the immediate future.

... Between 1839 and 1844, under the action of the Committee

of Council, £170,000 of Imperial funds had been distributed to

meet £430,000 from local resources. In all, therefore, about

one million had been spent in little more than ten years. What

solid good had this accomplished? ... According to a careful

and elaborate report in the year 1845, only about one in six,

even of the children at school, was found able to read the

Scriptures with any ease. Even for these the power of reading

often left them when they tried a secular book. Of reading

with intelligence there was hardly any; and about one-half of

the children who came to school left, it was calculated,

unable to read. Only about one child in four had mastered,

even in the most mechanical way, the art of writing. As

regards arithmetic, not two per cent. of the children had

advanced as far as the rule of three. ... The teaching of the

schools was in the hands of men who had scarcely any training,

and who had often turned to the work because all other work

had turned away from them. Under them it was conducted upon

that monitorial system which was the inheritance from Dr.

Bell, the rival of Lancaster. The pupils were set to teach one

another. ... The inquiries of the Committee of Council thus

gave the death-blow, in public estimation, to the once

highly-vaunted monitorial system. But how was it to be

replaced? The model of a better state of things was found in

the Dutch schools. There a selected number of the older

pupils, who intended to enter upon the profession of teachers,

were apprenticed, when they had reached the age of thirteen,

to the teacher. ... After their apprenticeship they passed to

a Training College. ... Accordingly, a new and important start

was made by the Department on the 25th of August 1846. ... In

1851 twenty-five Training Colleges had been established; and

these had a sure supply of qualified recruits in the 6,000

pupil teachers who were by that time being trained to the

work. ... The ten years between 1842 and 1852 saw the

Parliamentary grant raised from £40,000 to £160,000 a year,

with the certainty of a still further increase as the

augmentation grants to teachers and the stipends to pupil

teachers grew in number. Nearly 3,800 schools had been built

with Parliamentary aid, providing accommodation for no less

than 540,000 children. The State had contributed towards this

more than £400,000; and a total expenditure had been incurred

in providing schools of more than £1,000,000. ... But the

system was as yet only tentative; and a mass of thorny

religious questions had to be faced before a really national

system could be established.

{714}

... All parties became convinced that the first step was to

inquire into the merits and defects of the existing system,

and on the basis of sound information to plan some method of

advance. Under this impression it was that the Commission on

Public Education, of which the Duke of Newcastle was chairman,

was appointed in 1858." The result of the Commission of 1858

was a revision of the educational Code which the Committee of

the Privy Council had formulated. The New Code proved

unsatisfactory in its working, and every year showed more

plainly the necessity of a fully organized system of national

education. "Out of the discussions there arose two societies,

which fairly expressed two different views. ... The first of

these was the Education League, started at Birmingham in 1869.

... Its basis, shortly stated, was that of a compulsory system

of school provision, by local authorities through means of

local rates; the schools so provided to be at once free and

unsectarian. ... In this programme the point which raised most

opposition was the unsectarian teaching. It was chiefly to

counteract this part of the League's objects that there was

formed the Education Union, which urged a universal system

based upon the old lines. ... By common consent the time for a

settlement was now come. Some guarantee must be taken that the

whole edifice should not crumble to pieces; that for local

agencies there should be substituted local authorities; and

that the State should be supplied with some machinery whereby

the gaps in the work might be supplied. It was in this

position of opinion that Mr. Forster, as Vice-President,

introduced his Education Bill in 1870. ... The measure passed

the House of Lords without any material alteration; and

finally became Law on the 9th of August 1870."

R. Craik, The State in its Relation to Education.

The schools to which the provisions of the Act of 1870

extends, and the regulations under which such schools are to

be conducted, are defined in the Act as follows: "Every

elementary school which is conducted in accordance with the

following regulations shall be a public elementary school

within the meaning of this Act; and every public elementary

school shall be conducted in accordance with the following

regulations (a copy of which regulations shall be

conspicuously put up in every such school); namely

(1.) It shall not be required, as a condition of any child

being admitted into or continuing in the school, that he shall

attend or abstain from attending any Sunday school, or any

place of religious worship, or that he shall attend any

religious observance or any instruction in religious subjects

in the school or elsewhere, from which observance or

instruction he may be withdrawn by his parent, or that he

shall, if withdrawn by his parent, attend the school on any

day exclusively set apart for religious observance by the

religious body to which his parent belongs:

(2.) The time or times during which any religious observance

is practised or instruction in religious subjects is given at

any meeting of the school shall be either at the beginning or

at the end or at the beginning and the end of such meeting,

and shall be inserted in a time-table to be approved by the

Education Department, and to be kept permanently and

conspicuously affixed in every school-room; and any scholar

may be withdrawn by his parent from such observance or

instruction without forfeiting any of the other benefits of

the school:

(3.) The school shall be open at all times to the inspection

of any of Her Majesty's inspectors, so, however, that it shall

be no part of the duties of such inspector to inquire into any

instruction in religious subjects given at such school, or to

examine any scholar therein in religious knowledge or in any

religious subject or book:

(4.) The school shall be conducted in accordance with the

conditions required to be fulfilled by an elementary school in

order to obtain an annual parliamentary grant."

J. R. Rigg, National Education, appendix A.

"The new Act retained existing inspected schools, ... it also

did away with all denominational classifications of schools

and with denominational inspection, treating all inspected

schools as equally belonging to a national system of schools

and under national inspection, the distinctions as to

inspectors and their provinces being henceforth purely

geographical. But the new Act no longer required that public

elementary schools established by voluntary agency and under

voluntary management should have in them any religious

character or element whatever, whether as belonging to a

Christian Church or denomination, or as connected with a

Christian philanthropic society, or as providing for the

reading of the Scriptures in the school. It was left open to

any party or any person to establish purely voluntary schools

if they thought fit. But, furthermore, the Act made provision

for an entirely new class of schools, to be established and

(in part) supported out of local rates, to be governed by

locally-elected School Boards, and to have just such and so

much religious instruction given in them as the governing

boards might think proper, at times preceding or following the

prescribed secular school hours, and under the protection of a

time-table Conscience Clause, as in the case of voluntary

schools, with this restriction only, that in these schools no

catechism or denominational religious formulary of any sort

was to be taught. The mode of electing members to the School

Boards was to be by what is called the cumulative vote--that

is, each elector was to have as many votes as there were

candidates, and these votes he could give all to one, or else

distribute among the candidates as he liked; and all

ratepayers were to be electors. ... The new law ... made a

clear separation, in one respect, between voluntary and Board

schools. Both were to stand equally in relation to the

National Education Department, under the Privy Council; but

the voluntary schools were to have nothing to do with local

rates or rate aid, nor Local Boards to have any control over

voluntary schools."

J. H. Rigg, National Education, chapter 10.

"To sum up ... in few words what may be set down as the chief

characteristics of our English system of Elementary Education,

I should say

(1) first, that whilst about 30 per cent. of our school

accommodation is under the control of school boards, the cost

of maintenance being borne in part by local rates as well as

by the Parliamentary grant, fully 70 per cent. is still in the

hands of voluntary school-managers, whose subscriptions take

the place of the rates levied by school boards.

(2) In case a deficiency in school accommodation is reported

in any school district, the Education Department have the

power to require that due provision shall be made for the same

within a limited time; the 'screw' to be applied to wilful

defaulters in a voluntary school district being the threat of

a board, and in a school board district the supercession of

the existing board by a new board, nominated by the

Department, and remunerated out of the local rates.

{715}

(3) Attendance is enforced everywhere by bye-laws, worked

either by the school board or by the School Attendance

Committee: and although these local authorities are often very

remiss in discharging their duties, and the magistrates not

seldom culpably lenient in dealing with cases brought before

them, there are plenty of districts in which regularity of

school attendance has been improved fully 10 per cent. in the

past two or three years. ...

(4) The present provision for teachers, and the means in

existence for keeping up the supply, are eminently

satisfactory. Besides a large but somewhat diminishing body of

apprenticed pupil teachers, there is a very considerable and

rapidly increasing number of duly qualified assistants, and at

their head a large array of certificated teachers, whose ranks

are being replenished, chiefly from the Training Colleges, at

the rate of about 2,000 a year.

(5) The whole of the work done is examined and judged every

year by inspectors and inspectors' assistants organised in

districts each superintended by a senior inspector--the total

cost of this inspection for the present year being estimated

at about £150,000."

Reverend H. Roe, The English System of Elementary

Education (International Health Exhibition, London,

1884: Conference on Education, section A).

"The result of the work of the Education Department is causing

a social revolution in England. If the character of the

teaching is too mechanical, if the chief aim of the teacher is

to earn as much money as possible for his managers, it must be

remembered that this cannot be done without at least giving

the pupil the ability to read and write. Of course the schools

are not nearly so good as the friends of true education wish.

Much remains to be done. ... Free education will shortly be an

accomplished fact; the partial absorption of the voluntary

schools by the School Boards will necessarily follow, and

further facilitate the abolition of what have been the cause

of so much evil--result examinations, and 'grant payments.'

'Write "Grant factory" on three-fourths of our schools,' said

an educator to me. ... The schools are known as

(1) Voluntary Schools, which have been built, and are partly

supported by voluntary subscriptions. These are under

denominational control.

(2) Board Schools: viz., schools built and supported by money

raised by local taxation, and controlled by elected School

Boards.

Out of 4,688,000 pupils in the elementary schools, 2,154,000

are in the schools known as Voluntary, provided by, and under

the control of the Church of England; 1,780,000 are in Board

Schools; 330,000 attend schools under the British School

Society, or other undenominational control; 248,000 are in

Roman Catholic schools; and 174,000 belong to Wesleyan

schools. The schools here spoken of correspond more nearly

than any other in England to the Public School of the United

States and Australia; but are in many respects very different,

chiefly from the fact that they are provided expressly for the

poor, and in many cases are attended by no other class."

W. C. Grasby, Teaching in Three Continents, chapter 2.

EDUCATION: England: A. D. 1891.

Attainment of Free Education.

In 1891, a bill passed Parliament which aims at making the

elementary schools of the country free from the payment of

fees. The bill as explained in the House of Commons, "proposed

to give a grant of 10s. per head to each scholar in average

attendance between five and fourteen years of age, and as

regarded such children schools would either become wholly

free, or would continue to charge a fee reduced by the amount

of the grant, according as the fee at present charged did or

did not exceed 10s. When a school had become free it would

remain free, or when a fee was charged, the fee would remain

unaltered unless a change was required for the educational

benefit of the locality; and under this arrangement he

believed that two-thirds of the elementary schools in England

and Wales would become free. There would be no standard

limitations, but the grant would be restricted to schools

where the compulsory power came in, and as to the younger

children, it was proposed that in no case should the fee

charged exceed 2d." In a speech made at Birmingham on the free

education bill, Mr. Chamberlain discussed the opposition to it

made by those who wished to destroy the denominational

schools, and who objected to their participation in the

proposed extension of public support. "To destroy

denominational schools," he said, "was now an impossibility,

and nothing was more astonishing than the progress they had

made since the Education Act of 1870. He had thought, he said,

they would die out with the establishment of Board schools,

but he had been mistaken, for in the last twenty-three years

they had doubled their accommodation, and more than doubled

their subscription list. At the present time they supplied

accommodation for two-thirds of the children of England and

Wales. That being the case, to destroy voluntary schools--to

supply their places with Board schools, as the Daily News

cheerfully suggested--would be to involve a capital

expenditure of £50,000,000, and £5,000,000 extra yearly in

rates, But whether voluntary or denominational schools were

good or bad, their continued existence had nothing to do with

the question of free education, and ought to be kept quite

distinct from it. To make schools free was not to give one

penny extra to any denominational endowment. At the present

time the fee was a tax, and if the parents did not pay fees

they were brought before the magistrates, and if they still

did not pay they might be sent to gaol. The only thing the

Government proposed to do was not to alter the tax but to

alter the incidence. The same amount would be collected; it

would be paid by the same people, but it would be collected

from the whole nation out of the general taxation." The bill

was passed by the Commons July 8, and by the Lords on the 24th

of the same month. The free education proposals of the

Government are said to have been generally accepted throughout

the country by both Board and Voluntary schools.

Annual Register, 1891, pages 128 and 97, and part 2, page 51.

{716}

EDUCATION: France: A. D. 1565-1802.

The Jesuits.

Port Royal.

The Revolution.

Napoleon.

"The Jesuits invaded the province long ruled by the University

alone. By that adroit management of men for which they have

always been eminent, and by the more liberal spirit of their

methods, they outdid in popularity their superannuated rival.

Their first school at Paris was established in 1565, and in

1762, two years before their dissolution, they had eighty-six

colleges in France. They were followed by the Port Royalists,

the Benedictines, the Oratorians. The Port Royal schools [see

PORT ROYAL], from which perhaps a powerful influence upon

education might have been looked for, restricted this

influence by limiting very closely the number of their pupils.

Meanwhile the main funds and endowments for public education

in France were in the University's hands, and its

administration of these was as ineffective as its teaching.

... The University had originally, as sources of revenue, the

Post Office and the Messageries, or Office of Public

Conveyance; it had long since been obliged to abandon the Post

Office to Government, when in 1719 it gave up to the same

authority the privilege of the Messageries, receiving in

return from the State a yearly revenue of 150,000 livres. For

this payment, moreover, it undertook the obligation of making

the instruction in all its principal colleges gratuitous. Paid

or gratuitous, however, its instruction was quite inadequate

to the wants of the time, and when the Jesuits were expelled

from France in 1764, their establishments closed, and their

services as teachers lost, the void that was left was

strikingly apparent, and public attention began to be drawn to

it. It is well known how Rousseau among writers, and Turgot

among statesmen, busied themselves with schemes of education;

but the interest in the subject must have reached the whole

body of the community, for the instructions of all three

orders of the States General in 1789 are unanimous in

demanding the reform of education, and its establishment on a

proper footing. Then came the Revolution, and the work of

reform soon went swimmingly enough, so far as the abolition of

the old schools was concerned. In 1791 the colleges were all

placed under the control of the administrative authorities; in

1792 the jurisdiction of the University was abolished; in 1793

the property of the colleges was ordered to be sold, the

proceeds to be taken by the State; in September of the same

year the suppression of all the great public schools and of

all the University faculties was pronounced. For the work of

reconstruction Condorcet's memorable plan had in 1792 been

submitted to the Committee of Public Instruction appointed by

the Legislative Assembly. This plan proposed a secondary

school for every 4,000 inhabitants; for each department, a

departmental institute, or higher school; nine lycées, schools

carrying their studies yet higher than the departmental

institute, for the whole of France; and to crown the edifice,

a National Society of Sciences and Arts, corresponding in the

main with the present institute of France. The whole expense

of national instruction was to be borne by the State, and this

expense was estimated at 29,000,000 of francs. But 1792 and

1793 were years of furious agitation, when it was easier to

destroy than to build. Condorcet perished with the Girondists,

and the reconstruction of public education did not begin till

after the fall of Robespierre. The decrees of the Convention

for establishing the Normal School, the Polytechnic, the

School of Mines, and the écoles centrales, and then Daunou's

law in 1795, bore, however, many traces of Condorcet's design.

Daunou's law established primary schools, central schools,

special schools, and at the head of all the Institute of

France, this last a memorable and enduring creation, with

which the old French Academy became incorporated. By Daunou's

law, also, freedom was given to private persons to open

schools. The new legislation had many defects. ... The

country, too, was not yet settled enough for its education to

organise itself successfully. The Normal School speedily broke

down; the central schools were established slowly and with

difficulty; in the course of the four years of the Directory

there were nominally instituted ninety·one of these schools,

but they never really worked. More was accomplished by private

schools, to which full freedom was given by the new

legislation, at the same time that an ample and open field lay

before them. They could not, however, suffice for the work,

and education was one of the matters for which Napoleon, when

he became Consul, had to provide. Foureroy's law, in 1802,

took as the basis of its school-system secondary schools,

whether established by the communes or by private individuals;

the Government undertook to aid these schools by grants for

buildings, for scholarships, and for gratuities to the

masters; it prescribed Latin, French, geography, history, and

mathematics as the instruction to be given in them. They were

placed under the superintendence of the prefects. To continue

and complete the secondary schools were instituted the

lyceums; here the instruction was to be Greek and Latin,

rhetoric, logic, literature, moral philosophy, and the

elements of the mathematical and physical sciences. The pupils

were to be of four kinds: boursiers nationaux, scholars

nominated to scholarships by the State; pupils from the

secondary schools, admitted as free scholars by competition;

paying boarders, and paying day-scholars."

M. Arnold, Schools and Universities on the

Continent, chapter 1.

EDUCATION: France: A. D. 1833-1889.

The present System of Public Instruction.

"The question of the education of youth is one of those in

which the struggle between the Catholic Church and the civil

power has been, and still is, hottest. It is also one of those

in which France, which for a long time had remained far in the

rear, has made most efforts, and achieved most progress in

these latter years. ... Napoleon I. conceived education as a

means of disciplining minds and wills and moulding them into

conformity with the political system which he had put in

force; accordingly he gave the University the monopoly of

public education. Apart from the official system of teaching,

no competition was allowed except that specially authorised,

regulated, and controlled by the State itself. Religious

instruction found a place in the official programmes, and

members of the clergy were even called on to supply it, but

this instruction itself, and these priests themselves, were

under the authority of the State. Hence two results: on the

one hand the speedy impoverishment of University education,

... on the other hand, the incessant agitation of all those

who were prevented by the special organisation given to the

University from expounding their ideas or the faith that was

in them from the professorial chair. This agitation was begun

and carried on by the Catholic Church itself, as soon as it

felt more at liberty to let its ambitions be discerned.

{717}

On this point the Church met with the support of a good number

of Liberals, and it is in a great measure to its initiative

that are due the three important laws of 1833, 1850, and 1875,

which have respectively given to France freedom of primary

education, of secondary education, and finally that of higher

education; which have given, that is to say, the right to

everyone, under certain conditions of capacity and character,

to open private schools in competition with the three orders

of public schools. But the Church did not stop there. Hardly

had it insured liberty to its educational institutions--a

liberty by which all citizens might profit alike, but of which

its own strong organisation and powerful resources enabled it

more easily to take advantage--hardly was this result obtained

than the Church tried to lay hands on the University itself,

and to make its doctrines paramount there. ... Thence arose a

movement hostile to the enterprises of the Church, which has

found expression since 1880 in a series of laws which Excluded

her little by little from the positions she had won, and only

left to her, as to all other citizens, the liberty to teach

apart from, and concurrently with, the State. The right to

confer degrees has been given back to the State alone; the

privilege of the 'letter of obedience' has been abolished;

religious teaching has been excluded from the primary schools;

and after having 'laicized,' as the French phrase is, the

curriculum, the effort was persistently made to 'laicize' the

staff. .... From the University point of view, the territory

of France is divided into seventeen academies, the chief towns

of which are Paris, Douai, Caen, Rennes, Poitiers, Bordeaux,

Toulouse, Montpellier, Aix, Grenoble, Chambéry, Lyons,

Besançon, Nancy, Dijon, Clermont, and Algiers. Each academy

has a rector at its head, who, under the authority of the

Minister of Public Instruction, is charged with the material

administration of higher and secondary education, and with the

methods of primary instruction in his district. The

administration of this last belongs to the prefect of each

department, assisted by an academy-inspector. In each of these

three successive stages--department, academy, and central

administration--is placed a council, possessing administrative

and disciplinary powers. The Departmental Council of Public

Instruction, which comprises six officials ... forms a

disciplinary council for primary education, either public or

free (i. e., State or private). This council sees to the

application of programmes, lays down rules, and appoints one

or more delegates in each canton to superintend primary

schools. The Academic Council ... performs similar functions

with regard to secondary and higher education. The Higher

Council of Public Instruction sits at Paris. It comprises

forty-four elected representatives of the three educational

orders, nine University officials, and four 'free'

schoolmasters appointed by the Minister, and is the

disciplinary court of appeal for the two preceding councils.

... Such is the framework, administrative as well as judicial,

in which education, whether public or free, lives and moves.

... Since 1882 Primary Education has been compulsory for all

children of both sexes, from the age of six to the end of the

thirteenth year, unless before reaching the latter age they

have been able to pass an examination, and to gain the

certificate of primary studies. To satisfy the law, the

child's name must be entered at a public or private school; he

may, however, continue to receive instruction at home, but in

this case, after he has reached the age of eight, he must be

examined every year before a State board. ... At the age of

thirteen the child is set free from further teaching, whatever

may be the results of the education he has received. ... In

public schools the course of instruction does not include, as

we have said, religious teaching; but one day in the week the

school must take a holiday, to allow parents to provide such

teaching for their children, if they wish to do so. The school

building cannot be used for that purpose. In private schools

religious instruction may be given, but this is optional. The

programme of primary education includes: moral and civic

instruction; reading, writing, French, geography and history

(particularly those of France); general notions of law and

science; the elements of drawing, modelling, and music; and

gymnastics. No person of either sex can become a teacher,

either public or private, unless he possesses the 'certificate

of capacity for primary instruction' given by a State board.

For the future--putting aside certain temporary

arrangements--no member of a religious community will be

eligible for the post of master in a public school. ... As a

general rule, every commune is compelled to maintain a public

school, and, if it has more than 500 inhabitants, a second

school for girls only. ... The sum total of the State's

expenses for primary education in 1887 is as high as

eighty-five million francs (£3,400,000), and that without

mentioning grants for school buildings, whereas in 1877 the

sum total was only twelve millions (£480,000). ... From 1877

to 1886, the number of public schools rose from 61,000 to

66,500; that of the pupils from 4,200,000 to 4,500,000, with

96,600 masters and mistresses; that of training schools for

male teachers from 79 to 89, of training schools for female

teachers from 18 to 77, with 5,400 pupils (3,500 of them

women), and 1,200 masters. As to the results a single fact

will suffice. In these ten years, before the generations newly

called to military service have been able to profit fully by

the new state of things, the proportion of illiterate recruits

(which is annually made out directly after the lots are drawn)

has already fallen from 15 to 11 per cent."

A. Lebon and P. Pelet, France as it is, chapter 5.

"In 1872, after the dreadful disaster of the war, Monsieur

Thiers, President of the Gouvernement de la Défense Nationale,

and Monsieur Jules Simon, Minister of Public Instruction, felt

that what was most important for the nation was a new system

of public instruction, and they set themselves the task of

determining the basis on which this new system was to be

established. In September, 1882, Monsieur Jules Simon issued a

memorable circular calling the attention of all the most

distinguished leaders of thought to some proposed plans. He

did not long remain in power, but in his retirement he wrote a

book entitled: 'Réforme de l'Enseignement Secondaire.'

Monsieur Bréal, who was commissioned to visit the schools of

Germany, soon after published another book which aroused new

enthusiasm in France. ... From that day a complete educational

reform was decided on.

{718}

In 1872 we had at the Ministeré de l'Instruction Publique

three distinguished men: Monsieur Dumont for the Enseignement

Supérieur, one from whom we hoped much and whose early death

we had to mourn in 1884; Monsieur Zévort for the Enseignement

Secondaire, who also died ere the good seed which he had sown

had sprung up and borne fruit (1887); and Monsieur Buisson to

whose wisdom, zeal, and energy we owe most of the work of the

Enseignement Primaire. At their side, of maturer years than

they, stood Monsieur Gréard, Recteur de l'Académie de Paris.

... All the educationists of the first French Revolution had

insisted on the solidarity of the three orders of education;

maintaining that it was not possible to separate one from

another, and that there ought to be a close correspondence

between them. This principle lies at the root of the whole

system of French national instruction. Having established this

principle, the four leaders called upon all classes of

teachers to work with them, and professors who had devoted

their life to the promotion of superior instruction brought

their experience and their powers of organization to bear upon

schools for all classes, from the richest to the poorest. ...

But to reform and to reconstruct a system of instruction is

not a small task. It is not easy to change at once the old

methods, to give a new spirit to the masters, to teach those

who think that what had been sufficient for them need not be

altered and is sufficient forever. However, we must say that

as soon as the French teachers heard of the great changes

which were about to take place, they were all anxious to rise

to the demands made on them, and were eager for advice and

help. Lectures on pedagogy and psychology were given to them

by the highest professors of philosophy, and these lessons

were so much appreciated that the attention of the University

of France was called to the necessity for creating at the

Sorbonne a special course of lectures on pedagogy. Eleven

hundred masters and mistresses attended them the first year

that they were inaugurated; from that time till now their

number has always been increasing. Now we have at the Sorbonne

a Chaire Magistrale and Conférences for the training of

masters and professors; and the faculties at Lyons, Bordeaux,

Nancy, and Montpellier have followed the example given at the

Sorbonne, Paris. ... In 1878, the Musée Pedagogique was

founded; in 1882, began the publication of the Revue

Pedagogique and the Revue Internationale de l'Enseignement.

Four large volumes of the Dictionnaire de Pédagogie, each

containing about 3,000 closely printed pages, have also come

out under the editorship of Monsieur Buisson, all the work of

zealous teachers and educationists. In 1879 normal schools

were opened. Then in 1880 primary schools, and in 1882 we may

say that the Ecoles Maternelles and the Ecoles Enfantines were

created, so different are they from the infant schools or the

Salles d'Asile; in 1883 a new examination was established for

the Professorat and the Direction des Ecoles Normales, as well

as for the inspectors of primary instruction; and in July,

1889, the law about public and private teaching was

promulgated, perhaps one of the most important that has ever

been passed by the Republic."

Mme. Th. Armagnac, The Educational

Renaissance of France (Education, September, 1890).

EDUCATION: France: A. D. 1890-1891.

Statistics.

The whole number of pupils registered in the primary,

elementary and superior schools, public and private, of France

and Algiers (excluding the "écoles maternelles") for the

school-year 1890-91, was 5,593,883; of which 4,384,905 were in

public schools (3,760,601, "laïque," and 624,304

"congréganiste"), and 1,208,978 in private schools (151,412

"laïques," and 1,057,566 "congréganiste"). Of 36,484

communes, 35,503 possessed a public school, and 875 were

joined for school purposes with another commune. The male

teachers employed in the elementary and superior public

schools numbered 28,657; female teachers, 24,273; total

52,930.

Ministère de l'Instruction publique, Résumé des

états de situation de l'enseignement primaire pour

l'année scolaire 1890-1891.

EDUCATION:

Ireland.

"The present system of National Education in Ireland was

founded in 1831. In this year grants of public money for the

education of the poor were entrusted to the lord-lieutenant in

order that they might be applied to the education of the

people. This education was to be given to children of every

religious belief, and to be superintended by commissioners

appointed for the purpose. The great principle on which the

system was founded was that of 'united secular and separate

religious instruction.' No child should be required to attend

any religious instruction which should be contrary to the

wishes of his or her parents or guardians. Times were to be

set apart during which children were to have such religious

instruction as their parents might think proper. It was to be

the duty of the Commissioners to see that these principles

were carried out and not infringed on in any way. They had

also power to give or refuse money to those who applied for

aid to build schools. Schools are 'vested' and 'non-vested.'

Vested schools are those built by the Board of National

Education; non-vested schools are the ordinary schools, and

are managed by those who built them. If a committee of persons

build a school, it is looked on by the Board as the 'patron.'

If a landowner or private person builds a school, he is

regarded as the patron if he has no committee. The patron,

whether landlord or committee, has power to appoint or dismiss

a manager, who corresponds with the Board. The manager is also

responsible for the due or thorough observance of the laws and

rules. Teachers are paid by him after he certifies that the

laws have been kept, and gives the attendance for each

quarter. When an individual is patron, he may appoint himself

manager and thus fill both offices. ... The teachers are paid

by salaries and by results fees. The Boards of Guardians have

power to contribute to these results fees. Some unions do so

and are called 'contributory.' School managers in Ireland are

nearly always clerics of some denomination. There are

sometimes, but very rarely, lay managers. ... From the census

returns of 1881 it appears that but fifty-nine per cent. of

the people of Ireland are able to read and write, The greater

number of national schools through Ireland are what are

called 'unmixed,' that is, attended by children of one

denomination only. The rest of the schools are called 'mixed,'

that is, attended by children of different forms of religion.

The percentage of schools that show a 'mixed' attendance tends

to become smaller each year. ... There are also twenty-nine

'model' schools in different parts of Ireland. These schools

are managed directly by the Board of National Education. ...

{719}

According to the report of the Commissioners of National

Education for 1890, the 'percentage of average attendance to

the average number of children on the rolls of the schools was

but 59.0,' and the percentage of school attendance to the

estimated population of school age in Ireland would be less

than 50. Different reasons might be given for this small

percentage of attendance. The chief reasons are, first,

attendance at school not being compulsory, and next, education

not being free. ... The pence paid for school fees in Ireland

may seem, to many people, a small matter. But in a country

like Ireland, where little money circulates, and a number of

the people are very poor, school pence are often not easily

found every week. In 1890, £104,550 4s. and 8d. was paid in

school fees, being an average of 4s. 32¾d. per unit of average

attendance."

The Irish Peasant;

by a Guardian of the Poor, chapter 8.

EDUCATION:

Norway.

"In 1739 the schools throughout the country were regulated by

a royal ordinance, but this paid so little regard to the

economical and physical condition of Norway that it had to be

altered and modified as early as 1741. Compulsory instruction,

however, had thus been adopted, securing to every child in the

country instruction in the Christian doctrine and in reading,

and this coercion was retained in all later laws. ... Many

portions of the country are intersected by high mountains and

deep fiords, so that a small population is scattered over a

surface of several miles. In such localities the law has

established 'ambulatory schools,' whose teachers travel from

one farm to another, living with the different peasants.

Although this kind of instruction has often been most

incomplete and the teachers very mediocre, still educational

coercion has everywhere been in force, and Christian

instruction everywhere provided for the children. These

'ambulatory schools' formerly existed in large numbers, but

with the increase of wealth and population, and the growing

interest taken in education, their number has gradually

diminished, and that of fixed circle-schools augmented in the

same proportion."

G. Gade, Report on the Educational System of Norway

(U. S. Bureau of Education, Circulars of Information,

July, 1871).

"School attendance is compulsory for at least 12 weeks each

year for all children in the country districts from 8 years of

age to confirmation, and from 7 years to confirmation in the

towns. According to the law of 1889, which in a measure only

emphasizes preceding laws, each school is to have the

necessary furnishings and all indispensable school material.

The Norwegians are so intent upon giving instruction to all

children that in case of poverty of the parents the

authorities furnish text-books and the necessary clothing, so

that school privileges may be accorded to all of school age."

U. S. Commissioner of Education,

Report, 1889-90, page 513.

EDUCATION: Prussia: A. D. 1809.

Education and the liberation movement.

"The most important era in the history of public instruction

in Prussia, as well as in other parts of Germany, opens with

the efforts put forth by the king and people, to rescue the

kingdom from the yoke of Napoleon in 1809. In that year the

army was remodeled and every citizen converted into a soldier;

landed property was declared free of feudal service;

restrictions on freedom of trade were abolished, and the whole

state was reorganized. Great reliance was placed on infusing a

German spirit into the people by giving them freer access to

improved institutions of education from the common school to

the university. Under the councils of Hardenberg, Humboldt,

Stein, Altenstein, these reforms and improvements were

projected, carried on, and perfected in less than a single

generation. The movement in behalf of popular schools

commenced by inviting C. A. Zeller, of Wirtemberg, to Prussia.

Zeller was a young theologian, who had studied under

Pestalozzi in Switzerland, and was thoroughly imbued with the

method and spirit of his master. On his return he had convened

the school teachers of Wirtemberg in barns, for want of better

accommodations being allowed him, and inspired them with a

zeal for Pestalozzi's methods, and for a better education of

the whole people. On removing to Prussia he first took charge

of the seminary at Koenigsberg, soon after founded the

seminary at Karalene, and went about into different provinces

meeting with teachers, holding conferences, visiting schools,

and inspiring school officers with the right spirit. The next

step taken was to send a number of young men, mostly

theologians, to Pestalozzi's institution at Ifferten, to

acquire his method, and on their return to place them in new,

or reorganized teachers' seminaries. To these new agents in

school improvement were joined a large body of zealous

teachers, and patriotic and enlightened citizens, who, in ways

and methods of their own, labored incessantly to confirm the

Prussian state, by forming new organs for its internal life,

and new means of protection from foreign foes. They proved

themselves truly educators of the people. Although the

government thus not only encouraged, but directly aided in the

introduction of the methods of Pestalozzi into the public

schools of Prussia, still the school board in the different

provinces sustained and encouraged those who approved and

taught on different systems. ... Music, which was one of

Pestalozzi's great instruments of culture, was made the

vehicle of patriotic songs, and through them the heart of all

Germany was moved to bitter hatred of the conqueror who had

desolated her fields and homes, and humbled the pride of her

monarchy. All these efforts for the improvement of elementary

education, accompanied by expensive modifications in the

establishments of secondary and superior education, were made

when the treasury was impoverished, and taxes the most

exorbitant in amount were levied on every province and commune

of the kingdom."

H. Barnard, National Education in Europe, pages 83-84.

For this notable educational work begun in Prussia in 1809,

and which gave a new character to the nation, "the

Providential man appeared in Humboldt, as great a master of

the science and art of education as Scharnhorst was a master

of the organisation of war. Not only was he himself, as a

scholar and an investigator, on a level with the very first of

his age, not only had he lived with precisely those masters of

literature, Schiller and Goethe, who were most deliberate in

their self-culture, and have therefore left behind most

instruction on the higher parts of education, but he had been

specially intimate with F. A. Wolf. It is not generally known

in England that Wolf was not merely the greatest philologer

but also the greatest teacher and educationist of his time.

... Formed by such teachers, and supported by a more intense

belief in culture than almost any man of his time, Humboldt

began his work in April, 1809.

{720}

In primary education Fichte had already pointed

to Pestalozzi as the best guide. One of that reformer's

disciples, C. A. Zeller, was summoned to Königsberg to found a

normal school, while the reformer himself, in his weekly

educational journal, cheered fallen Prussia by his panegyric,

and wrote enthusiastically to Nicolovius pronouncing him and

his friends the salt and leaven of the earth that would soon

leaven the whole mass. It is related that in the many

difficulties which Zeller not unnaturally had to contend with,

the King's genuine benevolence, interest in practical

improvement, and strong family feeling, were of decisive use.

... The reform of the Gymnasia was also highly successful.

Süvern here was among the most active of those who worked

under Humboldt's direction. In deference to the authority of

Wolf the classics preserved their traditional position of

honour, and particular importance was attached to Greek. ...

But it was on the highest department of education that

Humboldt left his mark most visibly. He founded the University

of Berlin; he gave to Europe a new seat of learning, which has

ever since stood on an equality with the very greatest of

those of which Europe boasted before. We are not indeed to

suppose that the idea of such a University sprang up for the

first time at this moment, or in the brain of Humboldt. Among

all the losses which befell Prussia by the Peace of Tilsit

none was felt more bitterly than the loss of the University of

Halle, where Wolf himself had made his fame. Immediately after

the blow fell, two of the Professors of Halle made their way

to Memel and laid before the King a proposal to establish a

High School at Berlin. This was on August 22nd, 1807. ... On

September 4th came an Order of Cabinet, in which it was

declared to be one of the most important objects to compensate

the loss of Halle. It was added that neither of the two

Universities which remained to Prussia, those of Königsberg

and Frankfurt-on-the-Oder, could be made to supply the place

of Halle, Königsberg being too remote from the seat of

Government and Frankfurt not sufficiently provided with means.

At Berlin a University could best, and at least expense, be

established. Accordingly all funds which had hitherto gone to

Halle were to go for the future to Berlin, and assurances were

to be given to the expelled Professors which might prevent

their talents being lost to the country. A University is not

founded in a day, and accordingly while Stein held office the

design did not pass beyond the stage of discussion. ...

Humboldt sent in his Report on May 12, 1809, and on August

16th followed the Order of Cabinet assigning to the new

University, along with the Academies of Science and Art, an

annual dotation of 150,000 thalers, and the Palace of Prince

Henry as its residence. During the rest of his term of office

Humboldt was occupied in negotiations with eminent men of

science all over Germany, whose services he hoped to procure.

He was certainly not unsuccessful. He secured Fichte for

Philosophy; Schleiermacher, De Wette, and Marheineke for

Theology; Savigny and Schmalz for Jurisprudence; Friedländer,

Kohlrausch, Hufeland, and Reil for Medicine; Wolf, Buttmann,

Böckh, Heindorf, and Spalding for the Study of Antiquity;

Niebuhr and Rühs for History; Tralles for Mathematics (Gauss

refused the invitation). The University was opened at

Michaelmas of 1810, and as the first result of it the first

volume of Niebuhr's Roman History, opening so vast a field of

historical speculation, was published in 1811. ... Altogether

in that period of German history the relations of literature,

or rather culture in general, to politics are remarkable and

exceptional. There had been a most extraordinary intellectual

movement, a great outpouring of genius, and yet this had taken

place not, as according to some current theories it ought to

have done, in the bosom of political liberty, but in a country

where liberty was unknown. And as it was not the effect, so

the new literature did not seem disposed to become the cause,

of liberty. Not only was it careless of internal liberty, but

it was actually indifferent to national independence. The

golden age of German literature is the very period when

Germany was conquered by France. ... So far literature and

culture seemed a doubtful benefit, and might almost be

compared to some pernicious drug, which should have the power

to make men forget their country and their duties. Not

unreasonably did Friedrich Perthes console himself for the

disasters of Germany by reflecting that at least they had

brought to an end 'the paper time,' the fool's paradise of a

life made up of nothing more substantial than literature. In

Humboldt's reform we have the compensation for all this. Here

while on the one hand we see the grand spectacle of a nation

in the last extremity refusing to part with the treasures of

its higher life, on the other hand that higher life is no

longer unnaturally divorced from political life. It is prized

as one of the bulwarks of the State, as a kind of spiritual

weapon by which the enemy may be resisted. And in the new and

public-spirited generation of thinkers, of which Fichte and

Sehleiermacher were the principal representatives, culture

returns to politics the honour that has been done to it. ...

In Humboldt and his great achievements of 1809, 1810, meet and

are reconciled the two views of life which found their most

extreme representatives in Goethe and Stein."

J. R. Seeley, Life and Times of Stein,

part 6, chapter 3 (volume 2).

EDUCATION: Prussia: A. D. 1874.

The Educational Administration.

"There is no organic school-law in Prussia, ... though

sketches and projects of such a law have more than once been

prepared. But at present the public control of the higher

schools is exercised through administrative orders and

instructions, like the minutes of our Committee of Council on

Education. But the administrative authority has in Prussia a

very different basis for its operations from that which it has

in England, and a much firmer one. It has for its basis these

articles of the Allgemeine Landrecht, or common law of

Prussia, which was drawn up in writing in Frederick the

Great's reign, and promulgated in 1794, in the reign of his

successor:--'Schools and universities are State institutions,

having for their object the instruction of youth in useful and

scientific knowledge. Such establishments are to be instituted

only with the State's previous knowledge and consent. All

public schools and public establishments of education are

under the State's supervision, and must at all times submit

themselves to its examinations and inspections.

{721}

Whenever the appointment of teachers is not by virtue of the

foundation or of a special privilege vested in certain persons

or corporations, it belongs to the State. Even where the

immediate supervision of such schools and the appointment of

their teachers is committed to certain private persons or

corporations, new teachers cannot be appointed, and important

changes in the constitution and teaching of the school cannot

be adopted without the previous knowledge or consent of the

provincial school authorities. The teachers in the gymnasiums

and other higher schools have the character of State

functionaries.' ... It would be a mistake to suppose that the

State in Prussia shows a grasping and centralising spirit in

dealing with education; on the contrary, it makes the

administration of it as local as it possibly can; but it takes

care that education shall not be left to the chapter of

accidents. ... Prussia is now divided into eight provinces,

and these eight provinces are again divided into twenty-six

governmental districts, or Regierungen. There is a Provincial

School Board (Provinzial-Schulcollegium) in the chief town of

each of the eight provinces, and a Governmental District Board

in that of each of the twenty-six Regierungen. In general, the

State's relations with the higher class of secondary schools

are exercised through the Provincial Board; its relations with

the lower class of them, and with the primary schools, through

the District Board. In Berlin, the relations with these also

are managed by the Provincial Board. A

Provinzial-Schulcollegium has for its president the High

President of the province; for its director the vice-president

of that governmental district which happens to have for its

centre the provincial capital. The Board has two or three

other members, of whom, in general, one is a Catholic and one

is a Protestant; and one is always a man practically

conversant with school matters. The District Board has in the

provincial capitals the same president and director as the

Provincial Board; in the other centres of Regierungen it has

for its president the President of the Regierung, and three or

four members selected on the same principle as the members of

the Provincial Board. The provincial State authority,

therefore, is, in general, for gymnasiums, the larger

progymnasiums, and Realschulen of the first rank, the

Provincial School Board; for the smaller progymnasiums,

Realschulen of the second rank, the higher Burgher Schools,

and the primary schools of all kinds, the Governmental

District Board. Both boards are in continual communication

with the Educational Minister at Berlin. ... Besides the

central and provincial administration there is a local or

municipal administration for schools that are not Crown

patronage schools. ... In most towns the local authority for

schools of municipal patronage is the town magistracy,

assisted by a Stadtschulrath; sometimes the local authority is

a Curntorium or Schulcommission."

M. Arnold, Higher Schools and Universities

in Germany, chapter 3.

"The secondary school differs from the elementary schools by a

course of instruction going beyond the immediate demands of

every-day life; from the special school, by the more general

character of the courses of instruction; from the university,

by its preparatory character. It has the special aim to give

that sound basis of scientific and literary education which

enables a man to participate in solving the higher problems of

life in church, state, and society, In accordance with their

historical development, two directions can be clearly traced,

viz., the gymnasium and the real-school: the former comprising

gymnasia and pro-gymnasia; and the latter real-schools of the

first class, real-schools of the second class, and higher

burgher-schools."

History of Secondary Instruction in Germany

(U. S. Bureau of Education, Circulars of

Information, 1874, no. 3), page 41.

"The name gymnasium came into use as early as the sixteenth

century. The ministerial decree of the 12th of November, 1812,

ordered that all learned school institutions, such as lyceums,

pedagogiums, collegiums, Latin schools, etc., should bear the

name gymnasium. A gymnasium is and has long been a classical

school."

U. S. Commissioner of Education, Report, 1889-90, page 318.

ALSO IN: V. Cousin, Report on the state of

public instruction in Prussia.

EDUCATION: Prussia: A. D. 1885-1889.

The Elementary School-System.

"The New Yorker, anxious for a high degree of perfection in

the elementary schools of his State, must be struck forcibly

by the following merits of the Elementary School System of

Prussia. ...

1. Compulsory education laws, necessitating a full and regular

attendance of the children of school age.

2. Official courses of study fixing the work to be

accomplished in each of the different grades of schools.

Uniformity is thus secured in the work done in all schools of

the same class.

3. Definite qualifications and experience in teaching for

eligibility to the office of school commissioner.

4. Provisions elevating teaching to the dignity of a

profession and making the tenure of office secure.

5. Trained teachers in rural as well as city districts and a

school year of at least forty weeks.

6. General supervision of instruction for children of school

age in private schools and families, including the

qualifications of instructors. ...

Every Prussian child between the ages of 6 and 14 must, except

in cases of severe illness or other extraordinary cause, be

present at every session of the school he attends. The lists

of the children of school age, in charge of the local police

(in rural districts the Burgermeister), are kept so carefully

that it is impossible to escape the provisions of the

compulsory education laws, as much so as it is to evade the

military service. Dispensations amounting to more than four

weeks in the school year are never given to children under 12

years of age, and to them only when sickness in the family or

other unusual cause make it advisable. ... In order to

understand the qualifications required of school commissioners

(Kreisschulinspektoren) in Prussia, let us review briefly the

requirements of male teachers.

1. Elementary schools. It may be stated at the outset that

almost all the male elementary school teachers are normal

school graduates. To insure similarity in training and a

thorough knowledge of character, few foreigners and few beside

normal school (Schullehrer-Seminar) graduates are admitted to

the male teaching force. From 6 to 14 the would-be teacher has

attended, let us suppose, an elementary school. He must then

absolve the three years' course laid down for the preparatory

schools. ... He is now ready for the normal school. At the

close of a three years' course at the normal school he is

admitted to the first teachers' examination. If successful, he

must next practice as candidate or assistant teacher not less

than two years and not more than five years before his

admission to the final test. ... If a teacher fails to pass

the examination within five years, he is dropped.

{722}

2. Middle schools. For teachers of lower classes the same

requirements with the addition of ability to teach a foreign

tongue, or natural history in its broadest sense, and the

attainment of the mark 'good' in all subjects at the final

examination. ... For higher classes, a special examination

provided for middle school teachers. ... There is really no

gradation between elementary and middle schools. The latter

merely go on somewhat further with elementary school work,

introducing French, Latin and English.

3. High schools (Realschulen, Realgymnasien, Progymnasien and

Gymnasien). All high school teachers, except those engaged in

technical departments, must first absolve the nine years'

gymnasial course, which commences at the close of the third

school year.

Next comes the university course of three or four years. The

candidate is now ready for the State examination. The subjects

for this State examination ... are divided into four classes:

1. The ancient languages and German;

2. Mathematics and natural sciences;

3. History and geography;

4. Religion and Hebrew.

At the close of one year's practice to test teaching capacity

he receives a second certificate and is thereupon engaged

provisionally. ... The school commissioners ... are either

former regular high school teachers, general doctors of

philosophy or more rarely theologians, or former normal school

teachers. All must have had practical experience in teaching.

... The work to be accomplished in each Prussian elementary

school is definitely laid down by law. Each school is not a

law unto itself as to what shall be done and when and how this

is to be done. I have learned by practical experience that the

work in ungraded schools compares most favorably with that of

graded schools."

J. R. Parsons, Jr., Prussian Schools through

American eyes, chapter 1, section 5-10.

Prussian elementary schools are now free. "In this respect

Prussia has passed through three stages. Under the first

elementary schools were entirely self-supporting; under the

second they received State aid, but were still largely

self-supporting; under the third, Laws of 1888 and 1889,

elementary schools were made free and the State pays a larger

proportion of the cost of maintenance. Districts must pay for

repairs, new buildings and cost of heating. If unwilling to

provide proper accommodations for the children of school age,

they can be forced by the government to do so. Poor districts

may receive special government aid to meet such expenses. ...

The direct aim of the laws of June 14, 1888, and March 31,

1889, was to lighten the burden of local taxation for schools

for children of school age. These laws have had a beneficial

effect in increasing slightly the wages of teachers. Teachers'

salaries are still quite small in Prussia, particularly in the

case of females. Allowances are generally made for house-rent

and fuel. Teachers in rural districts are provided with a

house and garden. Their salaries are often not much more than

half those paid city teachers of the same grade, and yet, as

regards professional training and character of work, they are

fully equal to city teachers. ... The average annual salary

received by teachers in Prussia in 1886 was $267.50. The

average for the same year in New York was $409.27. The

Prussian teacher, however, received fuel and dwelling free, in

addition to his regular salary. ... In 1885 the population of

Prussia was 28,318,470, and the total cost of public education

per caput was $1,7717. Drs. Schneider and Petersilie of

Berlin, in 'Preussische Statistik 101,' published in 1889,

reckon the total cost for 1888, excluding army and navy

schools, at $50,192,857. ... In Prussia, elementary

instruction is the first consideration. The resolution adopted

by the national assembly (Landtag) December 22, 1870, is a

good illustration of this. It was at the very crisis of the

Franco-German war, yet the Landtag called on the government to

increase the number of normal schools and the capacity of

those already existing, and 'thus to put an end to the

practice of filling up teachers' vacancies by appointing

unqualified individuals.'"

J. R. Parsons, Jr., Prussian Schools through

American eyes, chapter 1, section 15-17.

"Throughout Prussia there is now one school-room and one

teacher to 446 inhabitants and 78.8 children actually

attending school. This shows that there are far too few

teachers. But the government and the cities have recently

devoted considerable sums to the establishment of new places

for teachers, so that, in the year 1881, there were 10,000

more teachers working in the public schools than in 1873. The

salaries of the teachers were also raised. The average payment

in the country is 954 marks, in the cities 1,430 marks. ...

The expense of maintaining the Prussian national schools

amounts annually to about 102,000,000 of marks, 43,000,000 of

which are paid by the cities. One hundred and ten colleges for

the training of teachers are now engaged in the education of

male and female instructors, with an attendance of 9,892

pupils; that is, there is one pupil to every 2,758

inhabitants. In the case of the female teachers only, a

considerable degree of assistance is rendered by private

institutions. ... The intermediary schools established in

1872, and recently converted into the higher citizen schools,

form a transition from the national schools to the higher

schools. These teach religion, German, French, English,

history and geography, arithmetic and mathematics, natural

history and physics, writing, drawing, singing, and

gymnastics. The course embraces six years without Latin, with

the privilege of one year's service in the army instead of

three. Complementary to the national school is the finishing

school. There are a large number in Prussia, namely, 1,261

with 68,766 pupils: 617 with 10,395 in the country, and 644

with 58,371 in the cities. Of these 644,342 are obligatory by

local statutes, 302 are optional. Since the law of 1878

special care has been devoted to the compulsory education of

orphaned children. ... The preparatory instruction of female

teachers leaves much to be desired."

F. Kirchner, Contemporary Educational Thought

in Prussia (Educational Review, May, 1891).

"About 25 per cent. of all the teachers in public middle

schools are women, hence ... women hold positions in these

schools more frequently than in the lower, the purely

elementary, schools of the kingdom. The greatest ratio of

women teachers in Prussia is found in private middle schools,

where 2,422 of 3,126 (or nearly 80 percent.) are women. ... In

all the public schools of Prussia (elementary, middle, and

secondary) only 10,600 women teachers were employed [1887], or

14¼ per cent. of all the teachers in the kingdom. ... Before

the public schools of the kingdom had the care and close

supervision on the part of the state which they have now, many

more private schools were in existence than at present. During

the last 25 years the private schools have not increased in

numbers, but perceptibly decreased."

U. S. Commissioner of Education, Report,

1889-90, pages 287-289.

{723}

EDUCATION:

Russia.

"After serfdom had been abolished, the Emperor Alexander II.

saw that the indispensable consequence of this great reform

must be a thorough reorganization of public instruction. In

1861 a committee was appointed to draw up the plan of a law.

In 1862 M. Taneef submitted to the Emperor a 'General plan for

the organization of popular education,' which contained some

very excellent points. The result was the General Regulations

of 1864, which are still in force. ... The difficulties which

a complete reorganization of popular education meets in Russia

are enormous. They are principally caused by the manner in

which the inhabitants live, scattered over a large extent of

country, and by their extreme poverty. ... The density of

population is so small that there are only 13.6 inhabitants to

one square kilometer (2.6 square kilometers to 1 square mile),

instead of 69 as in France. Under these circumstances only the

children from the center hamlet and those living-nearest to it

could attend school regularly, especially during the

winter-months. The remainder of the inhabitants would pay

their dues without having any benefit, which would necessarily

foster discontent. As Prince Gagarin says, 'It has, therefore,

not been possible to make education in Russia compulsory, as

in Germany, nor even to enforce the establishment of a school

in each community.' It is doubtless impossible at present to

introduce into Russia the educational systems of the western

countries."

E. de Laveleye, Progress of Education in Russia

(U. S. Bureau of Education, Circulars of

Information, 1875, no. 3), pages 31-32.

EDUCATION:

Scotland.

"The existing system of education in Scotland is an outcome of

causes deeply involved in the political and religious history

of the country. ... This system was preceded by a complicated

variety of educational agencies, of which the chief were

parish schools, founded upon a statute of 1646, which was

revived and made operative in 1696. Parish and burgh schools,

supported by local funds and by tuition fees, made up the

public provision for education. In addition there were schools

partly maintained by parliamentary grants, mission and

sessional schools maintained by the Established Church and the

Free Church, and other parochial and private schools. Parish

and burgh schools carried instruction to the level of the

universities, which were easily accessible to all classes. The

date of the passage of the 'Scotch Education Act' (1872) was

opportune for the organization of these various agencies into

a system maintained by the combined action of the Government

and local authorities. In framing the Scotch act care was

taken, as in framing the English act two years before, to

guard the rights of the Government with respect to funds

appropriated from the public treasury. At the same time equal

care was shown for the preservation of the Scotch ideal. This

was a broad and comprehensive ideal, embracing the different

grades of scholastic work. ... This ideal differentiates the

Scotch act from the English act passed two years before. The

latter related to elementary schools exclusively; the former

has a wider scope, providing the foundations of a system of

graded schools correlated to the universities which lie beyond

its province. With respect to the interests of the Government,

the two acts are substantially the same. ... For the general

direction of the system a Scotch educational department was

created, composed, like the English department, of lords of

the privy council, and having the same president. ... The act

ordered every parent to secure the instruction of his children

between the ages of 5 and 13, or until a certificate of

exemption should be secured. Parents failing in this

obligation are subject to prosecution and penalty by fine or

imprisonment. The compulsory provision extends to blind

children. Parochial or burghal authorities were authorized to

pay the tuition fees of those children whose parents could not

meet the expenditure, a provision rendered unnecessary by the

recent remission of all fees. The Scotch act, by a sweeping

clause, made compulsory attendance universal; the English act

left the matter of compulsion to local managers. A subsequent

act (1878) fixed the standard of exemption in Scotland at the

fifth [grade, or year of study], which pupils should pass at

11 years of age. In 1883, the upper limit of compulsory

attendance in Scotland was raised to 14 years. ... The

universities of Scotland have been more intimately related to

the life of the common people than those of any other country.

In this respect, even more if possible than in their

constitution, they present a marked contrast to the English

universities. To their democratic spirit may be traced many of

the characteristics which differentiate the Scotch people and

policies from those of England. To their widespread influence,

to the ambitions which they awakened, and the opportunities

which they brought within the reach of the whole body of

Scottish youth is due, in large measure, the independent and

honorable part that Scotland has played in the history of the

United Kingdom. This popular character of the universities has

been fostered by the curriculum of the common schools, by the

easy passage from the schools to the higher institutions; by

the inexpensive mode of student life in the university towns,

and by the great number of scholarship funds available for the

poor. These conditions, however, have not been without their

disadvantages. Of these, the chief are the low entrance

standards and the consequent forcing of preparatory

instruction upon the university professors. ... As a result of

long-continued efforts a Scotch universities act was passed in

1889. This act provided for the reorganization of the four

universities; for the elevation of their standards; the

enrichment of their curricula, and the increase of their

resources. ... The Scotch universities have taken part in the

popular movements of the last decade. They maintain local

examinations for secondary schools and students. St. Andrews

has been particularly active in promoting the higher education

of women, having instituted the special degree of L. L. A.

(lady literate in arts). Edinburgh also grants a certificate

in arts to women. Aberdeen has recently appointed a lecturer

on education, following thus the precedent set by Edinburgh

and St. Andrews. The four universities are united in a scheme

of university extension."

U. S. Commissioner of Education, Report, 1889-90,

volume 1, pages 188-207.

{724}

EDUCATION:

Sweden.

"Sweden has two ancient and famous universities--Upsala and

Lund. That of Lund is in the south part of the kingdom, and

when founded was on Danish territory. The income from its

estates is about 176,000 rix-dollars ($46,315) per annum. It

also receives yearly aid from the state. In 1867 it had 75

professors and tutors, and 400 students. Upsala is the larger

university, located at the old town of that name--the ancient

capital of Sweden--an hour and a half by rail north of

Stockholm. It has 100 professors and tutors, and 1,449

students, an increase of 131 over the year 1869. ... This

university had its beginning as an institution of learning as

far back as 1250. In 1438 it had one academic professorship,

and was dedicated as an university in 1477. Its principal

endowment was by Gustavus Adolphus in 1624, when he donated to

it all of the estate in lands that he possessed, amounting in

all to 300 farms."

C. C. Andrews, Report on the Educational System

of Sweden (U. S. Bureau of Education, Circulars

of Information, July, 1871).

EDUCATION:

Switzerland.

"The influence of the Reformation, and, in the following age,

of the Jesuit reaction, gave to Switzerland, as to Germany,

its original and fundamental means and agencies of national

education, and impressed also upon the population a habit of

dutiful regard for schools and learning. It was not, however,

till forty years ago that the modern education of Switzerland

was organized. 'The great development of public education in

Switzerland,' to quote Mr. Kay, 'dates from 1832, after the

overthrow of the old oligarchical forms of cantonal government

and the establishment of the present democratic forms.'

Zürich, Lausanne, and Geneva take the lead in Switzerland as

centres of educational influence. The canton in which the work

of educational reform began was Zürich. ... The instrument of

the reform, rather the revolution, was Scherr, a trained

school-teacher from Würtemberg, a teacher, in particular, of

deaf mutes to speak articulately. This man initiated in Zürich

the new scheme and work of education, and founded the first

Training College. He was looked upon by the oligarchs, partly

feudalists, and partly manufacturers, as a dangerous

revolutionist, and was exiled from Zürich. But now a monument

to his memory adorns the city. The work which he began could

not be suppressed or arrested. Zürich has ever since taken the

lead in education among the cantons of Switzerland. Derived

originally from Germany, the system is substantially identical

with that of Germany. ... The principles and methods are

substantially alike throughout. There are, first, the communal

schools--these of course in largest number--one to every

village, even for every small hamlet, provided and maintained,

wholly or chiefly, by the commune; there are burgher schools

in towns, including elementary, real, and superior schools,

supported by the towns; there are cantonal schools--gymnasia

and industrial or technical schools--supported by the State,

that is, by the canton. There is often a Cantonal University.

There is of course a Cantonal Training School or College, and

there are institutes of various kinds. The Cantonal

Universities, however, are on a small and economical scale; as

yet there is no Federal University. School life in Switzerland

is very long, from six to fourteen or fifteen, and for all who

are to follow a profession, from fifteen to twenty-two."

J. H. Rigg, National Education, chapter 4.

EDUCATION: Modern: Asiatic Countries.

China.

"Every step in the process of teaching is fixed by unalterable

usage. So much is this the case, that in describing one school

I describe all, and in tracing the steps of one student I

point out the course of all; for in China there are no new

methods or short roads. In other countries, a teacher, even in

the primary course, finds room for tact and originality. In

those who dislike study, a love of it is to be inspired by

making 'knowledge pleasant to the taste'; and the dull

apprehension is to be awakened by striking and apt

illustrations. ... In China there is nothing of this. The land

of uniformity, all processes in arts and letters are as much

fixed by universal custom as is the cut of their garments or

the mode of wearing their hair. The pupils all tread the path

trodden by their ancestors of a thousand years ago, nor has it

grown smoother by the attrition of so many feet. The

undergraduate course may be divided into three stages, in each

of which there are two leading studies: In the first the

occupations of the student are committing to memory (not

reading) the canonical books and writing an infinitude of

diversely formed characters, as a manual exercise. In the

second, they are the translation of his text books (i. e.,

reading), and lessons in composition. In the third, they are

belles lettres and the composition of essays. Nothing could be

more dreary than the labors of the first stage. ... Even the

stimulus of companionship in study is usually denied, the

advantages resulting from the formation of classes being as

little appreciated as those of other labor saving machinery.

Each pupil reads and writes alone, the penalty for failure

being so many blows with the ferule or kneeling for so many

minutes on the rough brick pavement which serves for a floor.

At this period fear is the strongest motive addressed to the

mind of the scholar. ... This arctic winter of monotonous toil

once passed, a more auspicious season dawns on the youthful

understanding. The key of the cabala which he has been so long

and so blindly acquiring is put into his hands. He is

initiated in the translation and exposition of those sacred

books which he had previously stored away in his memory. ...

The light however is let in but sparingly, as it were, through

chinks and rifts in the long dark passage. A simple character

here and there is explained, and then, it may be after the

lapse of a year or two, the teacher proceeds to the

explication of entire sentences. Now for the first time the

mind of the student begins to take in the thoughts of those he

has been taught to regard as the oracles of wisdom. ... The

value of this exercise can hardly be overestimated. When

judiciously employed it does for the Chinese what translation

into and out of the dead languages of the west does for us. It

calls into play memory, judgment, taste, and gives him a

command of his own vernacular which, it is safe to assert, he

would never acquire in any other way. ... The first step in

composition is the yoking together of double characters.

{725}

The second is the reduplication of these binary compounds and the

construction of parallels--an idea which runs so completely through

the whole of Chinese literature that the mind of the student

requires to be imbued with it at the very outset. This is the

way he begins: The teacher writes, 'wind blows,' the pupil

adds, 'rain falls'; the teacher writes, 'rivers are long,' the

pupil adds, 'seas are deep,' or 'mountains are high,' &c. From

the simple subject and predicate, which in their rude grammar

they describe as 'dead' and' living' characters, the teacher

conducts his pupil to more complex forms, in which qualifying

words and phrases are introduced. He gives as a model some

such phrase as 'The Emperor's grace is vast as heaven and

earth,' and the lad matches it by 'The Sovereign's favor is

profound as lake and sea.' These couplets often contain two

propositions in each member, accompanied by all the usual

modifying terms; and so exact is the symmetry required by the

rules of the art that not only must noun, verb, adjective, and

particle respond to each other with scrupulous exactness, but

the very tones of the characters are adjusted to each other

with the precision of music. Begun with the first strokes of

his untaught pencil, the student, whatever his proficiency,

never gets beyond the construction of parallels. When he

becomes a member of the institute or a minister of the

imperial cabinet, at classic festivals and social

entertainments, the composition of impromptu couplets, formed

on the old model, constitutes a favorite pastime. Reflecting a

poetic image from every syllable, or concealing the keen point

of a cutting epigram, they afford a fine vehicle for sallies

of wit; and poetical contests such as that of Melibœus and

Menalcas are in China matters of daily occurrence. If a

present is to be given, on the occasion of a marriage, a

birth-day, or any other remarkable occasion, nothing is deemed

so elegant or acceptable as a pair of scrolls inscribed with a

complimentary distich. When the novice is sufficiently

exercised in the 'parallels' for the idea of symmetry to have

become an instinct, he is permitted to advance to other

species of composition which afford freer scope for his

faculties. Such are the 'shotiah,' in which a single thought

is expanded in simple language, the 'lun,' the formal

discussion of a subject more or less extended, and epistles

addressed to imaginary persons and adapted to all conceivable

circumstances. In these last, the forms of the 'complete

letter writer' are copied with too much servility; but in the

other two, substance being deemed of more consequence than

form, the new fledged thought is permitted to essay its powers

and to expatiate with but little restraint. In the third

stage, composition is the leading object, reading being wholly

subsidiary. It takes for the most part the artificial form of

verse, and of a kind of prose called 'wen-chang,' which is, if

possible, still more artificial. The reading required embraces

mainly rhetorical models and sundry anthologies. History is

studied, but only that of China, and that only in compends;

not for its lessons of wisdom, but for the sake of the

allusions with which it enables a writer to embellish classic

essays. The same may be said of other studies; knowledge and

mental discipline are at a discount and style at a premium.

The goal of the long course, the flower and fruit of the whole

system, is the 'wen-chang '; for this alone can insure success

in the pubic examinations for the civil service, in which

students begin to adventure soon after entering on the third

stage of their preparatory course. ... We hear it asserted

that 'education is universal in China; even coolies are taught

to read and write.' In one sense this is true, but not as we

understand the terms 'reading and writing.' In the

alphabetical vernaculars of the west, the ability to read and

write implies the ability to express one's thoughts by the pen

and to grasp the thoughts of others when so expressed. In

Chinese, and especially in the classical or book language, it

implies nothing of the sort. A shopkeeper may be able to write

the numbers and keep accounts without being able to write

anything else; and a lad who has attended school for several

years will pronounce the characters of an ordinary book with

faultless precision, yet not comprehend the meaning of a

single sentence. Of those who can read understandingly (and

nothing else ought to be called reading), the proportion is

greater in towns than in rural districts. But striking an

average, it does not, according to my observation, exceed one

in twenty for the male sex and one in ten thousand for the

female." The literary examinations, "coming down from the

past, with the accretions of many centuries, ... have expanded

into a system whose machinery is as complex as its proportions

are enormous. Its ramifications extend to every district of

the empire; and it commands the services of district

magistrates, prefects, and other civil functionaries up to

governors and viceroys. These are all auxiliary to the regular

officers of the literary corporation. In each district there

are two resident examiners, with the title of professor, whose

duty it is to keep a register of all competing students and to

exercise them from time to time in order to stimulate their

efforts and keep them in preparation for the higher

examinations in which degrees are conferred. In each province

there is one chancellor or superintendent of instruction, who

holds office for three years, and is required to visit every

district and hold the customary examinations within that time,

conferring the first degree on a certain percentage of the

candidates. There are, moreover, two special examiners for

each province, generally members of the Hanlin, deputed from

the capital to conduct the great triennial examination and

confer the second degree. The regular degrees are three:

1st. 'Siu-tsai' or 'Budding talent.'

2d. 'Ku-jin' or 'Deserving of promotion.'

3d. 'Tsin-shi' or 'Fit for office.'

To which may be added, as a fourth degree, the Hanlin, or

member of the 'Forest of Pencils.' ... The first degree only

is conferred by the provincial chancellor, and the happy

recipients, fifteen or twenty in each department, or 1 per

cent. of the candidates, are decorated with the insignia of

rank and admitted to the ground floor of the nine storied

pagoda. The trial for the second degree is held in the capital

of each province, by special commissioners, once in three years.

It consists of three sessions of three days each, making nine

days of almost continuous exertion--a strain to the mental and

physical powers, to which the infirm and aged frequently

succumb. In addition to composition in prose and verse, the

candidate is required to show his acquaintance with history,

(the history of China;) philosophy, criticism, and various

branches of archæology. Again 1 per cent. is decorated; but it

is not until the more fortunate among them succeed in passing

the metropolitan triennial that the meed of civil office is

certainly bestowed.

{726}

They are not, however, assigned to their respective offices

until they have gone through two special examinations within

the palace and in the presence of the emperor. On this

occasion the highest on the list is honored with the title of

'chuang yuen' or 'laureate,' a distinction so great that in

the last reign it was not thought unbefitting the daughter of

a 'chuang yuen' to be raised to the position of consort of

the Son of Heaven. A score of the best are admitted to

membership in the Academy, two or three score are attached to

it as pupils or probationers, and the rest drafted off to

official posts in the capital or in the provinces, the

humblest of which is supposed to compensate the occupant for

a life of penury and toil."

Reverend W. A. P. Martin, Report on the System of Public

Instruction in China (U. S. Bureau of Education,

Circulars of Information, 1877, no. 1).

ALSO IN:

W. A. P. Martin, The Chinese: their Education, &C.

EDUCATION:

Japan.

From the fourth to the eighth centuries of the Christian era,

"after the conquest of Corea by the Japanese emperor Jigo

Kogo, came letters, writing, books, literature, religion,

ethics, politics, medicine, arts, science, agriculture,

manufactures, and the varied appliances of civilization; and

with these entered thousands of immigrants from Corea and

China. Under the intellectual influence of Buddhism--the

powerful and aggressive faith that had already led captive the

half of Asia--of the Confucian ethics and philosophy, and

Chinese literature, the horizon of the Japanese mind was

immensely broadened. ... In the time of the European 'dark

ages' the Japanese were enjoying what, in comparison, was a

high state of civilization. ... Under the old regime of the

Sho-guns, all foreign ideas and influences were systematically

excluded, and the isolation of Japan from the rest of the

world was made the supreme policy of the government. Profound

peace lasted from the beginning of the seventeenth century to

1868. During this time, schools and colleges, literature and

learning, flourished. It was the period of scholastic, not of

creative, intellectual activity. The basis of education was

Chinese. What we consider the means of education, reading and

writing, were to them the ends. Of classified science there

was little or none. Mathematics was considered as fit only for

merchants and shop-keepers. No foreign languages were studied,

and their acquisition was forbidden. ... There was no

department of education, though universities were established

at Kioto and Yedo, large schools in the daimio's capitals, and

innumerable private schools all over the country. Nine-tenths

of the people could read and write. Books were very numerous

and cheap. Circulating libraries existed in every city and

town. Literary clubs and associations for mutual improvement

were common even in country villages. Nevertheless, in

comparison with the ideal systems and practice of the

progressive men of New Japan, the old style was as different

from the present as the training of an English youth in

mediæval times is from that of a London or Oxford student of

the present day. Although an attempt to meet some of the

educational necessities arising from the altered conditions of

the national life were made under the Sho-gun's regime, yet

the first attempt at systematic work in the large cities was

made under the Mikado's government, and the idea of a new

national plan of education is theirs only. In 1871 the Mom Bu

Sho, or department of education, was formed, of which the high

counselor Oki, a man of indomitable vigor and perseverance,

was made head. ... According to the scheme of national

education promulgated in 1872, the empire is divided into

eight Dai Gaku Ku, (Daigakku,) or great educational divisions.

In each of' these there is to be a university, normal school,

schools of foreign languages, high schools, and primary

schools. The total number of schools will number, it is

expected, over 55,000. Only in the higher schools is a foreign

language to be taught. In the lower schools the Japanese

learning and elementary science translated or adopted from

European or American text-books are to be taught. The general

system of instruction, methods, discipline, school-aids,

furniture, architecture, are to be largely adopted from

foreign models, and are now to a great extent in vogue

throughout the country."

W. E. Griffis, Education in Japan (U. S. Bureau of

Education, Circulars of Information, 1875, no. 2).

EDUCATION: Modern: America.  A. D. 1619-1819.

Virginia.

College of William and Mary.

"In 1619--one year before the Pilgrim Fathers came to the land

named New England by Captain John Smith--Sir Edwin Sandys,

president of the Virginia Company in old England, moved the

grant of ten thousand acres of land for the establishment of a

university at Henrico. The proposed grant, which was duly

made, included one thousand acres for an Indian college; the

remainder was to be 'the foundation of a seminary of learning

for the English.' The very same year the bishops of England,

at the suggestion of the King, raised the sum of fifteen

hundred pounds for the encouragement of Indian Education. ...

Tenants were sent over to occupy the university lands, and Mr.

George Thorpe, a gentleman of His Majesty's Privy Chamber,

came over to be the superintendent of the university itself.

This first beginning of philanthropy toward the Indians and of

educational foundations for the Indians in America was

suspended by reason of the Indian massacre, in the spring of

1622, when Mr. Thorpe and three hundred and forty settlers,

including tenants of the university, were cut off by an

insurrection of savages. It was only two years after this

terrible catastrophe that the idea of a university in Virginia

was revived. Experience with treacherous Indians suggested

that the institution should be erected upon a secluded

sheltered site--an island in the Susquehanna River. ... The

plan was broken off by the death of its chief advocate and

promoter, Mr. Edward Palmer. But the idea of a university for

Virginia was not lost. ... In 1660, the colonial Assembly of

Virginia took into their own hands the project of founding

educational institutions within their borders. The motive of

the Virginians was precisely the same as that of the great and

general Court of Massachusetts, when it established Harvard

College, and grammar schools to fit youth 'for ye university.'

The Virginians voted 'that for the advance of learning,

education of youth, supply of the ministry, and promotion of

piety, there be land taken upon purchases for a college and

free schoole, and that there be, with as much speede as may be

convenient, housing erected thereon for entertainment of

students and schollers.'

{727}

It was also voted in 1660 that the various commissioners of

county courts take subscriptions on court days for the benefit

of the college, and that the commissioners send orders

throughout their respective counties to the vestrymen of all

the parishes for the purpose of raising money from such

inhabitants as 'have not already subscribed.' It appears from

the record of this legislation in Hening's Statutes of

Virginia that already in 1660, 'His Majestie's Governour,

Council of State, and Burgesses of the present grand Assembly

have severally subscribed severall considerable sumes of money

and quantityes of tobacco,' to be paid upon demand after a

place had been provided and built upon for educational

purposes. A petition was also recommended to Sir William

Berkeley, then governor of Virginia, that the King be

petitioned for letters patent authorizing collections from

'well disposed people in England for the erecting of colledges

and schooles in this countrye.' This action of the Virginians

in 1660 ought to be taken as much better evidence of an early

regard for education in that colony than the well-known saying

of Governor Berkeley would seem to indicate. In reply to an

inquiry by the lords commissioners of trades and plantations

respecting the progress of learning in the colony of Virginia,

Berkeley said, 'I thank God there are no free schools nor

printing, and I hope we shall not have these hundred years.'

This answer by a crusty old governor has been quoted perhaps

too often as an index of the real sentiments of colonial

Virginia toward the cause of education. Not only is the tone

of popular legislation entirely opposed to the current view,

but Berkeley's own acts should modify our judgment of his

words. He actually subscribed, with other gentlemen of the

colony, for 'a Colledge of students of the liberal arts and

sciences.' Undoubtedly Sir William did not believe in popular

education as it is now understood. If he had done so, he would

have been much in advance of his time. ... Some writers would

have us believe that the college was actually planted as early

as 1661, but this is highly improbable. Early educational

enactments in Virginia were like many of those early towns--on

paper only. And yet the Virginians really meant to have both

towns and a college. In 1688-'89, twenty-five hundred pounds

were subscribed by a few wealthy gentlemen in the colony and

by their merchant friends in England toward the endowment of

the higher education. In 1691 the colonial Assembly sent the

Reverend James Blair, the commissary or representative of the

Bishop of London, back to England to secure a charter for the

proposed college. Virginia's agent went straight to Queen Mary

and explained the educational ambition of her colony in

America. The Queen favored the idea of a college, and William

wisely concurred. The royal pair agreed to allow two thousand

pounds out of the quit-rents of Virginia toward building the

college. ... The English Government concluded to give not only

£2,000 in money, but also 20,000 acres of land, with a tax of

one penny on every pound of tobacco exported from Maryland and

Virginia, together with all fees and profits arising from the

office of surveyor-general, which were to be controlled by the

president and faculty of the college. They were authorized to

appoint special surveyors for the counties whenever the

governor and his council thought it necessary. These

privileges, granted by charter in 1693, were of great

significance in the economic history of Virginia. They brought

the entire land system of the colony into the hands of a

collegiate land office. Even after the Revolution, one-sixth

of the fees to all public surveyors continued to be paid into

the college treasury down to the year 1819, when this custom

was abolished."

H. B. Adams, The College of William and Mary

(Circulars of Information of the Bureau of Education,

1887, no. 1).

EDUCATION: Modern: America: A. D. 1635.

Massachusetts.

Boston Latin School.

"The Public Latin School of Boston enjoys the distinction of

being the oldest existing school within the bounds of the

United States. It was founded in the spring of 1635, thus

ante-dating Harvard College, and has been in continuous

existence ever since, with the interruption of a few months,

during the siege of Boston, 1775-1776." The two hundred and

fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the school was

celebrated April 23, 1885, on which occasion the Reverend Phillips

Brooks, D. D., delivered an address from which the following

passages are taken: "The colony under Winthrop arrived in the

Arabella and founded Boston in 1630. On the 4th of September,

1633, the Griffin brought John Cotton from the Lincolnshire

Boston, full of pious spirit and wise plans for the new colony

with which he had cast in his lot. It has been suggested that

possibly we owe to John Cotton the first suggestion of the

first town-school. ... However this may be, here is the town

record of the 13th of the second month, 1635. It is forever

memorable, for it is the first chapter of our Book of Genesis,

the very cradle of all our race: 'At a general meeting upon

publique notice ... it was then generally agreed upon that our

brother Philemon Pormort shall be entreated to become

scholemaster, for the teaching and nourtering of children

among us.' It was two hundred and fifty years ago to-day

[April 23, 1885] just nineteen years after the day when

William Shakespeare died, just seventy-one years after the day

when he was born. How simple that short record is, and how

unconscious that short view is of the future which is wrapped

up in it! Fifty-nine thousand children who crowd the Boston

public schools to-day--and who can count what thousands yet

unborn?--are to be heard crying out for life in the dry,

quaint words of that old vote. By it the first educational

institution, which was to have continuous existence in

America, and in it the public school system of the land, came

into being. Philemon Pormort, the first teacher of the Latin

School, is hardly more than a mere shadow of a name. It is not

even clear that he ever actually taught the school at all. A

few years later, with Mr. Wheelwright, after the Hutchinson

excitement, he disappears into the northern woods, and is one

of the founders of Exeter, in New Hampshire. There are rumors

that he came back to Boston and died here, but it is all very

uncertain. ... The name 'free school' in those days seems to

have been used to characterize an institution which should not

be restricted to any class of children, and which should not

be dependent on the fluctuating attendance of scholars for its

support. It looked forward to ultimate endowment, like the

schools of England. The town set apart the rent of Deer

Island, and some of the other islands in the harbor, for its help.

{728}

All the great citizens, Governor Winthrop, Governor Vane, Mr.

Bellingham, and the rest, made generous contributions to it.

But it called, also, for support from those who sent their

children to it, and who were able to pay something; and it was

only of the Indian children that it was distinctly provided

that they should be 'taught gratis.' It was older than any of

the schools which, in a few years, grew up thick around it.

The same power which made it spring out of the soil was in all

the rich ground on which these colonists, unlike any other

colonists which the world has ever seen, had set their feet.

Roxbury had its school under the Apostle Eliot in 1645.

Cambridge was already provided before 1643. Charlestown did

not wait later than 1636. Salem and Ipswich were, both of

them, ready in 1637. Plymouth did not begin its system of

public instruction till 1663. It was in 1647 that the General

Court enacted that resolve which is the great charter of free

education in our Commonwealth, in whose preamble and ordinance

stand the immortal words: 'That learning may not be buried in

the grave of our fathers, in church and Commonwealth, the Lord

assisting our endeavors, it is therefore ordered that every

township in this jurisdiction, after the Lord hath increased

them to the number of fifty householders, shall then forthwith

appoint one within their town to teach all such children as

shall resort to him to write and read.' There can be no doubt,

then, of our priority. But mere priority is no great thing.

The real interest of the beginning of the school is the large

idea and scale on which it started. It taught the children,

little Indians and all, to read and write. But there seems

every reason to suppose that it taught also the Latin tongue,

and all that then was deemed the higher knowledge. It was the

town's only school till 1682."

The Oldest School in America, pages 5-24.

EDUCATION:  A. D. 1636.

Massachusetts.

Harvard College.

"The first settlers in New England, recognizing the importance

of a higher education than could be given in the common

schools, began at once the founding of a university. The

avowed object of this university was the training of young men

for the ministry. Nothing could show clearer the spirit of

these early colonists. Though less than four thousand in

number, and scattered along the shores of Massachusetts Bay in

sixteen hamlets, they were, nevertheless, able to engage in

such an enterprise before adequate provision had been made for

food, raiment, shelter, a civil government, or divine worship;

at a time when soil and climate had disappointed them, and

their affairs were in a most critical condition; for, not only

were they called to face famine, disease, and death, but the

mother country and the surrounding savage tribes were

threatening them with war. ... It was near the close of 1636,

a little more than six years after the landing of the

Puritans, when this first step was taken by the General Court

of the Massachusetts Colony. At this assembly, presided over

by Sir Henry Vane, governor of the colony, the General Court

agreed to give £400 (a munificent sum for the time) towards

the founding of a school or college, but left the question of

its location and building to be determined by the Court that

was to sit in September of the following year. This, it is

said, was the first assembly 'in which the people by their

representatives ever gave their own money to found a place of

education.' At the next Court it was decided to locate the

college at Newtown, or 'the New Towne,' and twelve of the

principal magistrates and ministers were chosen to carry out

this design. A few months later, they changed the name of the

town to Cambridge, not only to tell their posterity whence

they came, but also, as Quincy aptly says, to indicate 'the

high destiny to which they intended the institution should

aspire.' Another year, however, passed before the College was

organized. The impulse given to it then was due to aid which

came from so unexpected a quarter that it must have seemed to

the devout men of New England as a clear indication of the

divine favor. The Reverend John Harvard, a Non-conformist

minister, was graduated, in 1635, from the Puritan college of

Emmanuel, at Cambridge, England, and came, two years later, to

America and settled in Charlestown, where he immediately took

a prominent part in town affairs. His contemporaries gave him

the title of reverend, and he is said to have officiated

occasionally in Charlestown as 'minister of God's word.' One

has recently said of him that he was 'beloved and honored, a

well-trained and accomplished scholar of the type then

esteemed,' and that in the brief period of his life in America

--scarcely more than a year--he cemented more closely

friendships that had been begun in earlier years. The project

of a college was then engrossing the thought of these early

friends and doubtless he also became greatly interested in it.

Thus it happened that, when his health failed, through his own

love of learning and through sympathy with the project of his

daily associates, he determined to bequeath one-half of his

estate, probably about £800, besides his excellent library of

three hundred and twenty volumes, towards the endowment of the

college. This bequest rendered possible the immediate

organization of the college, which went into operation 'on the

footing of the ancient institutions of Europe,' and, out of

gratitude to Harvard, the General Court voted that the new

institution should bear his name."

G. G. Bush, Harvard, pages 12-15.

ALSO IN:

J. Quincy, History of Harvard University.

S. A. Eliot, Sketch of the History of Harvard College.

EDUCATION:  A. D. 1642-1732.

New England and New York.

Early Common Schools.

"New England early adopted, and has, with a single exception,

constantly maintained the principle that the public should

provide for the instruction of all the youth. That which

elsewhere, as will be found, was left to local provision, as

in New York; or to charity, as in Pennsylvania; or to parental

interest, as in Virginia, was in most parts of New England

early secured by law. ... The act of 1642 in Massachusetts,

whose provisions were adopted in most of the adjacent

colonies, was admirable as a first legislative school law. It

was watchful of the neglect of parents, and looked well after

the ignorant and the indigent. But it neither made schooling

free, nor imposed a penalty for its neglect. ... Schools were

largely maintained by rates, were free only to the

necessitous, and in not a few of the less populous districts

closed altogether or never opened. This led, five years later,

to more stringent legislation. ... As suggesting the general

scope and tenor of the law, the following extract is made. ...

{729}

'It is therefore ordered by this Court and authority thereof

that every township within this jurisdiction, after the Lord

hath increased them to the number of fifty householders, shall

then forthwith appoint one within their town to teach all such

children as shall resort to him, to write and read; whose

wages shall be paid, either by the parents or masters of such

children, or by the inhabitants in general, by way of supply,

as the major part of those who order the prudentials of the

town shall appoint; provided that those who send their

children be not oppressed by paying much more than they can

have them taught for in the adjoining towns. And it is further

ordered that where any town shall increase to the number of

one hundred families or house-holders, they shall set up a

grammar-school, the master thereof being able to instruct

youths so far as they may be fitted for the university; and if

any town neglect the performance hereof, above one year, then

every such town shall pay five pounds per annum to the next

such school, till they shall perform this order.' ... Three

years after the law just cited Connecticut passed a very

similar one. ... In Rhode Island there was no attempt at a

school system prior to the efforts of John Howland about 1790.

There were schools in both Providence and Newport; but the

colony was small (with a population of less than ten thousand

in 1700), broken into feeble settlements, and offering little

opportunity for organization. ... It is claimed that, at the

surrender of the Dutch in New York (1664), so general was the

educational spirit, almost every town in the colony had its

regular school and more or less permanent teachers. After the

occupation of the province by the English, little attention

was given to education. ... Thirteen years after the

surrender, a Latin school was opened in the city; but the

first serious attempt to provide regular schooling was in the

work of the 'Society for the Propagation of the Gospel' (1704)

in the founding of Trinity School. The society kept up an

efficient organization, for many years, and at the opening of

the Revolution had established and chiefly supported more than

twenty schools in the colony. About 1732, also, there was

established in New York city a school after the plan of the

Boston Latin School, free as that was free, and which became,

according to eminent authority, the germ of the later King's

(now Columbia) College."

R. G. Boone, Education in the United States, chapter 3.

EDUCATION: A. D. 1683-1779. Pennsylvania.

Origin of the University of Pennsylvania.

"Education had not been over-looked in the policy of Penn. In

his Frame of Government we read: 'The governor and provincial

council shall erect and order all public schools, and

encourage and reward the authors of useful sciences and

laudable inventions, in the said province. ... And ... a

committee of manners, education and arts, that all wicked and

scandalous living may be prevented, and that youth may be

successively trained up in virtue and useful knowledge and

arts.' The first movement to establish an educational

institution of a high grade was in the action of the Executive

Council which proposed, November 17, 1683, 'That Care be Taken

about the Learning and Instruction of Youth, to wit: A School

of Arts and Sciences.' It was not until 1689, however, that

the 'Public Grammar School' was set up in Philadelphia. This

institution, founded upon the English idea of a 'free'

school,' was formally chartered in 1697 as the 'William Penn

Charter School.' It was intended as the head of a system of

schools for all, rather than a single school for a select few,

an idea which the founders of the Charitable School, fifty

years later, had also in mind--an idea which was never carried

out in the history of either institution. The failure of

Penn's scheme of government, and the turmoil during the early

part of the eighteenth century arising from the conflicts

between different political parties, for a time influenced

very decidedly educational zeal in the province. The

government, which at the outset had taken such high ground on

the subject, ceased to exert itself in behalf of education,

and the several religious denominations and the people

themselves in neighborhood organizations took up the burden

and planted schools as best they could throughout the growing

colony. ... Feeling the importance for some provision to

supplement the education then given in the established

schools, Benjamin Franklin as early as 1743 drew up a proposal

for establishing an academy. ... He secured the assistance of

a number of friends, many of them members of the famous Junto,

and then published his pamphlet entitled 'Proposals Relating

to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania.' ... On all sides

the paper met with great favor and generous support. The

result was the organization of a board of trustees, consisting

of 24 of those who had subscribed to the scheme of the

Academy, with Franklin as president. This body immediately set

about to realize the object of the pamphlet, and nourished by

subscriptions, lotteries, and gifts the Academy was placed in

a flourishing condition. ... The Academy comprised three

schools, the Latin, the English, and the mathematical, over

each of which was placed a master, one of whom was the rector

of the institution. ... The English School was neglected. The

other schools were favored, especially the Latin School. In

the eyes of Franklin and many of the supporters of the

Academy, the English School was the one of chief importance.

What we would call a 'starving out' process was begun by which

the English School was kept in a weak condition, most of the

funds going to the Latin School. ... The success of the

Academy was so gratifying to all interested in it that it was

determined to apply for a charter. This was granted to the

trustees by Thomas and Richard Penn, the proprietors, on July

13, 1753. Desirous at the same time of enlarging the course of

instruction, the trustees elected Mr. William Smith teacher of

logic, rhetoric, natural and moral philosophy. Mr. Smith

accepted the position and entered upon his duties at the

Academy in May, 1754. The history of the institution from this

date, whether known as the Academy or the College, to 1779 is

the history of the life of William Smith."

J. L. Stewart, Historical Sketch of the University of

Pennsylvania (U. S. Bureau of Education,

Circular of Information, 1892, no. 2:

Benjamin Franklin and the University., chapter 4).

{730}

EDUCATION: A. D. 1701-1717.

Connecticut.

Yale College.

"For sixty years the only school for higher education in New

England had been Harvard College, at Cambridge. The people,

and especially the clergy, of Connecticut naturally desired

the benefit of a similar establishment nearer home. The three

ministers of New Haven, Milford, and Branford first moved in

the enterprise. Ten ministers, nine of them being graduates of

Harvard College, met at Branford [1701] and made a

contribution from their libraries of about forty volumes in

folio 'for the founding of a college.' Other donations

presently came in. An Act of Incorporation was granted by the

General Court. It created a body of trustees, not to be more

than eleven in number nor fewer than seven, all to be

clergymen and at least forty years of age. The Court endowed

the College with an annual grant, subject to be discontinued

at pleasure, of one hundred and twenty pounds in 'country

pay,'--equivalent to sixty pounds sterling. The College might

hold property 'not exceeding the value of five hundred pounds

per annum'; its students were exempted from the payment of

taxes and from military service; and the Governor and his

Council gave a formal approval of its application to the

citizens for pecuniary id. ... The first President was Abraham

Pierson, minister of Killingworth, at which place he continued

to reside, though the designated seat of the College was at

Saybrook. Eight students were admitted, and arranged in

classes. At each of the first two annual commencements one

person, at the third three persons, received the degree of

Bachelor of Arts. President Pierson was succeeded, at his

death, by Mr. Andrew, minister at Milford, to which place the

elder pupils were accordingly transferred, while the rest went

to Saybrook, where two tutors had been provided to assist

their studies. ... For nearly twenty years the College of

Connecticut ... continued to be an unsatisfactory experiment.

While the rector taught some youth at Milford, and two tutors

had other pupils at Saybrook, and the few scores of books

which had been obtained for a library were divided between the

two places, there was small prospect of the results for which

institutions of learning are created. Notwithstanding the

general agreement that whatever facilities for the higher

education could be commanded should be brought together and

combined, the choice of the place was embarrassed by various

considerations. ... Saybrook, Wethersfield, Hartford, and New

Haven competed with each other for the preference, offering

such contributions as they were able towards the erection of a

college building. The offer from New Haven, larger than that

of any other town, was seven hundred pounds sterling. The plan

of fixing the College there, promoted by the great influence

of Governor Saltonstall, was adopted by the trustees; and with

money obtained by private gifts, and two hundred and fifty

pounds accruing from a sale of land given by the General

Assembly, a building was begun [1717], which finally cost a

thousand pounds sterling. ... The Assembly gave the College a

hundred pounds. Jeremiah Dummer sent from England a

substantial present of books. Governor Saltonstall contributed

fifty pounds sterling, and the same sum was presented by

Jahleel Brenton, of Newport, in Rhode Island. But the chief

patronage came from Elihu Yale,--a native of New Haven, but

long resident in the East Indies, where he had been Governor

of Fort St. George. He was now a citizen of London, and

Governor of the East India Company. His contributions,

continued through seven years, amounted to some four hundred

pounds sterling; and he was understood to have made

arrangements for a further bounty of five hundred pounds,

which, however, through unfortunate accidents, never came to

its destination. The province made a grant of forty pounds

annually for seven years."

J. G. Palfrey, History of New England,

book 4, chapter 11, and book 5, chapter 4 (volume 4).

EDUCATION: A. D. 1746-1787.

New York.

King's College, now Columbia College.

"The establishment of a college in the city of New York was

many years in agitation before the design was carried into

effect. At length, under an act of Assembly passed in

December, 1746, and other similar acts which followed, moneys

were raised by public lottery 'for the encouragement of

learning and towards the founding a college' within the

colony. These moneys were, in November, 1751, vested in

trustees. ... The trustees, in November, 1753, invited Dr.

Samuel Johnson, of Connecticut, to be President of the

intended college. Dr. Johnson consequently removed to New York

in the month of April following, and in July, 1754, commenced

the instruction of a class of students in a room of the

school-house belonging to Trinity Church; but he would not

absolutely accept the presidency until after the passing of

the charter. This took place on the 31st of October in the

same year, 1754; from which period the existence of the

college is properly to be dated. The Governors of the college,

named in the charter, are the Archbishop of Canterbury, and

the first Lord Commissioner for Trade and Plantations, both

empowered to act by proxies; the Lieutenant-governor of the

province, and several other public officers; together with the

rector of Trinity Church, the senior minister of the Reformed

Protestant Dutch Church, the ministers of the German Lutheran

Church, of the French Church, of the Presbyterian

Congregation, and the President of the college, all ex

officio, and twenty-four of the principal gentlemen of the

city. The college was to be known by the name of King's

College. Previously to the passing of the charter, a parcel of

ground to the westward of Broadway, bounded by Barclay,

Church, and Murray streets and the Hudson River, had been

destined by the vestry of Trinity Church as a site for the

college edifice; and, accordingly, after the charter was

granted, a grant of the land was made on the 13th of May,

1755. ... The part of the land thus granted by Trinity Church,

not occupied for college purposes, was leased, and became a

very valuable endowment to the college. The sources whence the

funds of the institution were derived, besides the proceeds of

the lotteries above mentioned, were the voluntary

contributions of private individuals in this country, and sums

obtained by agents who were subsequently sent to England and

France. In May, 1760, the college buildings began to be

occupied. In 1763 a grammar school was established. In March,

1763, Dr. Johnson resigned the presidency, and the Reverend Dr.

Myles Cooper, of Oxford, who had previously been appointed

Professor of Moral Philosophy and assistant to the President,

was elected in his place. ... In consequence of the dispute

between this and the parent country, Dr. Cooper returned to

England, and the Reverend Benjamin Moore was appointed praeses pro

tempore during the absence of Dr. Cooper, who, however, did

not return. On the breaking out of the Revolutionary War the

business of the college was almost entirely broken up, and it

was not until after the return of peace that its affairs were

again regularly attended to.

{731}

In May, 1784, the college, upon its own application, was

erected into a university; its corporate title was changed

from King's College to Columbia College, and it was placed

under the control of a board termed Regents of the University.

... The college continued under that government until April,

1787, when the Legislature of the State restored it to its

original position under the present name of Columbia College.

... At the same time a new body was created, called by the

same name, 'The Regents of the University,' under which all

the seminaries of learning mentioned in the act creating it

were placed by the legislature. This body still exists under

its original name."

Columbia College Handbook, pages 5-9.

EDUCATION: A. D. 1776-1880.

New England and New York.

State School Systems.

"It was not until over thirty years after the close of the war

of 1776 that a regular system of schools at the public expense

was established. New England boasted with pride of being the

first in education, as she had been in war. Her example was

closely followed by the other States. In New York, in 1805,

many gentlemen of prominence associated for the purpose of

establishing a free school in New York City for the education

of the children of persons in indigent circumstances, and who

did not belong to, or were not provided for by, any religious

society. These public-spirited gentlemen presented a memorial

to the Legislature, setting forth the benefits that would

result to society from educating such children, and that it

would enable them more effectually to accomplish the objects

of their institution if the schools were incorporated. The

bill of incorporation was passed April 9, 1805. This was the

nucleus from which the present system of public schools

started into existence. Later on, in the year 1808, we find

from annual printed reports that two free schools were opened

and were in working order. ... It was the intention of the

founders of these schools--among whom the names of De Witt

Clinton, Ferdinand de Peyster, John Murray, and Leonard

Bleecker stand prominent as officers--to avoid the teachings

of any religious society; but there were among the people many

who thought that sufficient care was not being bestowed upon

religious instruction: to please these malcontents the

literary studies of the pupils were suspended one afternoon in

every week, and an association of fifty ladies of

'distinguished consideration ·in society' met on this day and

examined the children in their respective catechisms. ... To

read, write, and know arithmetic in its first branches

correctly, was the extent of the educational advantages which

the founders of the free-school system deemed necessary for

the accomplishment of their purposes."

A. H. Rhine, The Early Free Schools of

America. (Popular Science Monthly, March, 1880).

EDUCATION: A. D. 1785-1880.

The United States.-

Land-grants for Schools.

"The question of the endowment of educational institutions by

the Government in aid of the cause of education seems to have

met no serious opposition in the Congress of the

Confederation, and no member raised his voice against this

vital and essential provision relating to it in the ordinance

of May 20, 1785, 'for ascertaining the mode of disposing of

lands in the Western Territory.' This provided: 'There shall

be reserved the lot No. 16 of every township for the

maintenance of public schools within said township.' This was

an endowment of 640 acres of land (one section of land, one

mile square) in a township 6 miles square, for the support and

maintenance of public schools' within said township.' The

manner of establishment of public schools thereunder, or by

whom, was not mentioned. It was a reservation by the United

States, and advanced and established a principle which finally

dedicated one thirty-sixth part of all public lands of the

United States, with certain exceptions as to mineral, &c., to

the cause of education by public schools. ... In the

Continental Congress, July 13, 1787, according to order, the

ordinance for the government of the 'Territory of the United

States northwest of the river Ohio' came on, was read a third

time, and passed [see NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D.1787]. It

contained the following: 'Art. 3. Religion, morality, and

knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness

of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever

be encouraged.' The provision of the ordinance of May 20,

1785, relating to the reservation of the sixteenth section in

every township of public land, was the inception of the

present rule of reservation of certain sections of land for

school purposes. The endowment was the subject of much

legislation in the years following. The question was raised

that there was no reason why the United States should not

organize, control, and manage these public schools so endowed.

The reservations of lands were made by surveyors and duly

returned. This policy at once met with enthusiastic approval

from the public, and was tacitly incorporated into the

American system as one of its fundamental organic ideas.

Whether the public schools thus endowed by the United States

were to be under national or State control remained a

question, and the lands were held in reservation merely until

after the admission of the State of Ohio in 1802. ... To each

organized Territory, after 1803, was and now is reserved the

sixteenth section (until after the Oregon Territory act

reserved the thirty-sixth as well) for school purposes, which

reservation is carried into grant and confirmation by the

terms of the act of admission of the Territory or State into

the Union; the State then becoming a trustee for school

purposes. These grants of land were made from the public

domain, and to States only which were known as public-land

States. Twelve States, from March 3, 1803, known as

public-land States, received the allowance of the sixteenth

section to August 14, 1848. ... Congress, June 13, 1812, and

May 26, 1824, by the acts ordering the survey of certain towns

and villages in Missouri, reserved for the support of schools

in the towns and villages named, provided that the whole

amount reserved should not exceed one-twentieth part of the

whole lands included in the general survey of such town or

village. These lots were reserved and sold for the benefit of

the schools. Saint Louis received a large fund from this

source. ... In the act for the organization of the Territory

of Oregon, August 14, 1848, Senator Stephen A. Douglas

inserted an additional grant for school purposes of the

thirty-sixth section in each township, with indemnity for all

public-land States thereafter to be admitted, making the

reservation for school purposes the sixteenth and thirty-sixth

sections, or 1,280 acres in each township of six miles square

reserved in public-land States and Territories, and confirmed

by grant in terms in the act of admission of such State or

Territory into the Union. From March 13, 1853, to June 30,

1880, seven States have been admitted into the Union having a

grant of the sixteenth and thirty-sixth sections, and the

same area has been reserved in eight Territories."

T. Donaldson, The Public Domain, chapter 13.

{732}

EDUCATION: A. D. 1789.

The United States.

"The Constitution of the United States makes no provision for

the education of the people; and in the Convention that framed

it, I believe the subject was not even mentioned. A motion to

insert a clause providing for the establishment of a national

university was voted down. I believe it is also the fact, that

the Constitutions of only three of the thirteen original

States made the obligation to maintain a system of Free

Schools a part of their fundamental law."

H. Mann, Lectures and Annual Reports on

Education, lecture 5.

EDUCATION: A. D. 1793.-Massachusetts.

Williams College.

"Williams College, at Williamstown, Berkshire County, Mass.,

was chartered in 1793. The town and the college were named in

honor of Colonel Ephraim Williams, who had command of the forts

in the Hoosac Valley, and was killed in a battle with the

French and Indians, September 8, 1755. By his will he

established a free school in the township which was to bear

his name. The most advanced students of this free school

became the first college class, numbering 4, and received the

regular degree of bachelor of arts in the autumn of 1795. The

small amount left by the will of Colonel Williams was

carefully managed for 30 years by the executors, and they then

obtained permission from the State legislature to carry out

the benevolent purposes of the testator. The fund for building

was increased by individual subscriptions, and by the avails

of a lottery, which the general court granted for that

purpose. The building which is now known as West College was

then erected for the use of the free school and was finished

in 1790. ... The free school was opened in 1791, with Reverend

Ebenezer Fitch, a graduate of Yale College, as preceptor, and

Mr. John Lester as assistant. ... The success of the school

was so great that the next year the trustees asked the

legislature to incorporate the school into a college. This was

done, and a grant of $4,000 was made from the State treasury

for the purchase of books and philosophical apparatus. The

college was put under the care of 12 trustees, who elected

Preceptor Fitch the first president of the college."

E. B. Parsons (U. S. Bureau of Education,

Circular of Information, 1891, no. 6:

History of Higher Education in Massachusetts, chapter 9).

EDUCATION: A. D. 1795-1867.

The United States.

State School Funds.

"Connecticut took the lead in the creation of a permanent fund

for the support of schools. The district known as the Western

Reserve, in Northern Ohio, had been secured to her in the

adjustment of her claims to lands confirmed to her by the

charter of King Charles II. The Legislature of the State, in

1795, passed an act directing the sale of all the land

embraced in the Reserve, and setting apart the avails as a

perpetual fund for the maintenance of common schools. The

amount realized was about $1,120,000. ... New York was the

next State to establish a common school fund for the aid and

maintenance of schools in the several school districts of the

State. The other Northern States except New Hampshire,

Vermont, Pennsylvania, and one or two others, have established

similar funds. ... In all the new States, the 500,000 acres,

given by act of Congress, on their admission into the Union,

for the support of schools, have been sacredly set apart for

that purpose, and generally other lands belonging to the

States have been added to the fund. ... Prior to the war the

Slave States had made attempts to establish plans for popular

education, but with results of an unsatisfactory character. In

Virginia a school system was in force for the education of the

children of indigent white persons. In North Carolina a large

school fund, exceeding two millions of dollars, had been set

apart for the maintenance of schools. In all of these States

common schools had been introduced, but they did not flourish

as in the North and West. ... There was not the same

population of small and independent farmers, whose families

could be united into a school district. ... A more serious

obstacle was the slave population, constituting one-third of

the whole, and in some of the States more than half, whom it

was thought dangerous to educate."

V. M. Rice, Special Report on the Present State of

Education, 1867, pages 19-23.

EDUCATION: A. D. 1804-1837.

Michigan.

The University.

"In 1804, when Michigan was organized as a Territory, Congress

granted a township of land for a seminary of learning, and the

university to be established in 1817 was to be in accordance

with this grant. The Territorial government committed the

interests of higher education to the care of the Governor and

the Judges, and it is supposed that through the exertions of

Honorable A. B. Woodward, then presiding Judge of the Supreme Court

of the Territory of Michigan, that the act establishing a

university was framed. A portion of this most curious document

of the early History of Michigan will be given. It is entitled

'An act to establish the Catholepistemiad or University

Michigania.' 'Be it enacted by the Governor and Judges of the

Territory of Michigan, That there shall be in the said

Territory a catholepistemiad or university denominated the

Catholepistemiad or University Michigania. The

Catholepistemiad or University of Michigania shall be composed

of thirteen didaxum or professorships; first, a didaxia or

professorship catholepistemia, or universal science, the

dictator or professor of which shall be president of the

institution; second, a didaxia or professorship of

anthropoglassica, or literature embracing all of the

episternum or sciences relative to language; third, a didaxia

or professorship of mathematica or mathematics; fourth, a

didaxia or professorship of physiognostica or natural history,

etc.' The act thus continues through the whole range of the

'thirteen didaxum'; the remaining nine are as follows: Natural

philosophy, astronomy, chemistry, medical sciences, economical

sciences, ethical sciences, military sciences, historical

sciences, and intellectual. The university was to be under the

control of the professors and president, who were to be

appointed by the Governor, while the institution was to be the

center and controlling power of the educational system of the

State.

{733}

It was to be supported by taxation by an increase of the

amount of taxes already levied, by 15 per cent. Also power was

given to raise money for the support of the university by

means of lotteries. This remarkable document was not without

its influence in shaping the public school policy of Michigan,

but it was many years before the State approximated its

learned provisions. Impracticable as this educational plan

appears for a handful of people in the woods of Michigan, it

served as a foundation upon which to build. The officers and

president were duly appointed, and the work of the new

university began at once. At first the university appeared as

a school board, to establish and maintain primary schools

which they held under their charge. Then followed a course of

study for classical academies, and finally, in October, 1817,

an act was passed establishing a college in the city of

Detroit called 'The First College of Michigania.' ... The

people contributed liberally to these early schools, the sum

of three thousand dollars being subscribed at the beginning.

... An act was passed on the 30th of April, 1821, by the

Governor and Judges establishing a university in Detroit to

take the place of the catholepistemiad and to be called the

'University of Michigan.' In its charter nearly all the powers

of the former institution were substantially confirmed, except

the provision for taxes and lotteries. ... The second

corporation, known as the 'University of Michigan,' carried on

the work of education already begun from 1821 to the third

organization, in 1837. The education was very limited,

consisting in one classical academy at Detroit, and part of

the time a Lancasterian school. The boards of education kept

up and transmitted the university idea to such an extent that

it may be said truly and legally that there was one University

of Michigan, which passed through three successive stages of

development marked by the dates 1817, 1821, and 1837," at

which time it was removed to Ann Arbor.

F. W. Blackmar, Federal and State Aid to Higher

Education (U: S. Bureau of Education. Circular of

Information, 1890, no. 1), pages 239-241.

ALSO IN:

E. M. Farrand, History of the University of Michigan.

A. Ten Brook, American State Universities.

EDUCATION: A. D. 1818-1821.

Massachusetts.

Amherst College.

"Amherst College originated in a strong desire on the part of

the people of Massachusetts to have a college near the central

part of the State, where the students should be free from the

temptations of a large city, where the expenses of an

education should not be beyond the means of those who had but

little money, and where the moral and religious influences

should be of a decidedly Christian character. ... The

ministers of Franklin County, at a meeting held in Shelburne

May 18, 1815, expressed it as their opinion that a literary

institution of high order ought to be established in Hampshire

County, and that the town of Amherst appeared to them to be

the most eligible place for it. Their early efforts for a

literary institution in Hampshire County resulted in the first

place in the establishment of an academy in Amherst, which was

incorporated in the year 1816. ... In the year 1818 a

constitution was adopted by the trustees of Amherst Academy,

for the raising and management of a fund of at least $50,000,

for the classical education of indigent young men of piety and

talents for the Christian ministry. ... This charity fund may

be said to be the basis of Amherst College, for though it was

raised by the trustees of Amherst Academy it was really

intended to be the foundation of a college, and has always

been a part of the permanent funds of Amherst College, kept

sacredly from all other funds for the specific object for

which it was given. ... This was for many years the only

permanent fund of Amherst College, and without this it would

have seemed impossible at one time to preserve the very

existence of the college. So Amherst College grew out of

Amherst Academy, and was built permanently on the charity fund

raised by the trustees of that academy. ... Although the

charity fund of $50,000 had been received in 1818, it was not

till 1820 that the recipient felt justified in going forward

to erect buildings for a college in Amherst. Efforts were made

for the removal of Williams College from Williamstown to

Hampshire County, and to have the charity fund used in

connection with that college; and, if that were done, it was

not certain that Amherst could be regarded as the best

location for the college. But the legislature of Massachusetts

decided that Williams College could not be removed from

Williamstown, and nothing remained but for the friends of the

new institution to go on with their plans for locating it at

Amherst. ... This first college edifice was ready for

occupation and dedicated on the 18th of September, 1821. In

the month of May, 1821, Reverend Zephaniah Swift Moore, D. D., was

unanimously elected by the trustees of Amherst Academy

president of the new institution."

T. P. Field (U. S. Bureau of Education, Circular' of

Information, 1891, no. 6: History of Higher Education

in Massachusetts), chapter 11.

EDUCATION: A. D. 1837.

Massachusetts.

Horace Mann and the State System.

"When Massachusetts, in 1837, created a Board of Education,

then were first united into a somewhat related whole the more

or less excellent but varied and independent organizations,

and a beginning made for a State system. It was this massing

of forces, and the hearty co-operation he initiated, in which

the work of Horace Mann showed its matchless greatness.

'Rarely,' it has been said, 'have great ability, unselfish

devotion, and brilliant success, been so united in the course

of a single life.' A successful lawyer, a member of the State

Legislature, and with but limited experience as a teacher, he

has left his impress upon the educational sentiments of, not

only New England, but the United States."

R. G. Boone, Education in the U. S., page 103.

EDUCATION: A. D. 1840-1886.

The United States.

Proportion of College Students.

"It is estimated that in 1840 the proportion of college

students to the entire population in the United States was 1

to 1,540; in 1860, 1 to 2,012; in 1870,1 to 2,546; in 1880, 1

to 1,840; and in 1886, 1 to about 1,400, Estimating all our

combined efforts in favor of higher education, we fall far

short of some of the countries of the Old World."

F. W. Blackmar, Federal and State Aid to Higher

Education in the U. S. (U. S. Bureau of Education,

Circulars of Information, 1890, no. 1), page 36.

{734}

EDUCATION: A. D. 1844-1876.

Canada.

Ontario School System.

"From the earliest settlement of Ontario, schools were

established as the wants of the inhabitants required. The

Legislature soon recognized the needs of the country, and made

grants of land and money in aid of elementary, secondary, and

superior education. Statutes were passed from time to time for

the purpose of opening schools to meet the demands of the

people. The sparsely settled condition of the Province delayed

for a while the organization of the system. It was not until

1844 that the elementary schools were put on a comprehensive

basis. In that year the Reverend Egerton Ryerson, LL. D., was

appointed Chief Superintendent of Education, and the report

which he presented to the House of Assembly sketched in an

able manner the main features of the system of which he was

the distinguished founder, and of which he continued for

thirty-three years to be the efficient administrator. In 1876

the office of chief superintendent was abolished, and the

schools of the Province placed under the control of a member

of the Government with the title of Minister of Education. ...

The system of education in Ontario may be said to combine the

best features of the systems of several countries. To the Old

World it is indebted for a large measure of its stability,

uniformity and centralization; to the older settled parts of

the New World for its popular nature, its flexibility and its

democratic principles which have given, wherever desirable,

local control and individual responsibility. From the State of

New York we have borrowed the machinery of our school; from

Massachusetts the principle of local taxation; from Ireland

our first series of text books; from Scotland the co-operation

of parents with the teacher, in upholding his authority; from

Germany the system of Normal Schools and the Kindergarten; and

from the United States generally the non-denominational

character of elementary, secondary, and university education.

Ontario may claim to have some features of her system that are

largely her own. Among them may be mentioned a division of

state and municipal authority on a judicious basis; clear

lines separating the function of the University from that of

the High Schools, and the function of the High Schools from

that of the Public or elementary schools; a uniform course of

study; all High and Public Schools in the hands of

professionally trained teachers; no person eligible to the

position of inspector who does not hold the highest grade of a

teacher's certificate, and who has not had years of experience

as a teacher; inspectors removable if inefficient, but not

subject to removal by popular vote; the examinations of

teachers under Provincial instead of local control; the

acceptance of a common matriculation examination for admission

to the Universities and to the learned professions; a uniform

series of text books for the whole Province; the almost entire

absence of party politics in the manner in which school

boards, inspectors and teachers discharge their duties; the

system national instead of sectarian, but affording under

constitutional guarantees and limitations protection to Roman

Catholic and Protestant Separate Schools and denominational

Universities."

J. Millar, Educational System of the Province of Ontario.

EDUCATION: A. D. 1862.

The United States.

Land-grant for industrial Colleges.

"Next to the Ordinance of 1787, the Congressional grant of

1862 is the most important educational enactment in America.

... By this gift forty-eight colleges and universities have

received aid, at least to the extent of the Congressional

grant; thirty-three of these, at least, have been called into

existence by means of this act. In thirteen States the

proceeds of the land scrip were devoted to institutions

already in existence. The amount received from the sales of

land scrip from twenty-four of these States aggregates the sum

of $13,930,456, with land remaining unsold estimated at nearly

two millions of dollars. These same institutions have received

State endowments amounting to over eight million dollars. The

origin of this gift must be sought in local communities. In

this country all ideas of national education have arisen from

those States that have felt the need of local institutions for

the education of youth. In certain sections of the Union,

particularly the North and West, where agriculture was one of

the chief industries, it was felt that the old classical

schools were not broad enough to cover all the wants of

education represented by growing industries. There was

consequently a revulsion from these schools toward the

industrial and practical side of education. Evidences of this

movement are seen in the attempts in different States to found

agricultural, technical, and industrial schools. These ideas

found their way into Congress, and a bill was introduced in

1858, which provided for the endowment of colleges for the

teaching of agriculture and the mechanical arts. The bill was

introduced by Honorable Justin S. Morrill, of Vermont; it was

passed by a small majority, and was vetoed by President

Buchanan. In 1862 the bill was again presented with slight

changes, passed and signed, and became a law July 2, 1862. ...

It stipulated to grant to each State thirty thousand acres of

land for each Senator and Representative in Congress to which

the States were respectively entitled by the census of 1860,

for the purpose of endowing 'at least one college where the

leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific

and classical studies, and including military tactics, to

teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture

and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the Legislatures of

the States may respectively prescribe, in order to promote the

liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in

the several pursuits and professions of life.' ... From this

proposition all sorts of schools sprang up, according to the

local conception of the law and local demands. It was thought

by some that boys were to be taught agriculture by working on

a farm, and purely agricultural schools were founded with the

mechanical arts attached. In other States classical schools of

the stereotyped order were established, with more or less

science; and, again, the endowment in others was devoted to

scientific departments. The instruction of the farm and the

teaching of pure agriculture have not succeeded in general,

while the schools that have made prominent those studies

relating to agriculture and the mechanic arts, upon the whole,

have succeeded best. ... In several instances the managers of

the land scrip have understood that by this provision the

State could not locate the land within the borders of another

State, but its assignees could thus locate lands, not more

than one million acres in any one State. By considering this

question, the New York land scrip was bought by Ezra Cornell,

and located by him for the college in valuable lands in the

State of Wisconsin, and thus the fund was augmented. However,

the majority of the States sold their land at a sacrifice,

frequently for less than half its value. There was a lull in

the land market during the Civil War, and this cause, together

with the lack of attention in many States, sacrificed the gift

of the Federal Government. The sales ranged all the way from

fifty cents to seven dollars per acre, as the average price

for each State."

F. W. Blackmar, Federal and State Aid to Higher

Education (U. S. Bureau of Education,

Circulars of Information, 1890, no. 1), pages 47-49.

{735}

EDUCATION: A. D. 1862-1886.

New York.

Cornell University.

"On the second of July, 1862,  ... [President Lincoln] signed

the act of congress, donating public lands for the

establishment of colleges of agriculture and mechanic arts.

This act had been introduced into congress by the Honorable Justin

S. Morrill. ... The Morrill act provided for a donation of

public land to the several states, each state to receive

thirty thousand acres for each senator and representative it

sent to congress. States not containing within their own

borders public land subject to sale at private entry received

land scrip instead. But this land scrip the recipient states

were not allowed to locate within the limits of any other

state or of any territory of the United States. The act

laconically directed 'said scrip to be sold by said states.'

The proceeds of the sale, whether of land or scrip, in each

state were to form a perpetual fund. ... In the execution of

this trust the State of New York was hampered by great and

almost insuperable obstacles. For its distributive share it

received land scrip to the amount of nine hundred and ninety

thousand acres. The munificence of the endowment awakened the

cupidity of a multitude of clamorous and strangely unexpected

claimants. ... If the princely domain granted to the State of

New York by congress was not divided and frittered away, we

owe it in great measure to the foresight, the energy, and the

splendid courage of a few generous spirits in the legislature

of whom none commanded greater respect or exercised more

influence than Senator Andrew Dickson White, the gentleman who

afterwards became first president of Cornell University. ...

But the all-compelling force which prevented the dispersion

and dissipation of the bounty of congress was the generous

heart of Ezra Cornell. While rival institutions clamored for a

division of the 'spoils,' and political tricksters played

their base and desperate game, this man thought only of the

highest good of the State of New York, which he loved with the

ardor of a patriot and was yet to serve with the heroism of a

martyr. ... When the legislature of the State of New York was

called upon to make some disposition of the congressional

grant, Ezra Cornell sat in the senate. ... Of his minor

legislative achievements I shall not speak. One act, however,

has made his name as immortal as the state it glorified. By a

gift of half a million dollars (a vast sum in 1865, the last

year of the war!) he rescued for the higher education of New

York the undivided grant of congress; and with the united

endowments he induced the legislature to establish, not merely

a college of applied science but a great modern

university--'an institution,' according to his own admirable

definition, 'where any person can find instruction in any

study.' It was a high and daring aspiration to crown the

educational system of our imperial state with an organ of

universal knowledge, a nursery of every science and of all

scholarship, an instrument of liberal culture and of practical

utility to all classes of our people. This was, however, the

end; and to secure it Ezra Cornell added to his original gift

new donations of land, of buildings, and of money. ... But one

danger threatened this latest birth of time. The act of

congress donating land scrip required the states to sell it.

The markets were immediately glutted. Prices fell. New York

was selling at an average price of fifty cents an acre. Her

princely domain would bring at this rate less than half a

million dollars! Was the splendid donation to issue in such

disaster? If it could be held till the war was over, till

immigration opened up the Northwest, it would be worth five

times five hundred thousand dollars! So at least thought one

far-seeing man in the State of New York. And this man of

foresight had the heart to conceive, the wisdom to devise, and

the courage to execute--he alone in all the states--a plan for

saving to his state the future value of the lands donated by

congress. Ezra Cornell made that wonderful and dramatic

contract with the State of New York! He bound himself to

purchase at the rate of sixty cents per acre the entire right

of the commonwealth to the scrip, still unsold; and with the

scrip, thus purchased by him as an individual he agreed to

select and locate the lands it represented, to pay the taxes,

to guard against trespasses and defend from fires, to the end

that within twenty years when values had appreciated he might

sell the land and turn into the treasury of the State of New

York for the support of Cornell University the entire net

proceeds of the enterprise. Within a few years Ezra Cornell

had located over half a million acres of superior pine land in

the Northwestern states, principally in Wisconsin. Under bonds

to the State of New York to do the state's work he had spent

about $600,000 of his own cash to carry out the trust

committed to him by the state, when, alas, in the crisis of

1874, fortune and credit sank exhausted and death came to free

the martyr-patriot from his bonds. The seven years that

followed were the darkest in our history. ... Ezra Cornell was

our founder; Henry W. Sage followed him as wise masterbuilder.

The edifices, chairs and libraries which bear the name of

'Sage' witness to [his] later gifts: but though these now

aggregate the princely sum of $1,250,000, [his] management of

the university lands has been [his] greatest achievement. From

these lands, with which the generosity and foresight of Ezra

Cornell endowed the university, there have been netted under

[Mr. Sage's] administration, not far short of $4,000,000, with

over 100,000 acres still to sell. Ezra Cornell's contract with

the state was for twenty years. It expired August 4, 1886,

when a ten years' extension was granted by the state. The

trust will be closed in 1896."

J. G. Schurman, Address at Inauguration to the

Presidency of Cornell University, November 11, 1892.

EDUCATION: A. D. 1866-1869.

The United States.

Bureau of Education.

"Educators, political economists, and statesmen felt the need

of some central agency by which the general educational

statistics of the country could be collected, preserved,

condensed, and properly arranged for distribution. This need

found expression finally in the action taken at a convention

of the superintendence department of the National Educational

Association, held at Washington February, 1866, when it was

resolved to petition Congress in favor of a National Bureau of

Education. ...

{736}

The memorial was presented in the House of Representatives by

General Garfield, February 14, 1866, with a bill for the

establishment of a National Bureau on essentially the basis

the school superintendents had proposed. Both bill and

memorial were referred to a committee of seven members. ...

The bill was reported back from the committee, with an

amendment in the nature of a substitute, providing for the

creation of a department of education instead of the bureau

originally proposed. Thus altered, it was passed by a vote of

nearly two to one. In the Senate it was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary ... who the following winter

reported it without amendment and with a recommendation that

it pass, which it did on the 1st of March, 1867, receiving on

the next day the approval of the President. By the act of July

28, 1868, which took effect June 30, 1869, the Department of

Education was abolished, and an Office of Education in the

Department of the Interior was established, with the same

objects and duties. ... The act of March 2, 1867, ...

established an agency 'for the purpose of collecting such

statistics and facts as shall show the condition and progress

of education in the several States and Territories, and of

diffusing such information respecting the organization and

management of school systems and methods of teaching as shall

aid the people of the United States in the establishment and

maintenance of efficient school systems and otherwise promote

the cause of education.' It will be perceived that the chief

duty of the office under the law is to act as an educational

exchange. Exercising and seeking to exercise no control

whatever over its thousands of correspondents, the office

occupies a position as the recipient of voluntary information

which is unique."

C. Warren, Answers to Inquiries about the

U. S. Bureau of Education, chapters 2-3.

EDUCATION: A. D. 1867.

New York.

Public Schools made entirely free.

The public schools of the State of New York were not entirely

free until 1867. In his report to the Legislature made in

February of that year, the State Superintendent of Public

Instruction, Honorable Victor M. Rice, said: "The greatest defect

in our school system is, as I have urged in previous reports,

the continuance of the rate bill system. Our common schools

can never reach their highest degree of usefulness until they

shall have been made entirely free. ... To meet this public

demand, to confer upon the children of the State the blessings

of free education, a bill has already been introduced into

your honorable body. ... The main features of the bill are the

provisions to raise, by State tax, a sum about equal to that

raised in the districts by rate bills, and to abolish the rate

bill system; to facilitate the erection and repair of school

houses." The bill referred to was passed at the same session

of the Legislature, and in his next succeeding report,

Superintendent Rice gave the following account of the law and

its immediate effects: "While the general structure of the

school law was not disturbed, a material modification was made

by the Act (chap. 406, Laws of 1867), which took effect on the

first day of October of the same year, and which, among other

things, provided for the abolishment of rate-bills, and for

increased local and State taxation for school purposes. This

was primarily a change in the manner of raising the requisite

funds; not an absolute increase of the aggregate amount to be

raised. It involved and encouraged such increase, so far as

the inhabitants in the several school districts should

authorize it, by substituting taxation exclusively on

property, for a mixed assessment which, in part, was a tax on

attendance. Thus relieved of an old impediment, and supplied

with additional power and larger resources, the cause of

public instruction, during the last fiscal year, has wrought

results unequaled in all the past. ... The effect of this

amendment has not been confined to the financial policy

thereby inaugurated. It is distinctly traceable in lengthened

terms of school, in a larger and more uniform attendance, and

in more liberal expenditures for school buildings and

appliances."

Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State

of New York, Annual Report, 1869, pages 5-6.

EDUCATION: A. D. 1867.

Maryland.

Johns Hopkins University.

"By the will of Johns Hopkins, a merchant of Baltimore, the

sum of $7,000,000 was devoted to the endowment of a university

[chartered in 1867] and a hospital, $3,500,000 being

appropriated to each. ... To the bequest no burdensome

conditions were attached. ... Just what this new university

was to be proved a very serious question to the trustees. The

conditions of Mr. Hopkins's bequest left the determination of

this matter open. ... A careful investigation led the trustees

to believe that there was a growing demand for opportunities

to study beyond the ordinary courses of a college or a

scientific school, particularly in those branches of learning

not included in the schools of law, medicine and theology.

Strong evidence of this demand was afforded by the increasing

attendance of American students upon the lectures of the

German universities, as well as by the number of students who

were enrolling themselves at Harvard and Yale for the

post-graduate courses. It was therefore determined that the

Johns Hopkins should be primarily a university, with advanced

courses of lectures and fully equipped laboratories; that the

courses should be voluntary, and the teaching not limited to

class instruction. The foundation is both old and new. In so

far as each feature is borrowed from some older university,

where it has been fairly tried and tested, it is old, but at

the same time this particular combination of separate features

has here been made for the first time. ... In the ordinary

college course, if a young man happens to be deficient in

mathematics, for example, he is either forced to lose any

advantage he may possess in Greek or Latin, or else is obliged

to take a position in mathematics for which he is unprepared.

In the college department of the Johns Hopkins, this

disadvantage does not exist; the classifying is specific for

each study. The student has also the privilege of pushing

forward in any one study as rapidly as he can with advantage;

or, on the other hand, in case of illness or of unavoidable

interruption, of prolonging the time devoted to the course, so

that no part of it shall be omitted. As the studies are

elective, it is possible to follow the usual college course if

one desires. Seven different courses of study are indicated,

any of which leads to the Baccalaureate degree, thus enabling

the student to direct and specialize his work. The same

standard of matriculation and the same severity of

examinations are maintained in all these courses.

{737}

A student has the privilege of extending his study beyond the

regular class work, and he will be credited with all such

private and outside study, if his examiners are satisfied of

his thoroughness and accuracy."

S. B. Herrick, The Johns Hopkins University

(Scribner's Monthly, December 1879).

EDUCATION: A. D. 1867-1891.

The United States.

The Peabody Education Fund.

"The letter announcing and creating the Peabody endowment was

dated February 7, 1867. In that letter, after referring to the

ravages of he late war, the founder of the Trust said: 'I feel

most deeply that it is the duty and privilege of the more

favoured and wealthy portions of our nation to assist those

who are less fortunate.' He then added: 'I give one million of

dollars for the encouragement and promotion of intellectual,

moral, and industrial education among the young of the more

destitute portions of the Southern and Southwestern States of

the Union.' On the day following, ten of the Trustees selected

by him held a preliminary meeting in Washington. Their first

business meeting was held in the city of New York, the 19th of

March following, at which a general plan was adopted and an

agent appointed. Mr. Peabody returned to his native country

again in 1869, and on the 1st day of July, at a special

meeting of the Trustees held at Newport, added a second

million to the cash capital of the fund. ... According to the

donor's directions, the principal must remain intact for

thirty years. The Trustees are not authorized to expend any

part of it, nor yet to add to it any part of the accruing

interest. The manner of using the interest, as well as the

final distribution of the principal, was left entirely to the

discretion of a self-perpetuating body of Trustees. Those

first appointed had, however, the rare advantage of full

consultation with the founder of the Trust while he still

lived, and their plans received his cordial and emphatic

approbation. ... The pressing need of the present seemed to be

in the department of primary education for the masses, and so

they determined to make appropriations only for the assistance

of public free schools. The money is not given as a charity to

the poor. It would be entirely inadequate to furnish any

effectual relief if distributed equally among all those who

need it, and would, moreover, if thus widely dissipated,

produce no permanent results. But the establishment of good

public schools provides for the education of all children,

whether rich or poor, and initiates a system which no State

has ever abandoned after a fair trial. So it seemed to the

donor as well as to his Trustees, that the greatest good of

the greatest number would be more effectually and more

certainly attained by this mode of distribution than by any

other. No effort is made to distribute according to

population. It was Mr. Peabody's wish that those States which

had suffered most from the ravages of war should be assisted

first."

American Educational Cyclopædia, 1875, pages 224-225.

The report made by the treasurer of the Fund in 1890, showed a

principal sum invested to the amount of $2,075,175.22,

yielding an income that year of $97,818. In the annual report

of the U. S. Commissioner of Education made February 1, 1891, he

says: "It would appear to the student of education in the

Southern States that the practical wisdom in the

administration of the Peabody Fund and the fruitful results

that have followed it could not be surpassed in the history of

endowments."

Proceedings of the Trustees of the Peabody

Education Fund, 1887-1892.

EDUCATION: A. D. 1884-1891.

California.

Leland Stanford Junior University.

"The founding at Palo Alto of 'a university for both sexes,

with the colleges, schools, seminaries of learning, mechanical

institutes, museums, galleries of art, and all other things

necessary and appropriate to a university of high degree,' was

determined upon by the Honorable Leland Stanford and Jane Lathrop

Stanford in 1884. In March of the year following the

Legislature of California passed an Act providing for the

administration of trust funds in connection with institutions

of learning. November 14, 1885, the Grant of Endowment was

publicly made, in accordance with this Act, and on the same

day the Board of Trustees held its first meeting in San

Francisco. The work of construction was at once begun, and the

cornerstone laid May 14, 1887. The University was formally

opened to students October 1, 1891. The idea of the

university, in the words of its founders, 'came directly and

largely from our son and only child, Leland, and in the belief

that had he been spared to advise as to the disposition of our

estate, he would have desired the devotion of a large portion

thereof to this purpose, we will that for all time to come the

institution hereby founded shall bear his name, and shall be

known as The Leland Stanford Junior University.' The object of

the University, as stated in its Charter, is 'to qualify

students for personal success and direct usefulness in life';

and its purposes, 'to promote the public welfare by exercising

an influence in behalf of humanity and civilization, teaching

the blessings of liberty regulated by law, and inculcating

love and reverence for the great principles of government as

derived from the inalienable rights of man to life, liberty,

and the pursuit of happiness.' The University is located on

the Palo Alto estate in the Santa Clara valley, thirty-three

miles southeast of San Francisco, on the Coast Division of the

Southern Pacific Railway. The estate consists of over eight

thousand acres, partly lowland and partly rising into the

foothills of the Santa Cruz range. On the grounds is the

residence of the Founders, and an extensive and beautiful

arboretum containing a very great variety of shrubs and trees.

The property conveyed to the University, in addition to the

Palo Alto estate, consists of the Vina estate, in Tehama

County, of fifty-five thousand acres, of which about four

thousand acres are planted in vines, and the Gridley estate,

in Butte County, of twenty-two thousand acres, devoted mainly

to the raising of wheat. ... The founders of the Leland

Stanford Junior University say: 'As a further assurance that

the endowment will be ample to establish and maintain a

university of the highest grade, we have, by last will and

testament, devised to you and your successors additional

property. We have done this as a security against the

uncertainty of life and in the hope that during our lives the

full endowment may go to you. The aggregate of the domain

thus dedicated to the founding of the University, is over

eighty-five thousand acres, or more than one hundred and

thirty-three square miles, among the best improved and most

valuable lands in the State."

Leland Stanford Junior University,

Circulars of Information, numbers 6 and 1-2.

{738}

EDUCATION: A. D. 1887-1889.

Massachusetts.

Clark University.

"Clark University was founded [at Worcester] by ... a native

of Worcester County, Massachusetts. It was 'not the outcome of

a freak of impulse, or of a sudden wave of generosity, or of

the natural desire to perpetuate in a worthy way one's

ancestral name. To comprehend the genesis of the enterprise we

must go back along the track of Mr. Clark's personal history

20 years at least. For as long ago as that, the idea came home

with force to his mind that all civilized communities are in

the hands of experts. ... Looking around at the facilities

obtainable in this country for the prosecution of original

research, he was struck with the meagerness and the

inadequacy. Colleges and professional schools we have in

abundance, but there appeared to be no one grand inclusive

institution, unsaddled by an academic department, where

students might pursue as far as possible their investigation

of any and every branch of science. ... Mr. Clark went abroad

and spent eight years visiting the institutions of learning in

almost every country of Europe. He studied into their history

and observed their present working.' ... It is his strong and

expressed desire that the highest possible academic standards

be here forever maintained; that special opportunities and

inducements be offered to research; that to this end the

instructors be not overburdened with teaching or examinations.

... A charter was granted early in 1887. Land and other

property that had been before secured by the founder was

transferred to the board, and the erection of a central

building was begun. In the spring of 1888 G. Stanley Hall,

then a professor at the Johns Hopkins University, was invited

to the presidency. ... The plans of the university had so far

progressed that work was begun in October, 1889, in

mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and psychology."

G. G. Bush, History of Higher Education in

Massachusetts (U. S. Bureau of Education,

Circular of Information, 1891, no. 6), chapter 18.

EDUCATION: A. D. 1889-1892.

Illinois.

Chicago University.

"At its Annual Meeting in May, 1889, the Board of the American

Baptist Education Society resolved to take immediate steps

toward the founding of a well-equipped college in the city of

Chicago. At the same time John D. Rockefeller made a

subscription of $600,000 and this sum was increased during the

succeeding year by about $600,000 more in subscriptions

representing more than two thousand persons. Three months

after the completion of this subscription, Mr. Rockefeller

made an additional proffer of $1,000,000. The site of the

University consists of three blocks of ground--about two

thousand feet long and three hundred and sixty-two feet wide,

lying between the two South Parks of Chicago, and fronting on

the Midway Plaisance, which is itself a park connecting the

other two. One-half of this site is a gift of Marshall Field

of Chicago, and the other half has been purchased at a cost of

$132,500. At the first meeting of the Board after it had

become an incorporated body, Professor William R. Harper, of

Yale University, was unanimously elected President of the

University. ... It has been decided that the University will

begin the work of instruction on the first day of October,

1892. ... The work of the University shall be arranged under

three general divisions, viz., The University Proper, The

University-Extension Work, The University Publication Work."

University of Chicago,

Official Bulletin no. 1, January, 1891.

EDUCATION: A. D. 1890.

United States.

Census Statistics.

The following statistics of education in the United States are

from the returns gathered for the Eleventh Census, 1890. In

these statistics the states and territories are classed in

five great geographical divisions, defined as follows: North

Atlantic Division, embracing the New England States, New York,

New Jersey, and Pennsylvania; South Atlantic Division,

embracing the States of the eastern coast, from Delaware to

Florida, together with the District of Columbia; North Central

Division, embracing Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan,

Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North and South Dakota,

Nebraska, and Kansas; South Central Division, embracing

Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas,

Arkansas, and Oklahoma; Western Division, embracing all the

remaining States and Territories. The total taxation for

public schools in the United States, as reported by this

census, was $102,164,796; of which $37,619,786 was raised in

the North Atlantic Division, $5,678,474 in the South Atlantic

Division, $47,033,142 in the North Central Division,

$5,698.562 in the South Central Division, and $6,134,832 in

the Western Division. From funds and rents there were raised

for school purposes a total of $25,694,449 in the United

States at large, of which $8,273,147 was raised in the North

Atlantic Division, $2,307,051 in the South Atlantic Division,

$8,432,593 in the North Central Division, $3,720,158 in the

South Central Division, and $2,961,500 in the Western

Division. The total of all "ordinary" receipts for school

support in the United States, was $139,619,440, of which

$49,201,216 were in the North Atlantic Division, $8,685,223 in

the South Atlantic Division. $61,108,263 in the North Central

Division, $10,294,621 in the South Central Division, and

$10,330,117 in the Western Division. The total "ordinary

expenditures" were $138,786,393 in the whole United States;

being $47,625,548 in the North Atlantic Division, $8,630,711

in the South Atlantic Division, $62,815.531 in the North

Central Division, $9,860,050 in the South Central Division,

and $9,854,544 in the Western Division. For teachers' wages

there was a total expenditure of $88,705,992, $28,067,821

being in the North Atlantic Division, $6,400,063 in the South

Atlantic Division, $39,866,831 in the North Central Division,

$8,209,509 in the South Central Division, and $6,161,768 in

the Western Division. The total expenditure for Libraries and

Apparatus was $1,667,787, three-fourths of which was in the

North Atlantic and North Central Divisions. The expenditure

reported for construction and care of buildings, was

$24,224,793, of which $10,687,114 was in the North Atlantic

Division, $884,277 was in the South Atlantic Division,

$9,869,489 in the North Central Division, $770,257 in the

South Central Division, and $2,013,656 in the Western

Division. Reported estimates of the value of buildings and

other school property are incomplete, but $27,892,831 are

given for Massachusetts, $41,626,735 for New York, $35,435,412

for Pennsylvania, $32,631,549 for Ohio, $26,814,480 for

Illinois, and these are the States that stand highest in the

column.

{739}

The apparent enrollment in Public Schools for the

census year, reported to July, 1891, was as follows:

North Atlantic Division, 3,124,417;

South Atlantic Division, 1,758,285;

North Central Division,  5,032,182;

South Central Division,  2,334,694;

Western Division,          520,286;

Total for the United States, 12,769,864

being 20.39 per cent. of the population, against 19.84 per

cent. in 1880. The reported enrollment in Private Schools at

the same time was:

North Atlantic Division, 196,173;

South Atlantic Division, 165,253;

North Central Division,  187,827;

South Central Division,  200,202;

Western Division,         54,749;

Total for the United States, 804,204.

The reported enrollment in Parochial Schools was:

North Atlantic Division, 311,684;

South Atlantic Division,  30,869;

North Central Division,  398,585;

South Central Division,   41,115;

Western Division,         17,349;

Total for the United States, 799,602.

Of this total, 626,496 were  enrolled in Catholic and 151,651

in Lutheran Parochial Schools; leaving only 21,455 in the

schools of all other denominations. Total enrollment reported

in all schools 14,373,670. The colored public school

enrollment in the Southern States was 1,288,229 in 1890,

against 797,286 in 1880,--an increase of more than 61 per

cent. The enrollment of whites was 3,358,527, against

2,301,804,--an increase of nearly 46 per cent. The approximate

number of Public School-houses in the United States, for the

census year 1890 is given at 219,992, being 42,949 in the

North Atlantic Division, 32,142 in the South Atlantic

Division, 97,166 in the North Central Division, 38,962 in the

South Central Division, 8,773 in the Western Division. The

largest number reported is 14,214 in Pennsylvania. Of 6,408

school-houses in Virginia 4,568 are for white, and 1,840 for

colored children; in North Carolina, 3,973 white and 1,820

colored. The above statistics are taken in part from the

Compendium of the Eleventh Census, published in 1894, and

partly from tables courteously furnished from the Census

Bureau in advance of their publication.

EDUCATION: Modern: Reforms and Movements.

EDUCATION: A. D. 1638-1671.

Comenius.

"To know Comenius [born in Moravia, 1592] and the part he

played in the seventeenth century, to appreciate this grand

educational character, it would be necessary to begin by

relating his life; his misfortunes; his journeys to England

[1638], where Parliament invoked his aid; to Sweden [1642],

where the Chancellor Oxenstiern employed him to write manuals

of instruction; especially his relentless industry, his

courage through exile, and the long persecutions he suffered

as a member of the sect of dissenters, the Moravian Brethren;

and the schools he founded at Fulneck, in Bohemia, at Lissa

and at Patak, in Poland."

G. Compayré, The History of Pedagogy, chapter 6 (section 137).

"Comenius's inspiring motive, like that of all leading

educationalists, was social regeneration. He believed that

this could be accomplished through the school. He lived under

the hallucination that by a proper arrangement of the

subject-matter of instruction, and by a sound method, a

certain community of thought and interests would be

established among the young, which would result in social

harmony and political settlement. He believed that men could

be manufactured. ... The educational spirit of the Reformers,

the conviction that all--even the humblest--must be taught to

know God, and Jesus Christ whom he has sent, was inherited by

Comenius in its completeness. In this way, and in this way

only, could the ills of Europe be remedied, and the progress

of humanity assured. While, therefore, he sums up the

educational aim under the threefold heads of Knowledge,

Virtue, and Piety or Godliness, he in truth has mainly in view

the last two. Knowledge is of value only in so far as it forms

the only sound basis, in the eyes of a Protestant theologian,

of virtue and godliness. We have to train for a hereafter. ...

By knowledge Comenius meant knowledge of nature and of man's

relation to nature. It is this important characteristic of

Comenius's educational system that reveals the direct

influence of Bacon and his school. ... It is in the department

of Method, however, that we recognise the chief contribution

of Comenius to education. The mere attempt to systematise was

a great advance. In seeking, however, for foundations on which

to erect a coherent system, he had to content himself with

first principles which were vague and unscientific. ... In the

department of knowledge, that is to say, knowledge of the

outer world, Comenius rested his method on the scholastic

maxim, 'Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in

sensu.' This maxim he enriched with the Baconian induction,

comprehended by him only in a general way. ... From the simple

to the complex, from the particular to the general, the concrete

before the abstract, and all, step by step, and even by

insensible degrees,--these were among his leading principles

of method. But the most important of all his principles was

derived from the scholastic maxim quoted above. As all is from

sense, let the thing to be known be itself presented to the

senses, and let every sense be engaged in the perception of

it. When it is impossible, from the nature of the case, to

present the object itself, place a vivid picture of it before

the pupil. The mere enumeration of these few principles, even

if we drop out of view all his other contributions to method

and school-management, will satisfy any man familiar with all

the more recent treatises on Education, that Comenius, even

after giving his precursors their due, is to be regarded as

the true founder of modern Method, and that he anticipates

Pestalozzi and all of the same school. ... Finally, Comenius's

views as to the inner organisation of a school were original,

and have proved themselves in all essential respects correct.

The same may be said of his scheme for the organisation of a

State-system--a scheme which is substantially, mutatis

mutandis, at this moment embodied in the highly-developed

system of Germany. When we consider, then, that Comenius first

formally and fully developed educational method, that he

introduced important reforms into the teaching of languages,

that he introduced into schools the study of Nature, that he

advocated with intelligence, and not on purely sentimental

grounds, a milder discipline, we are justified in assigning to

him a high, if not the highest, place among modern educational

writers."

S. S. Laurie, John Amos Comenius, pages 217-226.

{740}

EDUCATION: A. D. 1681-1878.

The Christian Brothers.

"Any description of popular education in Europe would be

incomplete, which should not give prominence to the Institute

of the Christian Brothers--or the Brothers of the Christian

Doctrine--including in that term the earliest professional

school for the training of teachers in Europe; one of the most

remarkable body of teachers devoted exclusively and without

pay to the education of the children of the poor that the

world has ever seen. ... The Institute was established as a

professional school in 1681, and to Abbe John Baptist de la

Salle, belongs the high honor not only of founding it, but of

so infusing into its early organization his own profound

conviction of the Christ-like character of its mission among

the poor, that it has retained for nearly two centuries the

form and spirit of its origin. This devoted Christian teacher

was born at Rheims on the 30th of April, 1651. ... He was

early distinguished for his scholarly attainments and maturity

of character; and at the age of seventeen, before he had

completed his full course of theological study, he was

appointed Canon in the Cathedral church of Rheims. From the

first, he became interested in the education of the young, and

especially of the poor, as the most direct way of leading them

to a Christian life;--and with this view before he was

twenty-one years old, he assumed the direction of two

charities, devoted to female education. From watching the

operation of these schools, conducted by teachers without

professional training, without plan and without mutual

sympathy and aid, he conceived the design of bringing the

teachers of this class of schools from the neighboring

parishes into a community for their moral and professional

improvement. For this purpose, he invited them first to meet,

and then to lodge at his house, and afterwards, about the year

1681, he purchased a house for their special accommodation.

Here, out of school hours and during their holy days, they

spent their time in the practice of religious duties, and in

mutual conferences on the work in which they were engaged.

About this period, a large number of free schools for the poor

were established in the neighboring towns; and applications

were constantly made to the Abbe for teachers formed under his

training, care, and influence. To meet this demand, and make

himself more directly useful in the field of Christian

education, he resigned his benefice, that he might give his

whole attention to the work. To close the distance between

himself, having a high social position and competence from his

father's estate, and the poor schoolmasters to whom he was

constantly preaching an unreserved consecration of themselves

to their vocation--he not only resigned his canonry, with its

social and pecuniary advantages, but distributed his

patrimony, in a period of scarcity, in relieving the

necessities of the poor, and in providing for the education of

their children. He thus placed himself on a footing of

equality--as to occupation, manner of life, and entire

dependence on the charity of others--with the schoolmasters of

the poor. The annals of education or religion show but few

such examples of practical self-denial, and entire

consecration to a sense of duty. ... Having completed his act

of resignation and self-imposed poverty, he assembled his

teachers, announced to them what he had done, and sung with

them a Te Deum. After a retreat--a period set apart to prayer

and fasting-continued for seventeen days, they devoted

themselves to the consideration of the best course to give

unity, efficiency, and permanence to their plans of Christian

education for the poor. They assumed the name of 'The Brothers

of the Christian Doctrine,' as expressive of their

vocation--which by usage came to be abbreviated into

'Christian Brothers.' They took on themselves vows of poverty,

celibacy, and obedience for three years. They prescribed to

themselves the most frugal fare, to be provided in turns by

each other, They adopted at that time some rules of behavior,

which have since been incorporated into the fundamental rules

of the order. ... In 1702 the first step was taken to

establish an Institute at Rome, under the mission of one of

the brothers, Gabriel Drolin, who after years of poverty, was

made conductor of one of the charitable schools founded by

Pope Clement XI. This school became afterwards the foundation

of the house which the brothers have had in Rome since the

pontificate of Benedict XIII., who conferred on the institute

the constitution of a religious order. In 1703, under the

pecuniary aid of M. Chateau Blanc, and the countenance of the

archbishop, M. de Gontery, a school was opened at Avignon. ...

In 1789, the National Assembly prohibited vows to be made in

communities; and in 1790, suppressed all religious societies;

and in 1791, the institute was dispersed. At that date there

were one hundred and twenty houses, and over one thousand

brothers, actively engaged in the duties of the school room.

The continuity of the society was secured by the houses

established in Italy, to which many of the brothers fled. ...

In 1801, on the conclusion of a Concordat between the Pope and

the government, the society was revived in France by the

opening of a school at Lyons; and in 1815, they resumed their

habit, and opened a novitiate, the members of which were

exempt from military service. At the organization of the

university in 1808, the institute was legally reorganized, and

from that time has increased in numbers and usefulness. ... In

1842, there were 390 houses (of which 326 were in France),

with 3,030 brothers, and 585 novices. There were 642 schools

with 163,700 children, besides evening schools with 7,800

adults in attendance, and three reformatory schools with 2,000

convicts under instruction."

Henry Barnard, National Education in Europe, pages 435-441.

"In 1878 their numbers had increased to 11,640; they had 1,249

establishments, and the number of their scholars was 390,607."

Mrs. R. F. Wilson, The Christian Brothers,

their Origin and Work, chapter 21.

EDUCATION: A. D. 1762.

Rousseau.

"Rousseau, who had educated himself, and very badly at that,

was impressed with the dangers of the education of his day. A

mother having asked his advice, he took up the pen to write

it; and, little by little, his counsels grew into a book, a

large work, a pedagogic romance ['Emile']. This romance, when

it appeared in 1762, created a great noise and a great

scandal. The Archbishop of Paris, Christophe de Beaumont, saw

in it a dangerous, mischievous work, and gave himself the

trouble of writing a long encyclical letter in order to point

out the book to the reprobation of the faithful. This document

of twenty-seven chapters is a formal refutation of the

theories advanced in 'Emile.' ... In those days, such a

condemnation was a serious matter; its consequences to an

author might be terrible. Rousseau had barely time to flee.

His arrest was decreed by the parliament of Paris, and his

book was burned by the executioner. ... As a fugitive,

Rousseau did not find a safe retreat even in his own country.

{741}

He was obliged to leave Geneva, where his book was also

condemned, and Berne, where he had sought refuge, but whence

he was driven by intolerance. He owed it to the protection of

Lord Keith, governor of Neufchâtel, a principality belonging

to the King of Prussia, that he lived for some time in peace

in the little town of Motiers in the Val de Travers. ... The

renown of the book, condemned by so high an authority, was

immense. Scandal, by attracting public attention to it, did it

good service. What was most serious and most suggestive in it

was not, perhaps, seized upon; but the 'craze' of which it was

the object had, notwithstanding, good results. Mothers were

won over, and resolved to nurse their own infants; great lords

began to learn handicrafts, like Rousseau's imaginary pupil;

physical exercises came into fashion; the spirit of innovation

was forcing itself a way. ... Three men above all the rest are

noted for having popularized the pedagogic method of Rousseau,

and for having been inspired in their labors by 'Emile.' These

were Basedow, Pestalozzi, and Froebel. Basedow, a German

theologian, had devoted himself entirely to dogmatic

controversy, until the reading of 'Emile' had the effect of

enlarging his mental horizon, and of revealing to him his true

vocation. ... Pestalozzi of Zurich, one of the foremost

educators of modern times, also found his whole life

transformed by the reading of 'Emile,' which awoke in him the

genius of a reformer. ... The most distinguished among his

disciples and continuators is Froebel, the founder of those

primary schools ... known by the name of 'kindergartens,' and

the author of highly esteemed pedagogic works. These various

attempts, these new and ingenious processes which, step by

step, have made their way among us, and are beginning to make

their workings felt, even in institutions most stoutly opposed

to progress, are all traceable to Rousseau's 'Emile.' ... It

is true that 'Emile' contains pages that have outlived their

day, many odd precepts, many false ideas, many disputable and

destructive theories; but at the same time we find in it so

many sagacious observations, such upright counsels, suitable

even to modern times, so lofty an ideal, that, in spite of

everything, we cannot read and study it without profit. ...

There is absolutely nothing practicable in his [Rousseau's]

system. It consists in isolating a child from the rest of the

world; in creating expressly for him a tutor, who is a phœnix

among his kind; in depriving him of father, mother, brothers,

and sisters, his companions in study; in surrounding him with

a perpetual charlatanism, under the pretext of following

nature; and in showing him only through the veil of a

factitious atmosphere the society in which he is to live. And,

nevertheless, at each step it is sound reason by which we are

met; by an astonishing paradox, this whimsicality is full of

good sense; this dream overflows with realities; this

improbable and chimerical romance contains the substance and

the marrow of a rational and truly modern treatise on

pedagogy. Sometimes we must read between the lines, add what

experience has taught us since that day, transpose into an

atmosphere of open democracy those pages, written under the

old order of things, but even then quivering with the new

world which they were bringing to light, and for which they

prepared the way. Reading 'Emile' in the light of modern

prejudices, we can see in it more than the author wittingly

put into it; but not more than logic and the instinct of

genius set down there. To unfold the powers of children in due

proportion to their age; not to transcend their ability; to

arouse in them the sense of the observer and of the pioneer;

to make them discoverers rather than imitators: to teach them

accountability to themselves and not slavish dependence upon

the words of others; to address ourselves more to the will

than to custom, to the reason rather than to the memory; to

substitute for verbal recitations lessons about things; to

lead to theory by way of art; to assign to physical movements

and exercises a prominent place, from the earliest hours of

life up to perfect maturity; such are the principles scattered

broadcast in this book, and forming a happy counterpoise to

the oddities of which Rousseau was perhaps most proud."

J. Steeg, Introduction to Rousseau's 'Emile.'

EDUCATION: A. D. 1798-1827.

Pestalozzi.

In Switzerland, up to the end of the eighteenth century, the

state of primary instruction was very bad. "The teachers were

gathered up at hazard; their pay was wretched; in general they

had no lodgings of their own, and they were obliged to hire

themselves out for domestic service among the well-off

inhabitants of the villages, in order to find food and lodging

among them. A mean spirit of caste still dominated

instruction, and the poor remained sunk in ignorance. It was

in the very midst of this wretched and unpropitious state of

affairs that there appeared, towards the end of the eighteenth

century, the most celebrated of modern educators. ... Born at

Zurich in 1746, Pestalozzi died at Brugg in Argovia in 1827.

This unfortunate great man always felt the effects of the

sentimental and unpractical education given him by his mother,

who was left a widow with three children in 1751. He early

formed the habit of feeling and of being touched with emotion,

rather than of reasoning and of reflecting. The laughing-stock

of his companions, who made sport of his awkwardness, the

little scholar of Zurich accustomed himself to live alone and

to become a dreamer. Later, towards 1760, the student of the

academy distinguished himself by his political enthusiasm and

his revolutionary daring. At that early period he had

conceived a profound feeling for the miseries and the needs of

the people, and he already proposed as the purpose of his life

the healing of the diseases of society. At the same time there

was developed in him an irresistible taste for a simple,

frugal, and almost ascetic life. To restrain his desires had

become the essential rule of his conduct, and, to put it in

practice, he forced himself to sleep on a plank, and to

subsist on bread and vegetables."

G. Compayré, The History of Pedagogy, chapter 18.

"In spite ... of Pestalozzi's patent disqualifications in many

respects for the task he undertook; in spite of his ignorance

of even common subjects (for he spoke, read, wrote, and

cyphered badly, and knew next to nothing of classics or

science); in spite of his want of worldly wisdom, of any

comprehensive and exact knowledge of men and of things; in

spite of his being merely an elementary teacher,--through the

force of his all-conquering love, the nobility of his heart,

the resistless energy of his enthusiasm, his firm grasp of a

few first principles, his eloquent exposition of them in

words, his resolute manifestation of them in deeds,--he stands

forth among educational reformers as the man whose influence

on education is wider, deeper, more penetrating, than that of

all the rest--the prophet and the sovereign of the domain in

which he lived and laboured. ...

{742}

It was late in life--he was fifty-two years of age--before

Pestalozzi became a practical school-master. He had even begun

to despair of ever finding the career in which he might

attempt to realize the theories over which his loving heart

and teeming brain had been brooding from his earliest youth.

... At fifty-two years of age, then, we find Pestalozzi

utterly unacquainted with the science and the art of

education, and very scantily furnished even with elementary

knowledge, undertaking at Stanz, in the canton of Unterwalden,

the charge of eighty children, whom the events of war had

rendered homeless and destitute. ... The house in which the

eighty children were assembled to be boarded, lodged, and

taught, was an old tumble-down Ursuline convent, scarcely

habitable, and destitute of all the conveniences of life. The

only apartment suitable for a schoolroom was about twenty-four

feet square, furnished with a few desks and forms; and into

this were crowded the wretched children, noisy, dirty,

diseased, and ignorant, with the manners and habits of

barbarians. Pestalozzi's only helper in the management of the

institution was an old woman, who cooked the food and swept

the rooms; so that he was, as he tells us himself, not only

the teacher, but the paymaster, man-servant, and almost the

housemaid of the children. ... 'My wishes [he writes] were now

accomplished. I felt convinced that my heart would change the

condition of my children as speedily as the springtide sun

reanimates the earth frozen by the winter. Nor,' he adds, 'was

I mistaken. Before the springtide sun melted away the snow

from our mountains, you could no longer recognise the same

children.' ... 'I was obliged,' he says, 'unceasingly to be

everything to my children. I was alone with them from morning

to night. It was from my hand they received whatever could be

of service both to their bodies and minds. All succour, all

consolation, all instruction came to them immediately from

myself. Their hands were in my hand; my eyes were fixed on

theirs, my tears mingled with theirs, my smiles encountered

theirs, my soup was their soup, my drink was their drink. I

had around me neither family, friends, nor servants; I had

only them. I was with them when they were in health, by their

side when they were ill. I slept in their midst. I was the

last to go to bed, the first to rise in the morning. When we

were in bed I used to pray with them and talk to them till

they went to sleep. They wished me to do so.' ... 'I knew,' he

says, 'no system, no method, no art but that which rested on

the simple consequences of the firm belief of the children in

my love towards them. I wished to know no other.' ...

Gradually ... Pestalozzi advanced to the main principles of

his system of moral education. ... He says:--'Nature develops

all the human faculties by practice, and their growth depends

on their exercise.' 'The circle of knowledge commences close

around a man, and thence extends concentrically.' 'Force not

the faculties of children into the remote paths of knowledge,

until they have gained strength by exercise on things that are

near them.' 'There is in Nature an order and march of

development. If you disturb or interfere with it, you mar the

peace and harmony of the mind. And this you do, if, before you

have formed the mind by the progressive knowledge of the

realities of life, you fling it into the labyrinth of words,

and make them the basis of development.' 'The artificial march

of the ordinary school, anticipating the order of Nature,

which proceeds without anxiety and without haste, inverts this

order by placing words first, and thus secures a deceitful

appearance of success at the expense of natural and safe

development.' In these few sentences we recognise all that is

most characteristic in the educational principles of

Pestalozzi. ... To set the intellectual machinery in

motion--to make it work, and keep it working; that was the

sole object at which he aimed; of all the rest he took little

account. ... He relied upon a principle which must be insisted

on as cardinal and essential in education. He secured the

thorough interest of his pupils in the lesson, and mainly

through their own direct share in it. ... Observation, ...

according to Pestalozzi (and Bacon had said the same thing

before him), is the absolute basis of all knowledge, and is

therefore the prime agent in elementary education. It is

around this theory, as a centre of gravity, that Pestalozzi's

system revolves."

J. Payne, Lectures on the History of Education,

lecture. 9.

"During the short period, not more than a year, which

Pestalozzi spent among the children at Stanz, he settled the

main features of the Pestalozzian system. Sickness broke out

among the children, and the wear and tear was too great even

for Pestalozzi. He would probably have sunk under his efforts

if the French, pressed by the Austrians, had not entered

Stanz, in January, 1799, and taken part of the Ursuline

Convent for a military hospital. Pestalozzi was, therefore,

obliged to break up the school, and he himself went to a

medicinal spring on the Gurnigel in the Canton Bern. ... He

came down from the Gurnigel, and began to teach in the primary

schools (i. e., schools for children from four to eight years

old) of Burgdorf, the second town in the Canton. Here the

director was jealous of him, and he met with much opposition.

... In less than a year Pestalozzi left this school in bad

health, and joined Krüsi in opening a new school in Burgdorf

Castle, for which he afterward (1802) obtained Government aid.

Here he was assisted in carrying out his system by Krüsi,

Tobler, and Bluss. He now embodied the results of his

experience in a work which has obtained great celebrity--'How

Gertrude Teaches her Children' [also published in England

under the title of 'Leonard and Gertrude]. In 1802 Pestalozzi,

for once in his life a successful and popular man, was elected

a member of a deputation sent by the Swiss people to Paris. On

the restoration of the Cantons in 1804. the Castle of Burgdorf

was again occupied by one of the chief magistrates, and

Pestalozzi and his establishment were moved to the Monastery

of Buchsee. Here the teachers gave the principal direction to

another, the since celebrated Fellenburg, 'not without my

consent,' says Pestalozzi, 'but to my profound mortification.'

He therefore soon accepted an invitation from the inhabitants

of Yverdun to open an institution there, and within a

twelvemonth he was followed by his old assistants, who had

found government by Fellenburg less to their taste than

no-government by Pestalozzi.

{743}

The Yverdun Institute had soon a world-wide reputation.

Pestalozzian teachers went from it to Madrid, to Naples, to

St. Petersburg. Kings and philosophers joined in doing it

honor. But, as Pestalozzi himself has testified, these praises

were but as a laurel-wreath encircling a skull. The life of

the Pestalozzian institutions had been the love which the old

man had infused into all the members, teachers as well as

children; but this life was wanting at Yverdun. The

establishment was much too large to be carried on successfully

without more method and discipline than Pestalozzi,

remarkable, as he himself says, for his 'unrivalled incapacity

to govern,' was master of. The assistants began each to take

his own line, and even the outward show of unity was soon at

an end. ... Thus the sun went down in clouds, and the old man,

when he died at the age of eighty, in 1827, had seen the

apparent failure of all his toils. He had not, however, failed

in reality. It has been said of him that his true fortune was

to educate ideas, not children, and when twenty years later

the centenary of his birth was celebrated by school-masters,

not only in his native country, but throughout Germany, it was

found that Pestalozzian ideas had been sown, and were bearing

fruit, over the greater part of central Europe."

R. H. Quick, Essays on Educational Reformers, chapter 8.

EDUCATION: A. D. 1804-1891.

Co-education and the Higher Education of

Women in the United States.

"When to a few daring minds the conviction came that education

was a right of personality rather than of sex, and when there

was added to this growing sentiment the pressing demand for

educated women as teachers and as leaders in philanthropy, the

simplest means of equipping women with the needful preparation

was found in the existing schools and colleges. ... In nearly

every State west of the Alleghanies, 'Universities' had been

founded by the voluntary tax of the whole population.

Connected with all the more powerful religious denominations

were schools and colleges which called upon their adherents

for gifts and students. These democratic institutions had the

vigor of youth, and were ambitious and struggling. 'Why,'

asked the practical men of affairs who controlled them,

'should not our daughters go on with our sons from the public

schools to the university which we are sacrificing to equip

and maintain?' It is not strange that with this and much more

practical reasoning of a similar kind, co-education was

established in some colleges at their beginning, in others

after debate, and by a radical change in policy. When once the

chivalrous desire was aroused to give girls as good an

education as their brothers, Western men carried out the

principle unflinchingly. From the kindergarten to the

preparation for the doctorate of philosophy, educational

opportunities are now practically alike for men and women. The

total number of colleges of arts and sciences empowered by law

to give degrees, reporting to Washington in 1888, was three

hundred and eighty-nine. Of these, two hundred and

thirty-seven, or nearly two-thirds, were co-educational. Among

them are nearly all the State universities, and nearly all the

colleges under the patronage of the Protestant sects. Hitherto

I have spoken as if co-education were a Western movement; and

in the West it certainly has had greater currency than

elsewhere. But it originated, at least so far as concerns

superior secondary training, in Massachusetts. Bradford

Academy, chartered in 1804, is the oldest incorporated

institution in the country to which boys and girls were from

the first admitted; but it closed its department for boys in

1836, three years after the foundation of co-educational

Oberlin, and in the very year when Mount Holyoke was opened by

Mary Lyon, in the large hope of doing for young women what

Harvard had been founded to do for young men just two hundred

years before. Ipswich and Abbot Academies in Massachusetts had

already been chartered to educate girls alone. It has been the

dominant sentiment in the East that boys and girls should be

educated separately. The older, more generously endowed, more

conservative seats of learning, inheriting the complications

of the dormitory system, have remained closed to women. ... In

the short period of the twenty years after the war the four

women's colleges which are the richest in endowments and

students of any in the world were founded and set in motion.

These colleges--Vassar, opened in 1865, Wellesley and Smith in

1875, and Bryn Mawr in 1885--have received in gifts of every

kind about $6,000,000, and are educating nearly two thousand

students. For the whole country the Commissioner of Education

reports two hundred and seven institutions for the superior

instruction of women, with more than twenty-five, thousand

students. But these resources proved inadequate. There came an

increasing demand, especially from teachers, for education of

all sorts. ... In an attempt to meet a demand of this sort the

Harvard Annex began twelve years ago [in 1879] to provide a

few women with instruction from members of the Harvard

faculty. ... Barnard College in New York is an annex of

Columbia only in a sense, for not all her instruction is given

by Columbia's teaching force, though Columbia will confer

degrees upon her graduates. The new woman's college at

Cleveland sustains temporarily the same relations to, Adelbert

College, though to a still greater extent she provides

independent instruction."

A. F. Palmer, Review of the Higher Education of Women

(Woman and the Higher Education, pages 105-127).

"The Cleveland College for Women, Cleveland, Ohio, was first

opened for instruction in 1888 as a department of Western

Reserve University. At the same time the trustees of the

university decided to receive no more women into Adelbert

College. That the success of the new school might be assured,

the faculty of Adelbert College generously offered their

services for a term of years as instructors. During the first

year twenty-three young women were admitted, but two of whom

were in the regular courses. During 1889-90 the number of

students increased to thirty-eight. ... In 1887 Evelyn

College, an institution for women, was opened at Princeton, N.

J. Its location at this place gives the institution very great

advantages, inasmuch as the use of the libraries and museums

of the College of New Jersey, popularly known as Princeton

College, are granted to the students."

U. S. Commissioner of Education, Report,

1889-90, volume 2, page 744.

{744}

"The latest report of the United States Commissioner of

Education contains over two hundred institutions for the

superior education of women. The list includes colleges and

seminaries entitled to confer degrees, and a few seminaries,

whose work is of equal merit, which do not give degrees. Of

these more than two hundred institutions for the education of

women exclusively, only 47 are situated within [western

states]. ... Of these 47, but 30 are chartered with authority

to confer degrees. ... The extent to which the higher

education of women is in the West identified with

co-education, can be seen by comparing the two statements

above given. Of the total 212 higher institutions receiving

women, and of the total 195 such institutions which confer the

regular degrees in arts, science, and letters, upon their

graduates, 165 are co-educational. ... Among colleges

characterized from birth by a liberal and progressive spirit

may be mentioned 'The Cincinnati Wesleyan Woman's College.'

This institution was chartered in 1842, and claims to be 'the

first liberal collegiate institution in the world for the

exclusive education of women.' ... The West is committed to

co-education, excepting only the Roman Catholic, the Lutheran,

and the Protestant Episcopal sects,--which are not yet, as

sects, committed to the collegiate education of women at

all,--and the Presbyterian sect, whose support, in the West,

of 14 co-educational colleges against 4 for the separate

education of young men, almost commits it to the

co-educational idea. ... In 1853, Antioch College was opened

at Yellow Springs, Ohio. It was the first endeavor in the West

to found a college under Christian but non-sectarian auspices.

Its president, Horace Mann, wrote of it: 'Antioch is now the

only first-class college in all the West that is really an

unsectarian institution.' ... Antioch was from the first

avowedly co-educational."

M. W. Sewall, Education of Women in the Western

States (Woman's Work in America, pages 61-70).

"Most people would probably be ready to say that except for

the newly founded Woman's College in Baltimore and Tulane

University [State university of Louisiana], the collegiate

education of women does not exist in the South. But as matter

of fact, there are no less than one hundred and fifty

institutions in the South which are authorized by the

Legislatures of their respective States to confer the regular

college degrees upon women. Of these, forty-one are

co-educational, eighty-eight are for women alone, and

twenty-one are for colored persons of both sexes. The bureau

of education makes no attempt to go behind the verdict of the

State Legislatures, but on looking over the catalogues of all

these institutions it is, as might have been expected, easy to

see that the great majority of them are not in any degree

colleges, in the ordinary sense of the word. Not a single one

of the so-called female colleges presents a real college

course, and many of the co-educational colleges are colleges

only in name."

C. L. Franklin, Education of Women in the Southern

States (Woman's Work in America, pages 93-94).

EDUCATION: A. D. 1816-1892,

Froebel and the Kindergarten.

"Frœbel (Friedrich Wilhelm August) was born April 21, 1782, at

Oberweissbach, in the principality of Schwanburg-Rudolstadt.

His mother died when he was so young that he never even

remembered her; and he was left to the care of an ignorant

maid-of-all-work, who simply provided for his bodily wants.

... Not until he was ten years of age did he receive the

slightest regular instruction. He was then sent to school, to

an uncle who lived in the neighborhood, ... He pronounced the

boy to be idle (which, from his point of view, was quite true)

and lazy (which certainly was not true)--a boy, in short, that

you could do nothing with. ... It was necessary for him to

earn his bread, and we next find him a sort of apprentice to a

woodsman in the great Thuringian forest. Here, as he afterward

tells us, he lived some years in cordial intercourse with

nature and mathematics, learning even then, though

unconsciously, from the teaching he received, how to teach

others. ... In 1801 he went to the University of Jena, where

he attended lectures on natural history, physics, and

mathematics; but, as he tells us, gained little from them. ...

This ... was put an end to by the failure of means to stay at

the University. For the next few years he tried various

occupations. ... While engaged in an architect's office at

Frankfort, he formed an acquaintance with the Rector of the

Model School, a man named Gruner. Gruner saw the capabilities

of Frœbel, and detected also his entire want of interest in

the work that he was doing; and one day suddenly said to him:

'Give up your architect's business; you will do nothing at it.

Be a teacher. We want one now in the school; you shall have

the place.' This was the turning point in Frœbel's life. He

accepted the engagement, began work at once, and tells us that

the first time he found himself in the midst of a class of 30

or 40 boys, he felt that he was in the element that he had

missed so long--'the fish was in the water.' He was

inexpressibly happy. ... In a calmer mood he severely

questioned himself as to the means by which he was to satisfy

the demands of his new position. About this time he met with

some of Pestalozzi's writings, which so deeply impressed him

that he determined to go to Yverdun and study Pestalozzi on

the spot. He accomplished his purpose, and lived and worked

for two years with Pestalozzi. His experience at Yverdun

impressed him with the conviction that the science of

education had still to draw out from Pestalozzi's system those

fundamental principles which Pestalozzi himself did not

comprehend. 'And therefore,' says Schmidt, 'this genial

disciple of Pestalozzi supplemented his system by advancing

from the point which Pestalozzi had reached through pressure

from without, to the innermost conception of man, and arriving

at the thought of the true development and culture of

mankind.' ... His educational career commenced November 13th,

1816, in Greisheim, a little village near Stadt-Ilm, in

Thuringia; but in 1817, when his Pestalozzian friend,

Middendorf, joined him ... the school was transferred to the

beautiful village of Keilhau, near Rudolstadt, which may be

considered as his chief starting-place. ... Langenthal,

another Pestalozzian, associated himself with them, and they

commenced building a house. The number of pupils rose to

twelve in 1818. Then the daughter of war-counselor Hoffman of

Berlin, from enthusiasm for Frœbel's educational ideas, became

his wife. She had a considerable dowry, which, together with

the accession of Frœbel's elder brother, increased the funds

and welfare of the school. In 1831 he was invited by the

composer, Schnyder von Wartensee, to erect a similar garden on

his estate, near the lake of Sempach, in the canton Luzern. It

was done. Frœbel changed his residence the next year, from

Keilhau to Switzerland. In,1834 the government of Bern invited

him to arrange a training course for teachers in Burgdorf. In

1835 he became principal of the orphan asylum in Burgdorf, but

in 1836 he and his wife wished to return to Germany. There he

was active in Berlin, Keilhau, Blankenburg, Dresden,

Liebenstein in Thuringia, Hamburg, (1849,) and Marienthal,

near Liebenstein, where he lived until his decease in 1852,

among the young ladies, whom he trained as nurses for the

kindergarten, and the little children who attended his

school."

H. Barnard, editor, Papers on Froebel's Kindergarten:

Memoir.

{745}

"The child thinks only through symbols. In other words, it

explains all it sees not by the recorded experience of others,

as does an adult, but by marshaling and comparing its own

concept or symbol of what it has itself seen. Its sole

activity is play. 'The school begins with teaching the

conventionalities of intelligence. Froebel would have the

younger children receive a symbolic education in plays, games,

and occupations which symbolize the primitive arts of man.'

For this purpose, the child is led through a series of

primitive occupations in plaiting, weaving, and modeling,

through games and dances, which bring into play all the social

relations, and through songs and the simple use of number,

form and language. The 'gifts' all play their manifold

purpose, inspiring the child, awakening its interest, leading

the individual along the path the race has trod, and teaching

social self-control. The system has its palpable dangers. The

better and more intricate the tool, the more skill needed in

its safe use. ... The kindergarten requires trained hands.

With trivial teachers its methods may easily degenerate into

mere amusement, and thwart all tendency to attention,

application, or industry. Valuable as it is in its hints for

the care and development of children, its gay round needs to

be ballasted with the purpose and theory uppermost in

Froebel's mind when he opened his first school in a German

peasant village, down whose main street a brook tumbled, and

through whose lanes the halberdier still walked by night and

sang the hours. It is idle to suppose that Froebel founded a

perfect system, or to insist on all the details of the

professional kindergartner's creed. Here as elsewhere, and

aforetime, it has taken only forty years from the founder's

death for faith to degenerate into religion and sect. But the

central purpose he had in view must be steadily maintained. He

sought his ends through play, and not through work. It is as

dangerous for this method to harden into an approach to the

primary school as it is for it to soften into a riot of

misrule, and lax observance of order. ... Switzerland, then

the only republic in Europe, was the first country to adopt

Froebel's method, though in some Swiss towns the kindergarten

is still supported by private associations. France, another

republic, has more children beginning school under an

adaptation of Froebel than all the rest of the world put

together. It was Froebel's own opinion that 'the spirit of

American nationality was the only one in the world with which

his method was in complete harmony, and to which its

legitimate institutions would present no barriers.' The

figures given below of the growth of the kindergarten in this

country are the best possible proof of the truth of Froebel's

prescient assertion. ... In 1870 there were in this country

only five kindergarten schools, and in 1872 the National

Education Association at its Boston meeting appointed a

committee which reported a year later recommending the system.

Between 1870 and 1873, experimental kindergartens were

established in Boston, Cleveland, and St. Louis, public

attention was enlisted by the efforts of Miss Elizabeth Palmer

Peabody, the most important worker in the early history of the

kindergarten in this country, and the system began a rapid

growth. Taking private and public kindergartens together, the

advance of the system has displayed this most rapid progress:

1875    1880     1885   1891-2

Schools.       95     232      413    1,001

Teachers.     216     524      902    2,242

Pupils.     2,809   8,871   18,780   50,423

Down to 1880, these figures, outside of St. Louis, relate

almost altogether to private schools. By 1885 the public

kindergartens were not over a fifth in number of the schools,

and held not over a fourth of the pupils. In the figures last

given in this table there are 724 private kindergartens with

1,517 teachers and 29,357 pupils, and 277 public kindergartens

with 725 teachers and 21,066 pupils, so that the latter have

now 27 per cent. of the schools, 33 per cent. of the teachers,

and 42 per cent. of the pupils. ... Yet great as is this

advance, the kindergarten as yet plays but an infinitesimal

part in our educational system as a whole. ... Of the sixteen

American cities with a population of over 200,000 in 1890,

only four--Philadelphia, Boston, Milwaukee, and St. Louis

have incorporated the kindergarten on any large scale in their

public-school systems. Four more--New York, Chicago, Brooklyn,

and Buffalo--have kindergarten associations organized to

introduce the new method as a part of free public education."

T. Williams, The Kindergarten Movement

(The Century, January, 1893).

EDUCATION: A. D. 1865-1883.

The Higher Education of Women in England.

The movement in England to secure a higher education for women

dates from 1865. "In that year a Royal Commission was

appointed to inquire into and report on the endowed grammar

schools of England and Wales, and on what is called

'secondary' education generally. Several ladies who were

already alive to the deficiencies in the education of their

own sex, memorialized this Commission to extend the scope of

its inquiry to girls' schools, and the Commission taking what

was then thought quite a bold step, consented to do so. ...

One of the points brought out was the absence of any

institutions doing for women what the universities did for

men, and the consequent difficulty in which women stood of

obtaining the highest kind of education--a difficulty which

told on girls' schools by making it hard for them to procure

thoroughly competent mistresses. This led in the course of the

next year or two--the report of the Commission having been

published in 1868--to the establishment of a college for

women, which was first placed at Hitchin, a town on the Great

Northern Railway, between London and Cambridge, and in a

little while, when money had been collected sufficient for the

erection of buildings, this college was finally settled at

Girton, a spot about two miles from Cambridge, whence it takes

the name of Girton College. Its purpose was to provide for

women the same teaching in the same subjects as men receive in

Cambridge University, and the teachers were nearly all of them

professors or tutors there, men in some cases of high

eminence.

{746}

Meanwhile, in Cambridge itself, a system of day classes for

women, taught by University teachers, had been created, at

first as an experiment for one year only. When several years

had passed, when the number attending had increased, and it

was found that women came to lodge in Cambridge in order to

profit by these lectures, a house was hired in which to

receive them, and ultimately a company was formed and a

building erected a little way out of Cambridge, under the name

of Newnham Hall, to which the lectures, now mainly designed

for these students coming from a distance, were attached.

Thus, at about the same time, though from somewhat different

origins, Girton and Newnham came into being and began their

course of friendly rivalry. Both have greatly developed since

then. Their buildings have been repeatedly enlarged. Their

numbers have risen steadily. ... In Girton the charge for

lodging, board and instruction is £100 per annum, in Newnham a

little less. The life in both is very similar, a lady being

placed at the head as resident principal, while the affairs

are managed by a committee including both men and women. The

lectures are delivered partly by Cambridge men, professors in

the University, or tutors or lecturers in some of the

colleges, partly by ladies, who, having once been students

themselves, have come back as teachers. These lectures cover

all the subjects required in the degree examinations of the

University; and although students are not obliged to enter

themselves for those examinations, they are encouraged to do

so, and do mostly set the examinations before them as their

goal. Originally the University took no official notice of the

women students, and their being examined by the regular degree

examiners of the University was a matter of pure favor on the

part of those gentlemen. ... At last, however, some examiners

came into office (for the examiners are changed every two

years) who disapproved of this informal examination of the

women candidates, and accordingly a proposal was made to the

University that it should formally authorize and impose on the

examiners the function heretofore discharged by them in their

individual capacity. This proposal, after some discussion and

opposition, was carried, so that now women may enter both for

the honor examinations and the pass examinations for the

University degree as a matter of right. Their names do not

appear in the official lists among those of the men, but

separately; they are, however, tested by the same question

papers and judged by the same standard. ... Some Oxford

graduates and their friends, stimulated by the success of

Girton and Newnham, have founded two similar institutions in

Oxford, one of which, Episcopalian and indeed High Church in

its proclivities, is called Lady Margaret Hall, while the

other, in compliment to the late Mrs. Somerville, has been

given the title of Somerville Hall. These establishments are

conducted on much the same lines as the two Cambridge

colleges. ... In the large towns where new colleges have been

lately founded or courses of lectures established, such as

Manchester, Liverpool, and Leeds, steps are usually taken to

provide lectures for women. ... What is called among you the

question of co-education has come up very little in England.

All the lectures given inside the walls of the four English

colleges I have mentioned are, of course, given to women only,

the colleges being just as exclusively places for women as

Trinity and St. John's are places for men. ... At this moment

the principal of one of the two halls of which Newnham

consists is a daughter of the Prime Minister [Miss Helen

Gladstone], while her predecessor was a niece of the Marquis

of Salisbury. The principal of Girton is a niece of the late

Lord Lawrence, the famous Governor-General of India. Of the

students a fair proportion belong to the wealthy classes,

while a somewhat larger proportion mean to take teaching as

their profession."

Progress of Female Education in England.

(Nation, July 5, 1883).

See, also, above, SCOTLAND.

EDUCATION: A. D. 1865-1886.

Industrial Education in the United States.

"In 1865 John Boynton of Templeton, Mass., gave $100,000 for

the endowment and perpetual support of a Free Institute for

the youth of Worcester County, Mass. He thus explained his

objects: 'The aim of this school shall ever be the instruction

of youth in those branches of education not usually taught in

the public schools, which are essential and best adapted to

train the young for practical life'; especially such as were

intending to be mechanics, or manufacturers, or farmers. In

furtherance of this object, ten months later, in 1866, Ichabod

Washburn of Worcester gave $25,000, and later $50,000 more to

erect, equip, and endow a machine-shop which should

accommodate twenty apprentices and a suitable number of

skilled workmen to instruct them and to carry on the shop as a

commercial establishment. The apprentices were to be taught

the use of tools in working wood and metals, and to be

otherwise instructed, much as was customary fifty years ago

for boys learning a trade. The Worcester Free Institute was

opened for students in November, 1868, as a technical school

of about college grade; and the use of the shops and shop

instruction was limited to those students in the course of

mechanical engineering. Thus did the Worcester School under

the leadership of Prest. C. O. Thompson incorporate

tool-instruction and shop-practice into the training of

mechanical engineers. ... In the same year, 1868, Victor

Della-Vos introduced into the Imperial Technical (engineering)

School at Moscow the Russian method of class-instruction in

the use of tools. ... The great value of the work of Della-Vos

lay in the discovery of the true method of tool-instruction,

for without his discovery the later steps would have been

impossible. In 1870, under the direction of Professor Robinson and

Prest. J. M. Gregory of the University of Illinois, a

wood-working shop was added to the appliances for the course

in architecture, and an iron-working shop to the course in

mechanical engineering in that institution. In 1871, the

Stevens Institute of Hoboken, N. J., munificently endowed by

Edwin A. Stevens, as a school of mechanical engineering,

fitted up a series of shops for the use of its students. The

next step forward was taken by Washington University in St.

Louis in providing for all its engineering students systematic

instruction in both wood and metals. In 1872, a large shop in the

Polytechnic School was equipped with work-benches, two lathes,

a forge, a gear-cutter and full sets of carpenters',

machinists', and forging tools. ...

{747}

Thus far had we progressed when the Philadelphia Exposition of

1876 was opened. None of us knew anything of the Moscow

school, or of the one in Bohemia in which the Russian method

had been adopted in 1874. ... In his report of 1876, Prest. J.

D. Runkle, of the Mass. Institute of Technology, gave a full

exposition of the theory and practice of tool-instruction of

Della-Vos as exhibited at the Philadelphia Exposition, and he

recommended that without delay the course in mechanical

engineering at the Institute be completed by the addition of a

series of Instruction Shops. The suggestion was acted on, and

in the spring of 1877 a class of mechanical engineering

students was given instruction in chipping and filing. ... The

St. Louis Manual Training School was established June 6, 1879.

It embodied hopes long cherished and plans long formed. For

the first time in America the age of admission to school-shops

was reduced to fourteen years as a minimum, and a very general

three-years' course of study was organized. The ordinance by

which the school was established specified its objects in very

general terms:--'Its objects shall be instruction in

mathematics, drawing, and the English branches of a

high-school course, and instruction and practice in the use of

tools. The tool-instruction, as at present contemplated, shall

include carpentry, wood-turning, pattern-making, iron clipping

and filing, forge-work, brazing and soldering, the use of

machine-shop tools, and such other instruction of a similar

character, its it may be deemed advisable to add to the

foregoing from time to time. The students will divide their

working hours, as nearly as possible, equally between mental

and manual exercises.' ... The Baltimore Manual Training

School, a public school, on the same footing as the high

school, was opened in 1883. The Chicago Manual Training

School, established as an incorporated school by the

Commercial Club of that city, was opened in January, 1884. ...

Manual training was introduced into the high school of Eau

Claire, Wisconsin, in 1884. The 'Scott Manual Training School'

was organized as a part of the high school of Toledo in 1884.

... Manual training was introduced into the College (high

school) of the City of New York in 1884. The Philadelphia

Manual Training School, a public high school, was opened in

September, 1885. The Omaha high school introduced manual

training in 1885. ... Dr. Adler's Workingman's School for poor

children has for several years taught manual training to the

very lowest grades. ... The Cleveland Manual Training School

was incorporated in 1885, and opened in connection with the

city high school, in 1886. New Haven, which had for some time

encouraged the use of tools by the pupils of several of its

grammar schools, in September, 1886, opened a regular shop and

furnished systematic instruction in tool-work. The school

board of Chicago added manual training to the course of the

'West Side High School' in September, 1886."

C. M. Woodward, The Manual Training School, chapter 1.

"Concerning the manual-training school there are two widely

different views. The one insists that it shall teach no trade,

but the rudiments of all of them; the other that the

particular industries may properly be held to maintain schools

to recruit their own ranks. The first would teach the use of

the axe, the saw, the plane, the hammer, the square, the

chisel, and the file; claiming that 'the graduate from such a

course at the end of three years is within from one to three

months of knowing quite as thoroughly as an apprentice who had

served seven years any one of the twenty trades to which he

may choose to turn.' Of this class are, besides most of those

already named, the Haish Manual Training School of Denver;

that of Tulane University, New Orleans; the Felix Adler's

'Workingman's School, of New York City; and the School of

Manual Technology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville. Among

schools of the second class are some interesting institutions.

They include the numerous general and special trade-schools

for boys, instruction in the manifold phases of domestic

economy for girls, and the yet small but rapidly growing class

of industries open alike to both. Sewing is taught in public

or private schools in Baltimore, Boston, Cincinnati, Chicago,

New York, Philadelphia, Providence, St. Louis, and about a

dozen other cities, besides in a number of special

institutions. Cooking-schools are no longer a novelty in half

as many of the larger cities, since their introduction into

New York city in 1876. Printing may be learned in the Kansas

Agricultural College; Cooper Union, New York; Girard College,

Philadelphia, and elsewhere. Telegraphy, stenography,

wood-engraving, various kinds of smithing, and carpentry,

have, especially the last two, numerous representatives. The

New York Kitchen Garden, for the instruction of children in

the work of the household, is an interesting modification of

the Kindergarten along the industrial line. For young ladies,

the Elizabeth Aull Seminary, Lexington, Missouri, is a school

of home-work, in which 'are practically taught the mysteries

of the kitchen and laundry,' and upon whose graduates is

conferred the degree of 'Mistress of Home-Work.' The Lasell

Seminary at Auburndale, Massachusetts, also has recently

(1885) undertaken a similar but more comprehensive experiment,

including lessons and lectures in anatomy and physiology, with

hygiene and sanitation, the principles of common law by an

eminent attorney, instruction and practice in the arts of

domestic life, the principles of dress, artistic

house-furnishing, healthy homes, and cooking. Of

training-schools for nurses there are thirty-one. ... Of

schools of a different character still, there have been or are

the Carriage Builder's Apprenticeship School, New York; those

of Hoe & Co., printing-press manufacturers; and Tiffany & Co.,

jewelers; and the Tailors' 'Trades School' recently

established and flourishing in Baltimore, besides the

Pennsylvania Railroad novitiate system, at Altoona; in which

particular trades or guilds or corporations have sought to

provide themselves with a distinct and specially trained class

of artisans. The latest and in some respects the most

interesting experiment of the kind is that of the 'Baltimore

and Ohio Railroad service' at Mt. Clare, Baltimore. It was

inaugurated in 1885, apprentices being selected from

applicants by competitive examination."

R. G. Boone, Education in the United States, chapter 13.

{748}

EDUCATION: A. D. 1873-1889.

University Extension in England.

"The University Extension Movement, which has now been before

the country eighteen years, has revealed the existence of a

real need for larger opportunities of higher education amongst

the middle and working classes. From the time of its

inauguration in 1873 by the University of Cambridge, owing

mainly to the enthusiastic advocacy and skill in practical

affairs of Mr. James Stuart (at that time Fellow and Lecturer

of Trinity College), down to the present day, when the

principle has been accepted by all the Universities in Great

Britain and by some in countries beyond the seas, the movement

has shown marvellous vitality and power of adjustment to

changing conditions. From a small beginning in three towns in

the Midlands, it has grown until the centres in connection

with the various branches are to be numbered by hundreds and

the students by tens of thousands. The success attained by

Cambridge in the first three years led, in 1876, to the

formation of the London Society for the Extension of

University Teaching, for the express purpose of carrying on

similar work within the metropolitan area. In 1878 the

University of Oxford undertook to make similar arrangements

for Lectures, but after a year or two, they were for the time

abandoned. Subsequently in 1885 the Oxford work was revived

and has since been carried on with vigour and success. The

University of Durham is associated with Cambridge in this work

in the northeast of England, while courses of Lectures on the

Extension plan have been given for several years in connection

with Victoria University in centres around Manchester. Two or

three years ago the four Scottish Universities united in

forming a like scheme for Scotland, while at the close of 1889

a Society for the Extension of University Teaching was formed

in the north of Ireland. Finally the movement has spread to

Greater Britain and the United States, and there are signs

that work on similar lines is about to be established in

various countries on the continent of Europe."

R. D. Roberts, Eighteen years of University Extension,

chapter 1.

"One of the chief characteristics of the system is the method

of teaching adopted in connection with it. A working man at

one of the centres in the north of England who had attended

the lectures for several terms, described the method as

follows in a paper read by him at a meeting:--

'Any town or village which is prepared to provide an audience,

and pay the necessary fees, can secure a course of twelve

lectures on any subject taught in the University, by a

lecturer who has been educated at the University, and who is

specially fitted for lecturing work. A syllabus of the course

is printed and put into the hands of students. This syllabus

is a great help to persons not accustomed to note-taking.

Questions are given on each lecture, and written answers can

be sent in by anyone, irrespective of age or sex. All the

lectures, except the first, are preceded by a class, which

lasts about an hour. In this class the students and the

lecturer talk over the previous lecture. The written answers

are returned with such corrections as the lecturer deems

necessary. At the end of the course an examination is held and

certificates are awarded to the successful candidates. These

lectures are called University Extension Lectures.'

Another definition which has been given is this:

'Advanced systematic teaching for the people, without

distinction of rank, sex, or age, given by means of lectures,

classes, and written papers during a connected course,

conducted by men "who believe in their work, and intend to do

it," teachers who connect the country with the University by

manner, method, and information.'"

R. D. Roberts, The University Extension Scheme, pages 6-7.

EDUCATION: A. D. 1887-1892.

University Extension in the United States.

"The first conscious attempts to introduce English University

Extension methods into this country were made in 1887, by

individuals connected with the Johns Hopkins University. The

subject was first publicly presented to the American Library

Association at their meeting upon one of the Thousand Islands

in September, 1887. The idea was heartily approved," and the

first result of the suggestion was a course of lectures on

economic questions given in one of the lecture-rooms of the

Buffalo Library the following winter by Dr. Edward W. Bemis.

The next winter "Dr. Bemis repeated his course on 'Economic

Questions of the Day' in Canton, Ohio. ... The Canton

experiment was followed in February, 1889, by another course,

conducted by Dr. Bemis, in connection with the Public Library

at St. Louis. ... About the time when these various

experiments were being tried in St. Louis, Canton, and

Buffalo, individual members of Johns Hopkins University were

attempting to introduce University Extension methods in

connection with local lectures in the city of Baltimore. ...

The idea of University Extension in connection with Chautauqua

was conceived by Dr. J. H. Vincent during a visit to England,

in 1886, when he saw the English lecture system in practical

operation and his own methods of encouraging home reading in

growing favor with university men. The first definite American

plan, showing at once the aims, methods, cost, and history, of

University Extension lectures, was drawn up at Chautauqua by

the writer of this article in the early summer of 1888. ...

Contemporary with the development of Chautauqua College and

University Extension was the plan of Mr. Seth T. Stewart, of

Brooklyn, New York, for 'University and School Extension.' ...

Several public meetings were held in New York in 1889-90 for

the promotion of University and School Extension. ... One of

the most gratifying recent experiments in University Extension

in America has been in the city of Philadelphia under the

auspices of the American Society for the Extension of

University Teaching. At various local centres Mr. Richard G.

Moulton, one of the most experienced lecturers from Cambridge,

England, lectured for ten weeks in the winter and spring of

1891 to large and enthusiastic audiences. All the essential

features of English University Extension were methodically and

persistently carried out. ... The American field for

University Extension is too vast for the missionary labors of

any one society or organization. ... The most significant sign

of the times with regard to University Extension in America is

the recent appropriation of the sum of $10,000 for this very

object by the New York legislature. The money is to be

expended under the direction of the Regents of the University

of the State of New York. ... The intention of the New York

act is simply to provide the necessary means for organizing a

State system of University Extension ... and to render such

general assistance and co-operation as localities may

require."

H. B. Adams, University Extension in America,

(Forum, July, 1891).

On the opening, in 1892, of the Chicago University,

munificently endowed by Mr. John D. Rockefeller, of Cleveland,

University Extension was made one of the three grand divisions

of its organization.

{749}

EDWARD,

King of Portugal,

A. D. 1433-1438..

Edward, called the Confessor, King of England,

A. D. 1042-1065.

Edward, called the Elder, King of Wessex,

A. D. 901-925.

Edward, called the Martyr, King of Wessex,

A. D. 975.

Edward I., King of England,

A. D. 1274-1307.

Edward II., King of England,

A. D. 1307-1327.

Edward III., King of England,

A. D. 1327-1377.

Edward V., King of England (first king of the House of York),

A. D. 1461-1483.

Edward V., titular King of England,

A. D. 1483 (from April 9, when his father, Edward IV.,

died, until June 22, when he is believed to have been

murdered in the Tower by command of his uncle, the usurper,

Richard III.).

Edward VI., King of England,

A. D. 1547-1553.

EDWARD, Fort: A. D. 1755.

Built by the New England troops.

See CANADA: A. D. 1755 (SEPTEMBER).

EDWARD, Fort: A. D. 1717.

Abandoned to the British.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A. D.1777(JULY-OCTOBER).

----------EDWARD, Fort: End----------

EDWIG, King of Wessex, A. D. 955-957.

EDWIN, King of Northumbria, A. D. 617-633.

Egesta.

See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413;

and SICILY: B. C. 409-405.

EGFRITH, King of Northumbria, A. D. 670-685.

EGINA.--EGINETANS.

See ÆGINA.

EGMONT, Count, and the struggle in the Netherlands.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1562-1566, and 1566-1568.

EGNATIAN WAY, The.

A Roman road constructed from Apollonia on the Adriatic to the

shores of the Hellespont; finally carried to Byzantium.

EGRA: A. D. 1647.

Siege and capture by the Swedes.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1646-1648.

EGYPT:

Its Names.

"Egypt is designated in the old inscriptions, as well as in

the books of the later Christian Egyptians, by a word which

signifies 'the black land,' and which is read in the Egyptian

language Kern, or Kami."

[Footnote: Kamit in the edition of 1891.]

"The ancients had early remarked that the cultivable land of

Egypt was distinguished by its dark and almost black colour.

... The neighbouring region of the Arabian desert bore the

name of Tesher, or the red land. ... The Egyptians designated

themselves simply as 'the people of the black land,' and ...

the inscriptions, so far as we know, have handed down to us no

other appellation. ... A real enigma is proposed to us in the

derivation and meaning of the curious proper name, by which

the foreign peoples of Asia, each in its own dialect, were

accustomed to designate Egypt. The Hebrews gave the land the

name of Mizraim; the Assyrians Muzur; the Persians, Mudraya.

We may feel assured that at the basis of all these

designations there lies an original form which consisted of

the three letters M-z-r, all explanations of which have been

as yet unsuccessful. Although I intend hereafter to consider

more particularly the derivation of this puzzling name, which

is still preserved at the present day in the Arabic

appellation Misr, I will here premise the remark that this

name was originally applied only to a certain definite part of

Egypt, in the east of the Delta, which, according to the

monuments, was covered and defended by many 'zor,' or

fortresses, and was hence called in Egyptian Mazor (that is,

fortified)."

H. Brugsch-Bey, History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,

chapter 2.

"Brugsch explains the name Egypt by 'ha-ka-ptah,' i. e. 'the

precinct of Ptah.' As Ptah was more especially the god of

Memphis, this name would have come from Memphis."

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 1, chapter 1, note.

"The last use of Kem died out in the form Chemi in Coptic, the

descendant of the classical language, which ceased to be

spoken a century ago. It survives among us in the terms

'chemistry' and 'alchemy,' sciences thought to be of Egyptian

origin."

R. S. Poole, Cities of Egypt, introduction.

EGYPT:

Its Historical Antiquity.

The lists of Egyptian kings which have been found "agree in

presenting the name of Mena [or Menes] as that of the first

Pharaoh of Egypt, and as such he is unhesitatingly accepted,

although no contemporary monumental record of the fact has yet

been discovered. According to Manetho, the age of Mena dates

back to a period of 5,004 years before the Christian era, a

date which is nearly equal to 7,000 years from the present

day. Brugsch favours a somewhat less interval, namely, 4455 B. C.;

others place it as low as 2700 B. C., whilst Birch and

Chabas adopt a medium date, namely 4000 B. C., which is

equivalent to 6000 years backward from the existing time.

These extreme variations are chiefly referable to the

difficulty of ascertaining the precise length of each

individual reign, and especially to the occasional

contemporaneous reign of two or more kings, and sometimes the

existence of two or more dynasties in different parts of the

empire. ... Lieblein gives full credit to the chronology of

Manetho [a priest of Heliopolis, who wrote about 260 B. C.],

as recorded by the historian Africanus, as likewise did the

distinguished Mariette, and differs very little from the

standard adopted by Birch. He assigns to Mena, as the pioneer

of the first monarchy, a date in round numbers of 3900 years."

E. Wilson, The Egypt of the Past, chapter 1.

"As to the era ... when the first Pharaoh mounted the throne,

the German Egyptologers have attempted to fix it at the

following epochs: Boeckh, B. C. 5702; Unger, 5613; Brugsch,

4455; Lauth, 4157; Lepsius, 3892; Bunsen, 3623. The difference

between the two extreme points of the series is amazingly

great, for its number of years amounts to no less than 2079.

... The calculations in question are based on the extracts

already often mentioned from a work by the Egyptian priest

Manetho on the history of Egypt. That learned man had then at

his command the annals of his country's history, which were

preserved in the temples, and from them, the best and most

accurate sources, be derived the materials for his work,

composed in the Greek language, on the history of the ancient

Egyptian Dynasties. His book, which is now lost, contained a

general review of the kings of the land, divided into Thirty

Dynasties, arranged in the order of their names, with the

lengths of their reigns, and the total duration of each

dynasty. Though this invaluable work was little known and

certainly but little regarded by the historians of the old

classical age, large extracts were made from it by some of the

ecclesiastical writers. In process of time the copyists,

either by error or designedly, corrupted the names and the

numbers, and thus we only possess at the present day the ruins

instead of the complete building. The truth of the original,

and the authenticity of its sources were first proved by the

deciphering of the Egyptian writings. And thus the Manethonian

list served, and still serves, as a guide for assigning to the

royal names read on the monuments their places in the

Dynasties."

H. Brugsch-Bey, History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,

chapter 4.

See, also, MANETHO, LIST OF.

{750}

EGYPT:

Origin of the ancient people.

"The Egyptians, together with some other nations, form, as it

would seem, a third branch of that [the Caucasian] race,

namely, the family called Cushite, which is distinguished by

special characters from the Pelasgian and the Semitic

families. Whatever relations may be found always to exist

between these great races of mankind, thus much may be

regarded as certain, that the cradle of the Egyptian people

must be sought in the interior of the Asiatic quarter of the

world. In the earliest ages of humanity, far beyond all

historical remembrance, the Egyptians, for reasons unknown to

us, left the soil of their primeval home, took their way

towards the setting sun, and finally crossed that bridge of

nations, the Isthmus of Suez, to find a new fatherland on the

favoured banks of the holy Nile. Comparative philology, in its

turn, gives powerful support to this hypothesis. The Egyptian

language ... shows in no way any trace of a derivation and

descent from the African families of speech. On the contrary,

the primitive roots and the essential elements of the Egyptian

grammar point to such an intimate connection with the

Indo-Germanic and Semitic languages that it is almost

impossible to mistake the close relations which formerly

prevailed between the Egyptians and the races called

Indo-Germanic and Semitic."

H. Brugsch-Bey, History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,

chapter 1.

"It has been maintained by some that the immigration was from

the south, the Egyptians having been a colony from Ethiopia

which gradually descended the Nile and established itself in

the middle and lower portions of the valley; and this theory

can plead in its favour, both a positive statement of

Diodorus, and the fact, which is quite certain, of an ethnic

connection between the Egyptians and some of the tribes who

now occupy Abyssinia (the ancient Ethiopia). But modern

research has shown quite unmistakably that the movement of the

Egyptians was in the opposite direction. ... We must look,

then, rather to Syria or Arabia than to Ethiopia as the cradle

of the Egyptian nation. At the same time we must admit that

they were not mere Syrians or Arabs, but had, from the

remotest time whereto we can go back, distinct

characteristics, whereby they have a good claim to be

considered as a separate race."

G. Rawlinson, History of Ancient Egypt, chapter 3.

"So far as our knowledge reaches, the northern edge of Africa,

like the valley of the Nile as far as the marshes at the foot

of the Abyssinian hills, was inhabited by nations who in

colour, language, and customs were sharply distinguished from

the negro. These nations belong to the whites: their languages

were most closely allied to the Semitic. From this, and from

their physical peculiarities, the conclusion has been drawn

that these nations at some time migrated from Asia to the soil

of Africa. They formed a vast family, whose dialects still

continue in the language of the Berbers. Assisted by the

favourable conditions of their land, the tribe which settled

on the Lower Nile quickly left their kinsmen far behind.

Indeed the latter hardly rose above a pastoral life. The

descendants of these old inhabitants of the valley of the

Nile, in spite of the numerous layers which the course of

centuries has subsequently laid upon the soil of the land,

still form the larger part of the population of Egypt, and the

ancient language is preserved in the dialect of the Copts."

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 1, chapter 1.

EGYPT:

The Old Empire and the Middle Empire.

The following are the Egyptian Dynasties, from the first

Pharaoh, Mena, to the epoch of the Hyksos, or Shepherd kings,

with the dates and periods assigned to each by Brugsch:

The First Dynasty; of Thinis: B. C. 4400-4166.

The Second; of Thinis: 4133-4000.

The Third; of Memphis: 3966-3766.

The Fourth; of Memphis: 3733-3600.

The Fifth; of Elephantine: 3566-3333.

The Sixth; of Memphis: 3300-3066.

The Seventh to the Eleventh

(a confused and obscure period):  3033-2500.

The Twelfth; of Thebes: 2466-2266.

H. Brugsch-Bey, History of Egypt under the Pharaohs,

appendix A.

"The direct descendants of Menes [or Mena] form the First

Dynasty, which, according to Manetho, reigned 253 years. No

monument contemporary with these princes has come down to us.

... The Second Dynasty, to which Manetho assigns nine kings,

lasted 302 years. It was also originally from This [or

Thinis], and probably related to the First. ... When this

family had become extinct, a Dynasty, originally from Memphis,

seized the throne, forming the Third, and to it a duration of

214 years is attributed. ... With the Fourth Dynasty, Memphite

like the Third, and which reigned 284 years, history becomes

clearer and monuments more numerous. This was the age of the

three Great Pyramids, built by the three kings, Khufu (the

Cheops of Herodotus), Shafra (Chefren), and Menkara

(Mycerinus). ... The Fifth Dynasty came originally from

Elephantine, at the southern extremity of Upper Egypt, and

there possibly the kings generally resided, though at the same

time Memphis was not deprived of its importance. ... On the

death of the last king of the Fifth Dynasty, a new family, of

Memphitic origin according to Manetho, came to the throne. ...

Primitive art attained its highest point under the Sixth

Dynasty. ... But, from the time of the civil commotions in

which Neit-aker [the Nitocris of Herodotus] perished, Egyptian

civilization underwent a sudden and unaccountable eclipse.

From the end of the Sixth Dynasty to the commencement of the

Eleventh, Manetho reckons 436 years, and for this whole period

the monuments are absolutely silent. Egypt seems then to have

disappeared from the rank of nations; and when this long

slumber ended, civilization commenced a new career, entirely

independent of the past. ...

{751}

Thus ends that period of nineteen centuries, which modern

scholars know as the Old Empire. ... Thebes did not exist in

the days of the glory of the Old Empire. The holy city of Amen

seems to have been founded during the period of anarchy and

obscurity, succeeding, as we have said, to the Sixth Dynasty.

Here was the birthplace of that renewed civilization, that new

monarchy, we are accustomed to call the Middle Empire, the

middle age in fact of ancient Egypt--a middle age anterior to

the earliest ages of all other history. From Thebes cane the

six kings of the Eleventh Dynasty. ... We again quote the

excellent remarks of M. Mariette: 'When, with the Eleventh

Dynasty, we see Egypt awake from her long slumber, all old

traditions appear to be forgotten; the proper names used in

ancient families, the titles of functionaries, the style of

writing, and even the religion--all seem new. This,

Elephantine, and Memphis, are no longer the favourite

capitals. Thebes for the first time becomes the seat of

sovereign power. Egypt, moreover, has lost a considerable

portion of her territory, and the authority of her legitimate

kings hardly extends beyond the limited district of the

Thebaid. The study of the monuments confirms these general

views; they are rude, primitive, sometimes coarse; and when we

look at them we may well believe that Egypt, under the

Eleventh Dynasty, again passed through a period of infancy, as

she had already done under the Third Dynasty.' A dynasty

probably related to, and originally from the same place as

these first Theban princes succeeded them. ... This Twelfth

Dynasty reigned for 213 years, and its epoch was one of

prosperity, of peace at home and glorious achievements abroad.

... Although the history of the Twelfth Dynasty is clear and

well known, illustrated by numerous monuments, there is,

nevertheless, no period in the annals of Egypt more obscure

than the one closing with the Thirteenth Dynasty. It is one

long series of revolutions, troubles, and internal

dissensions, closed by a terrible catastrophe, the greatest

and most lasting recorded in Egyptian history, which a second

time interrupted the march of civilization on the banks of the

Nile, and for a while struck Egypt from the list of nations."

F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier,

Manual of Ancient History of the East, book 3, chapter 1-2.

ALSO IN:

C. C. J. Bunsen, Egypt's Place in Universal History, volume 2.

See, also, MEMPHIS, and THEBES, EGYPT.

EGYPT:

The Hyksos, or Shepherd-Kings.

According to the Manethouian account which the Jewish

historian Josephus has preserved to us by transcribing it, the

Egyptian Netherlands were at a certain time overspread by a

wild and rough people, which came from the countries of the

east, overcame the native kings who dwelt there, and took

possession of the whole country, without finding any great

opposition on the part of the Egyptians. They were called

Hyksos, which Josephus interpreted as meaning Shepherd-kings.

"Hyk," he explained, meant King, in the holy language, and

"sos," in the dialect of the people, signified Shepherd. But

Dr. Brugsch identifies "sos" with the name "Shasu," which the

old Egyptians gave to the Bedouins, whose name became

equivalent to Shepherds. Hence Dr. Brugsch inclines to the

ancient opinion transmitted by Josephus, that the Hyksos were

Arabs or Bedouins--the Shasu of the Egyptian records, who hung

on the northeastern frontier of Egypt from the most ancient

times and were always pressing into the country, at every

opportunity. But many objections against this view are raised

and the different theories advanced to account for the Hyksos

are quite numerous. Canon Rawlinson says: "The Egyptians of

the time of Herodotus seem to have considered that they were

Philistines. Moderns have regarded them as Canaanites,

Syrians, Hittites. It is an avoidance rather than a solution

of the difficulty to say that they were 'a collection of all

the nomad hordes of Arabia and Syria' [Lenormant], since there

must have been a directing hand. ... On the whole, therefore,

we lean to the belief that the so-called Hyksos or Shepherds

were Hittites."

G. Rawlinson, History of Ancient Egypt. chapter 19.

"It is maintained on good authority that the Hyksos, or

Shepherd-Kings, had secured possession of the eastern frontier

of Lower Egypt immediately after the close of the Twelfth

Dynasty; that at this time the Thirteenth and the Fourteenth

Dynasties ruled contemporaneously, the former in Upper, the

latter in Lower Egypt; one was illegitimate, the other the

illegitimate line; but authors are not in accord as to their

right of priority. It is supposed that, while Egypt claimed

the Thirteenth Dynasty as her own, the Hyksos usurped the

mastery over the Fourteenth Dynasty, and governed through the

agency of its kings, treating them meanwhile as vassal chiefs.

These local kings had cities from which they were unable to

escape, and were deprived of an army of defence. Such was the

state of the country for 184 years, when the Fourteenth

Dynasty died out, and when the Fifteenth Dynasty, constituted

of six successive Hyksos kings, took the reins of government

into their own hands. Lieblein, whose views we are now

endeavouring to express, assigns as the date of the invasion

of the Hyksos 2108 years B. C. ... It is not improbable that

the well-known journey of Abraham to Egypt was made during the

early period of the reign of the Shepherd-Kings; whilst the

visit of Joseph occurred near the close of their power."

E. Wilson, The Egypt of the Past, chapter 5.

"'The Shepherds possessed themselves of Egypt by violence,'

writes Mariette-Bey, 'but the civilization which they

immediately adopted on their conquest was rather Egyptian than

Asiatic, and the discoveries of Avaris (San) prove that they

did not even banish from their temples the gods of the ancient

Egyptian Pantheon.' In fact the first shepherd-king, Solatis

himself, employed an Egyptian artist to inscribe ... his title

on the statue of a former legitimate Pharaoh. 'They did not

disturb the civilization more than the Persians or the Greeks,

but simply accepted the higher one they had conquered.' So our

revered scholar Dr. Birch has summed up the matter; and Professor

Maspero has very happily described it thus: 'The popular

hatred loaded them with ignominious epithets, and treated them

as accursed, plague-stricken, leprous. Yet they allowed

themselves very quickly to be domesticated. ... Once admitted

to the school of Egypt, the barbarians progressed quickly in

the civilized life. The Pharaonic court reappeared around

these shepherd-kings, with all its pomp and all its following

of functionaries great and small. The royal style and title of

Cheops and the Amenemhas were fitted to the outlandish names

of Jannes and Apapi. The Egyptian religion, without being

officially adopted, was tolerated, and the religion of the

Canaanites underwent some modifications to avoid hurting

beyond measure the susceptibility of the worshippers of

Osiris.'"

H. G. Tomkins, Studies on the Times of Abraham, chapter 8.

{752}

In a late Italian work ("Gli Hyksos") by Dr. C. A. de Cara,

"he puts together all that is ascertained in regard to them

[the Hyksos], criticises the theories that have been

propounded on their behalf, and suggests a theory of his own.

Nothing that has been published on the subject seems to have

escaped his notice. ... His own view is that the Hyksos

represented a confederacy of various Asiatic tribes, under the

leadership of the northern Syrians. That their ruling class

came from this part of the world seems to me clear from the

name of their supreme god Sutekh, who occupied among them the

position of the Semitic Baal."

A. H. Sayce, The Hyksôs (Academy, September 20,1890).

"Historical research concerning the history of the Hyksos may

be summed up as follows:

I. A certain number of non-Egyptian kings of foreign

origin, belonging to the nation of the Menti, ruled for a

long time in the eastern portion of the Delta.

II. These chose as their capitals the cities of Zoan and

Avaris, and provided them with strong fortifications.

III. They adopted not only the manners and customs of the

Egyptians, but also their official language and writing,

and the order of their court was arranged on Egyptian

models.

IV. They were patrons of art, and Egyptian artists erected,

after the ancient models, monuments in honour of these

usurpers, in whose statues they were obliged to reproduce

the Hyksos physiognomy, the peculiar arrangement of the

beard und head-dress, as well as other variations of their

costume.

V. They honored Sutekh, the son of Nut, as the supreme god

of their newly acquired country, with the surname Nub, 'the

golden.' He was the origin of all that is evil and perverse

in the visible and invisible world, the opponent of good

and the enemy of light. In the cities of Zoan and Avaris,

splendid temples were constructed in honour of this god,

and other monuments raised, especially Sphinxes, carved out

of stone from Syene.

VI. In all probability one of them was the founder of a new

era, which most likely began with the first year of his

reign. Down to the time of the second Ramses, four hundred

years had elapsed of this reckoning which was acknowledged

even by the Egyptians.

VII. The Egyptians were indebted to their contact with them

for much useful knowledge. In particular their artistic views

were expanded and new forms and shapes, notably that of the

winged sphinx, were introduced, the Semitic origin of which is

obvious at a glance. ...

The inscriptions on the monuments designate that foreign

people who once ruled in Egypt by the name of Men or Menti. On

the walls of the temple of Edfû it is stated that 'the

inhabitants of the land of Asher are called Menti.' ... In the

different languages, ... and in the different periods of

history, the following names are synonymous: Syria, Rutennu of

the East, Asher, and Menti."--"Since, on the basis of the

most recent and best investigations in the province of ancient

Egyptian chronology, we reckon the year 1350 B. C. as a mean

computation for the reign of Ramses, the reign of the Hyksos

king, Nub, and probably its beginning, falls in the year 1750

B. C., that is, 400 years before Ramses II. Although we are

completely in the dark as to the place King Nub occupied in

the succession of the kindred princes of his house, yet the

number mentioned is important, as an approximate epoch for the

stay of the foreign kings in Egypt. According to the statement

in the Bible, the Hebrews from the immigration of Jacob into

Egypt until the Exodus remained 430 years in that land. Since

the Exodus from Egypt took place in the time of Meneptah II.,

the son of Ramses II.--the Pharaoh of the oppression--the

year B. C. 1300 may be an approximate date. If we add to this

430 years, as expressing the total duration of the sojourn of

the Hebrews in Egypt, we arrive at the year 1730 B. C. as the

approximate date for the immigration of Jacob into Egypt, and

for the time of the official career of Joseph at the court of

Pharaoh. In other words, the time of Joseph (1730 B. C.) must

have fallen in the period of the Hyksos domination, about the

reign of the above-mentioned prince Nub (1750 B. C)."

H. Brugsch-Bey, Egypt under the Pharaohs (edition of 1891,

by.M. Brodrick), pages 106-109, and 126.

See JEWS: THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL IN EGYPT.

ALSO IN:

F. C. H. Wendel, History of Egypt, chapter 4.

EGYPT: About B. C. 1700-1400.

The New Empire.

The Eighteenth Dynasty.

"The dominion of the Hyksos by necessity gave rise to profound

internal divisions, alike in the different princely families

and in the native population itself. Factions became rampant

in various districts, and reached the highest point in the

hostile feeling of the inhabitants of Patoris or the South

country against the people of Patomit or North country, who

were much mixed with foreign blood. ... From this condition of

divided power and of mutual jealousy the foreign rulers

obtained their advantage and their chief strength, until King

Aahmes made himself supreme."

H. Brugsch-Bey, Egypt under the Pharaohs

(edition of 1891, by M. Brodrick).

"The duration of the reign of this first Pharaoh of the New

Empire was twenty-five years. He was succeeded by his son

Amenhotep I. and the latter by his son Thothmes I. "The reign

of Thothmes 1. ... derives its chief distinction from the fact

that, at this period of their history, the Egyptians for the

first time carried their arms deep into Asia, overrunning

Syria, and even invading Mesopotamia, or the tract between the

Tigris and the Euphrates. Hitherto the furthest point reached

in this direction had been Sharuhen in Southern Palestine. ...

Syria was hitherto almost an undiscovered region to the

powerful people which nurturing its strength in the Nile

valley, had remained content with its own natural limits and

scarcely grasped at any conquests. A time was now come when

this comparative quietude and absence of ambition were about

to cease. Provoked by the attack made upon her from the side

of Asia, and smarting from the wounds inflicted upon her pride

and prosperity by the Hyksos during the period of their rule,

Egypt now set herself to retaliate, and for three centuries

continued at intervals to pour her armies into the Eastern

continent, and to carry fire and sword over the extensive and

populous regions which lay between the Mediterranean and the

Zagros mountain range. There is some uncertainty as to the

extent of her conquests; but no reasonable doubt can be

entertained that for a space of three hundred years Egypt was

the most powerful and the most aggressive state that the world

contained, and held a dominion that has as much right to be

called an 'Empire' as the Assyrian, the Babylonian or the Persian.

{753}

While Babylonia, ruled by Arab conquerors, declined in

strength, and Assyria proper was merely struggling into

independence, Egypt put forth her arm and grasped the fairest

regions of the earth's surface." The immediate successor of

Thothmes I. was his son, Thothmes II., who reigned in

association with a sister of masculine character, queen

Hatasu. The strong-minded queen, moreover, prolonged her reign

after the death of this elder brother, until a younger

brother, Thothmes III. displaced her. The Third Thothmes was

the greatest of Egyptian conquerors and kings. He carried his

arms beyond the Euphrates, winning a memorable victory at

Megiddo over the confederated kings of the Syrian and

Mesopotamian countries. He left to his son (Amenhotep II.) "a

dominion extending about 1,100 miles from north to south, and

(in places) 450 miles from west to east." He was a great

builder, likewise, and "has left the impress of his presence

in Egypt more widely than almost any other of her kings, while

at the same time he has supplied to the great capitals of the

modern world their most striking Egyptian monuments." The

larger of the obelisks now standing in Rome and

Constantinople, as well as those at London and New York were

all of them produced in the reign of this magnificent Pharaoh.

The two obelisks last named stood originally, and for fourteen

centuries at the front of the great temple of the sun, in

Heliopolis. They were removed by the Roman Emperor, Augustus,

B. C: 23, to Alexandria, where they took in time the name of

Cleopatra's Needles,--although Cleopatra had no part in their

long history. After nineteen centuries more of rest, these

strangely coveted monuments were again disturbed, and

transported into lands which their builder knew not of. The

later kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty seem to have, none of

them, possessed the energy and character of Thothmes III. The

line ended about 1400 B. C. with Horemheb, who left no heirs.

G. Rawlinson, History of Ancient Egypt, chapter 20.

ALSO IN:

H. Brugsch-Bey, Egypt under the Pharaohs chapter 13.

H. H. Gorringe, Egyptian ·Obelisks.

EGYPT: About B. C. 1500-1400.

The Tell el-Amarna Tablets.

Correspondence of the Egyptian kings with Babylonia, Assyria,

Armenia, Asia Minor, Syria and Palestine.

"The discovery made in 1887 by a peasant woman of Middle Egypt

may be described as the most important of all contributions to

the early political history of Western Asia. We have become

possessed of a correspondence, dating from the fifteenth

century B. C., which was carried on during the reigns of three

Egyptian kings, with the rulers of Babylon, Assyria, Armenia,

Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine, during a period of great

activity, when revolutions which affected the whole history of

the east shore lands of the Mediterranean were in progress;

and we find in these tablets a contemporary picture of the

civilisation of the age. ... The Tell Amarna tablets represent

a literature equal in bulk to about half the Pentateuch, and

concerned almost exclusively with political affairs, They are

clay tablets, varying from two inches to a foot in length,

with a few as large as eighteen inches, covered with cuneiform

writing generally on both sides, and often on the edges as

well. The peasantry unearthed nearly the complete collection,

including some 320 pieces in all; and explorers afterwards

digging on the site have added only a few additional

fragments. The greater number were bought for the Berlin

Museum, while eighty-two were acquired for England, and the

rest remain either in the Boulak Museum at Cairo; or, in a few

instances, in the hands of private collectors. ... Tell Amarna

(apparently 'the mound of the tumuli ') is an important ruined

site on the east bank of the Nile, about a hundred and fifty

miles in a straight line south of Cairo. Its Egyptian name is

said to have been Khu-en-aten, 'Glory of the Sun-disk.'"

The Tell Amarna Tablets (Edinburgh Review, July, 1893).

"The collection of Cuneiform Tablets recently found [1887] at

Tell el-Amarna in Upper Egypt, consisted of about three

hundred and twenty documents, or portions of documents. The

British Museum possesses eighty-two ... the Berlin Museum has

one hundred and sixty, a large number being fragments; the

Gizeh Museum has sixty; and a few are in the hands of private

persons. ... In color the Tablets vary from a light to a dark

dust tint, and from a flesh-color to dark brick-red. The

nature of the clay of which they are made sometimes indicates

the countries from which they come. The size of the Tablets in

the British Museum varies from 8¾ inches x 4-7/8 inches to 2-1/8

inches x 1-11/16 inches; the longest text contains 98 lines, the

shortest 10. ... The greater number are rectangular, and a few

are oval; and they differ in shape from any other cuneiform

documents known to us. ... The writing ... resembles to a

certain extent the Neo-Babylonian, i. e., the simplification

of the writing of the first Babylonian Empire used commonly in

Babylonia and Assyria for about seven centuries B. C. It

possesses, however, characteristics different from those of

any other style of cuneiform writing of any period now known

to exist; and nearly every tablet contains forms of characters

which have hitherto been thought peculiar to the Ninevite or

Assyrian style of writing. But, compared with the neat,

careful hand employed in the official documents drawn up for

the kings of Assyria, it is somewhat coarse and careless, and

suggests the work of unskilled scribes. One and the same hand,

however, appears in tablets which come from the same person

and the same place. On some of the large tablets the writing

is bold and free; on some of the small ones the characters are

confused and cramped, and are groups of strokes rather than

wedges. The spelling ... is often careless, and in some

instances syllables have been omitted. At present it is not

possible to say whether the irregular spelling is due to the

ignorance of the scribe or to dialectic peculiarities. ... The

Semitic dialect in which these letters are written is

Assyrian, and is, in some important details, closely related

to the Hebrew of the Old Testament. ... The documents were

most probably written between the years B. C. 1500 to 1450.

... They give an insight into the nature of the political

relations which existed between the kings of Western Asia and

the kings of Egypt, and prove that an important trade existed

between the two countries from very early times. ... A large

number of the present tablets are addressed to 'the King of

Egypt,' either Amenophis III. or Amenophis IV. Nearly all of

them consist of reports of disasters to the Egyptian power and

of successful intrigues against it, coupled by urgent

entreaties for help, pointing to a condition of distraction

and weakness in Egypt. ... The most graphic details of the

disorganized condition, and of the rival factions, of the

Egyptian dependencies lying on the coastline of Phoenicia and

Northern Palestine, are to be gathered from a perusal of the

dispatches of the governors of the cities of Byblos, Beyrut

and Tyre."

The Tell el-Amarna Tablets in the British Museum, introduction.

{754}

"In the present state of cuneiform research I believe it to be

impossible to give a translation of the Tell el-Amarna texts

which would entirely satisfy the expert or general reader. No

two scholars would agree as to any interpretation which might

be placed upon certain rare grammatical forms and unknown

words in the Babylonian text, and any literal translation in a

modern language would not be understood by the general reader

on account of the involved style and endless repetition of

phrases common to a Semitic idiom and dialect. About the

general meaning of the contents of the greater number of the

letters there can be no doubt whatever, and it is therefore

possible to make a summary of the contents of each letter,

which should, as a rule, satisfy the general reader, and at

the same time form a guide to the beginner in cuneiform.

Summaries of the contents of the Tell el-Amarna tablets in the

British Museum have been published in 'The Tell el-Amarna

Tablets in the British Museum, with autotype facsimiles,'

printed by order of the Trustees, London, 1892, and it is

hoped that the transliteration, given in the following pages

may form a useful supplement to that work." ...

No. 1. A Letter from Egypt--Amenophis III. to Kallimma (?)

Sin, King of Karaduniyash, referring to his proposed marriage

with Sukharti, the daughter of Kallimma-Sin, and containing

the draft of a commercial treaty, and an allusion to the

disappearance of certain chariots and horses.

No.2. Letters from Babylonia-Burraburiyash, King of

Karaduniyash, to Amenophis IV., referring to the friendship

which had existed between their respective fathers, and the

help which had been rendered to the King of Egypt by

Burraburiyash himself; the receipt of two manahs of gold is

acknowledged and a petition is made for more.

No. 3. Burraburiyash, King of Karaduniyash to Amenophis IV.,

complaining that the Egyptian messengers had visited his

country thrice without bringing gifts, and that they withheld

some of the gold which had been sent to him from Egypt;

Burraburiyash announces the despatch of a gift of lapis-lazuli

for the Egyptian princess who was his son's wife. ...

No. 30. Letter from Abi-milki, governor of Tyre, to the King

of Egypt, reporting that he believes Zimrida will not be able

to stir up disaffection in the city of Sidon, although he has

caused much hostility against Tyre. He asks for help to

protect the city, and for water to drink and wood to burn, and

he sends with his messenger Ili-milki five talents of copper

and other gifts for the King of Egypt. He reports that the

King of Danuna is dead and that his brother reigns in his

stead; one half of the city of Ugarit has been destroyed by

fire; the soldiers of the Khatti have departed; Itagamapairi,

governor of Kedesh, and Aziru are fighting against Namyawiza.

If the King of Egypt will but send a few troops, all will be

well with Tyre. ...

No. 43. Letter from the governor of a town in Syria to the

King of Egypt, reporting that the rebels have asserted their

independence; that Biridashwi has stirred up rebellion in the

city of Inu-Amma; that its people have captured chariots in

the city of Ashtarti: that the kings of the cities of Buzruna

and Khalunni have made a league with Biridashwi to slay

Namyawiza (who, having taken refuge in Damascus and being

attacked by Arzawiya, declared himself to be a vassal of

Egypt); that Arzawiya went to the city of Gizza and afterwards

captured the city of Shaddu; that Itakkama ravaged the country

of Gizza; and that Arzawiya and Biridashwi have wasted the

country of Abitu.

No. 44. Continuation (1) of a letter to the King of Egypt,

reporting that, owing to the hostilities of Abd-Ashirta,

Khâya, an official, was unable to send ships to the country of

Amurri, as he had promised. The ships from Arvad which the

writer has in his charge, lack their full complement of men

for war service, and he urges the king to make use of the

ships and crews which he has had with him in Egypt. The writer

of the letter also urges the King of Egypt to appoint an

Egyptian official over the naval affairs of Sidon, Beyrut and

Arvad, and to seize Abd-Ashirta and put him under restraint to

prevent him obstructing the manning of the ships of war. ...

No. 58. Letter from the governor of a district in Palestine

(?) to the governors of neighbouring states in the land of

Canaan, informing them that he is about to send his messenger

Akiya on a mission to the King of Egypt, and to place himself

and every thing that he has at his disposal. Akiya will go to

Egypt by the way of Canaan, and the writer of this letter

suggests that any gifts they may have to send to Egypt should

be carried by him, for Akiya is a thoroughly trustworthy man.

C. Bezold, Oriental Diplomacy: Being the transliterated

text of the Cuneiform Despatches, preface.

Under the title of "The Story of a 'Tell,'" Mr. W. M. Flinders

Petrie, the successful excavator and explorer of Egyptian

antiquities, gave a lecture in London, in June, 1892, in which

he described the work and the results of an excavation then in

progress under his direction on the supposed site of Lachish,

at a point where the maritime plain of Philistia rises to the

mountains of Judæa, on the route from Egypt into Asia. The

chairman who introduced Mr. Petrie defined the word "Tell" as

follows: "A Tell is a mound of earth showing by the presence

of broken pottery or worked stone that it is the site of a

ruined city or village. In England when a house falls down or

is pulled down the materials are usually worth the expense of

removing for use in some new building. But in Egypt common

houses have for thousands of years been built of sun-dried

bricks; in Palestine of rough rubble walling, which, on

falling, produces many chips, with thick flat roofs of

plaster. It is thus often less trouble to get new than to use

old material; the sites of towns grow in height, and

depressions are filled up." The mound excavated by Mr. Petrie

is known as Tell el Hesy. After he left the work it was

carried on by Mr. Bliss, and Mr. Petrie in his lecture says

"The last news is that Mr. Bliss has found the long looked for

prize, a cuneiform tablet. ... From the character of the

writing, which is the same as on the tablets written in

Palestine in 1400. B. C., to the Egyptian king at Tel el

Amarna, we have a close agreement regarding the chronology of

the town. Further, it mentions Zimrida as a governor, and this

same man appears as governor of Lachish on the tablets found

at Tel el Amarna. We have thus at last picked up the other end

of the broken chain of correspondence between Palestine and

Egypt, of which one part was so unexpectedly found in Egypt a

few years ago on the tablets at Tel el Amarna; and we may hope

now to recover the Palestinian part of this intercourse and so

establish the pre-Israelite history of the land."

W. M. F. Petrie, The Story of a "Tell"

(The City and the Land, lecture 6).

See, also, PALESTINE.

ALSO IN:

C. R. Conder, The Tell Amarna Tablets, translated.

{755}

EGYPT: About B. C. 1400-1200.

The first of the Ramesides.

The Pharaohs of the Oppression and the Exodus,

"Under the Nineteenth Dynasty, which acquired the throne after

the death of Har-em-Hebi [or Hor-em-heb] the fortune of Egypt

maintained to some extent its ascendancy; but, though the

reigns of some war-like kings throw a bright light on this

epoch, the shade of approaching trouble already darkens the

horizon." Ramses I. and his son, or son-in-law, Seti I., were

involved in troublesome wars with the rising power of the

Hittites, in Syria, and with the Shasu of the Arabian desert.

Seti was also at war with the Libyans, who then made their

first appearance in Egyptian history. His son Ramses II., the

Sesostris of the Greeks, who reigned for sixty-seven years, in

the fourteenth century B. C., has always been the most famous

of the Egyptian kings, and, by modern discovery, has been made

the most interesting of them to the Christian world. He was a

busy and boastful warrior, who accomplished no important

conquests; but "among the Pharaohs he is the builder 'par

excellence.' It is almost impossible to find in Egypt a ruin

or an ancient mound, without reading his name." ... It was to

these works, probably, that the Israelites then in Egypt were

forced to contribute their labor; for the Pharaoh of the

oppression is identified, by most scholars of the present day,

with this building and boasting Sesostris.

F. Lenormant and E. Chevallier, Manual of the

Ancient History of the East, book 3, chapter 3.

"The extreme length of the reign of Ramses was, as in other

histories, the cause of subsequent weakness and disaster. His

successor was an aged son, Menptah, who had to meet the

difficulties which were easily overcome by the youth of his

energetic father. The Libyans and their maritime allies broke

the long tranquillity of Egypt by a formidable invasion and

temporary conquest of the north-west. The power of the

monarchy was thus shaken, and the old king was not the leader

to restore it. His obscure reign was followed by others even

obscurer, and the Nineteenth Dynasty ended in complete

anarchy, which reached its height when a Syrian chief, in what

manner we know not, gained the rule of the whole country. It

is to the reign of Menptah that Egyptian tradition assigned

the Exodus, and modern research has come to a general

agreement that this is its true place in Egyptian history. ...

Unfortunately we do not know the duration of the oppression of

the Israelites, nor the condition of Lower Egypt during the

Eighteenth Dynasty, which, according to the hypothesis here

adopted, corresponds to a great part of the Hebrew sojourn. It

is, however, clear from the Bible that the oppression did not

begin till after the period of Joseph's contemporaries, and

had lasted eighty years before the Exodus. It seems almost

certain that this was the actual beginning of the oppression,

for it is very improbable that two separate Pharaohs are

intended by the 'new king which knew not Joseph' and the

builder of Rameses, or, in other words, Ramses II., and the

time from the accession of Ramses II. to the end of Menptah's

reign can have little exceeded the eighty years of Scripture

between the birth of Moses and the Exodus. ... If the

adjustment of Hebrew and Egyptian history for the oppression,

as stated above, be accepted, Ramses II. was probably the

first, and certainly the great oppressor. His character suits

this theory; he was an undoubted autocrat who ... covered

Egypt and Lower Nubia with vast structures that could only

have been produced by slave-labor on the largest scale."

R. S. Poole, Ancient Egypt (Contemporary Review,

March, 1879).

ALSO IN:

H. Brugsch-Bey, Egypt Under the Pharaohs, chapter 14.

H. G. Tomkins, Life and Times of Joseph.

See, also:

JEWS: THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL IN EGYPT.

EGYPT: About B. C. 1300.

Exodus of the Israelites.

See JEWS: THE ROUTE OF THE EXODUS.

EGYPT: About B. C. 1200-670.

The decline of the empire of the Pharaohs.

From the anarchy in which the Nineteenth Dynasty came to its

end, order was presently restored by the seating in power of a

new family, which claimed to be of the Rameside stock. The

second of its kings, who called himself Ramses III. and who is

believed to be the Rhampsinitus of the Greeks, appears to have

been one of the ablest of the monarchs of his line. The

security and prosperity of Egypt were recovered under his

reign and he left it in a state which does not seem to have

promised the rapid decay which ensued. "It is difficult to

understand and account for the suddenness and completeness of

the collapse. ... The hieratic chiefs, the high priests of the

god Ammon at Thebes, gradually increased in power, usurped one

after another the prerogatives of the Pharaohs, by degrees

reduced their authority to a shadow, and ended with an open

assumption not only of the functions, but of the very insignia

of royalty. A space of nearly two centuries elapsed, however,

before this change was complete. Ten princes of the name of

Ramses, and one called Meri-Tum, all of them connected by

blood with the great Rameside house, bore the royal title and

occupied the royal palace, in the space between B. C. 1280 and

B. C. 1100. Egyptian history during this period is almost

wholly a blank. No military expeditions are conducted--no

great buildings are reared--art almost disappears--literature

holds her tongue." Then came the dynasty of the priest-kings,

founded by Her-Hor, which held the throne for more than a

century and was contemporary in its latter years with David

and Solomon. The Twenty-Second Dynasty which succeeded had its

capital at Bubastis and is concluded by Dr. Brugsch to have

been a line of Assyrian kings, representing an invasion and

conquest of Egypt by Nimrod, the great king of Assyria. Other

Egyptologists disagree with Dr. Brugsch in this, and Professor

Rawlinson, the historian of Assyria, finds objections to the

hypothesis from his own point of view.

{756}

The prominent monarch of this dynasty was the Sheshonk of

Biblical history, who sheltered Jeroboam, invaded Palestine

and plundered Jerusalem. Before this dynasty came to an end it

had lost the sovereignty of Egypt at large, and its Pharaohs

contended with various rivals and invaders. Among the latter,

power grew in the hands of a race of Ethiopians, who had risen

to importance at Napata, on the Upper Nile, and who extended

their power, at last, over the whole of Egypt. The Ethiopian

domination was maintained for two-thirds of a century, until

the great wave of Assyrian conquest broke upon Egypt in 672 B.

C. and swept over it, driving the Ethiopians back to Napata

and Meroë.

G. Rawlinson, History of Ancient Egypt, chapter 25.

ALSO IN:

H. Brugsch-Bey, Egypt under the Pharaohs, chapter 15-18.

E. Wilson, Egypt of the Past, chapter 8.

See, also, ETHIOPIA.

EGYPT: B. C. 670-525.

Assyrian conquest and restored independence.

The Twenty-sixth Dynasty.

The Greeks at Naucratis.

Although Syria and Palestine had then been suffering for more

than a century from the conquering arms of the Assyrians, it

was not until 670 B. C., according to Professor Rawlinson, that

Esarhaddon passed the boundaries of Egypt and made himself

master of that country. His father Sennacherib, had attempted

the invasion thirty years before, at the time of his siege of

Jerusalem, and had recoiled before some mysterious calamity

which impelled him to a sudden retreat. The son avenged his

father's failure. The Ethiopian masters of Egypt were expelled

and the Assyrian took their place. He "broke up the country

into twenty governments, appointing in each town a ruler who

bore the title of king, but placing all the others to a

certain extent under the authority of the prince who reigned

at Memphis. This was Neco, the father of Psammetichus (Psamtik

I.)--a native Egyptian of whom we have some mention both in

Herodotus and in the fragments of Manetho. The remaining

rulers were likewise, for the most part, native Egyptians."

These arrangements were soon broken up by the expelled

Ethiopian king, Tirhakah, who rallied his forces and swept the

Assyrian kinglets out of the country; but Asshur-bani-pal, son

and successor of Esarhaddon, made his appearance with an army

in 668 or 667 B. C. and Tirhakah fled before him. Again and

again this occurred, and for twenty years Egypt was torn

between the Assyrians and the Ethiopians, in their struggle

for the possession of her. At length, out of the chaos

produced by these conflicts there emerged a native ruler--the

Psammetichus mentioned above--who subjugated his fellow

princes and established a new Egyptian monarchy, which

defended itself with success against Assyria and Ethiopia,

alike. The Twenty-Sixth Dynasty, of Sais, founded by

Psammetichus, is suspected to have been of Libyan descent. It

ruled Egypt until the Persian conquest, and brought a great

new influence to bear on the country and people, by the

introduction of Greek soldiers and traders. It was under this

dynasty that the Greek city of Naucratis was founded, on the

Canobic branch of the Nile.

G. Rawlinson, The Five Great Monarchies: Assyria, chapter 9.

The site of Naucratis, near the Canobic branch of the Nile,

was determined by excavations which Mr. W. M. Flinders Petrie

began in 1884, and from which much has been learned of the

history of the city and of early relations between the

Egyptians and the Greeks. It is concluded that the settlement

of Naucratis dates from about 660 B. C.--not long after the

beginning of the reign of Psammitichus--and that its Greek

founders became the allies of that monarch and his successors

against their enemies. "All are agreed that before the reign

of Psammitichus and the founding of Naucratis, Egypt was a

sealed book to the Greeks. It is likely that the Phoenicians,

who were from time to time the subjects of the Pharaohs, were

admitted, where aliens like the Greeks were excluded. We have

indeed positive evidence that the Egyptians did not wish

strange countries to learn their art, for in a treaty between

them and the Hittites it is stipulated that neither country

shall harbour fugitive artists from the other. But however the

fact may be accounted for, it is an undoubted fact that long

before Psammitichus threw Egypt open to the foreigner, the

Phoenicians had studied in the school of Egyptian art, and

learned to copy all sorts of handiwork procured from the

valley of the Nile. ... According to Herodotus and Diodorus,

the favour shown to the Greeks by the King was the cause of a

great revolt of the native Egyptian troops, who left the

frontier fortresses, and marched south beyond Elephantine,

where they  settled, resisting all the entreaties of

Psammitichus, who naturally deplored the loss of the mainstay

of his dominions, and developed into the race of the Sebridae.

Wiedemann, however, rejects the whole story as unhistorical,

and certainly, if we closely consider it, it contains great

inherent improbabilities. ... Psammitichus died in B. C: 610,

and was succeeded by his son Necho, who was his equal in

enterprise and vigour. This King paid great attention to the

fleet of Egypt, and Greek shipwrights were set to work on both

the Mediterranean and Red Seas to build triremes for the State

navy. A fleet of his ships, we are told, succeeded in sailing

round Africa, a very great feat for the age. The King even

attempted the task, of which the completion was reserved for

the Persian Darius, the Ptolemies, and Trajan, of making a

canal from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea. Herodotus says

that, after sacrificing the lives of 120,000 men to the labour

and heat of the task, he gave it up, in consequence of the

warning of an oracle that he was toiling only for the

barbarians. ... Necho, like his father, must needs try the

edge of his new weapon, the Ionian mercenaries, on Asia. At

first he was successful. Josiah, King of Judah, came out

against him, but was slain, and his army dispersed. Greek

valour carried Necho as far as the Euphrates. ... But

Nebuchadnezzar, son of the King of Babylon, marched against

the invaders, and defeated them in a great battle near

Carehemish. His father's death recalled him to Babylon, and

Egypt was for the moment saved from counter-invasion by the

stubborn resistance offered to the Babylonian arms by

Jehoiakim, King of Judah, a resistance fatal to the Jewish

race; for Jerusalem was captured after a long siege, and most

of the inhabitants carried into captivity. Of Psammitichus

II., who succeeded Necho, we should know but little were it

not for the archaeological record. Herodotus only says that he

attacked Ethiopia, and died after a reign of six years.

{757}

But of the expedition thus summarily recorded we have a

lasting and memorable result in the well-known inscriptions

written by Rhodians and other Greek mercenaries on the legs of

the colossi at Abu Simbel in Nubia, which record how certain

of them came thither in the reign of Psammitichus, pushing up

the river in boats as far as it was navigable, that is,

perhaps, up to the second cataract. ... Apries, the Hophra of

the Bible, was the next king. The early part of his reign was

marked by successful warfare against the Phoenicians and the

peoples of Syria; but, like his predecessor, he was unable to

maintain a footing in Asia in the face of the powerful and

warlike Nebuchadnezzar. The hostility which prevailed between

Egypt and Babylon at this time caused King Apries to open a

refuge for those Jews who fled from the persecution of

Nebuchadnezzar. He assigned to their leaders, among whom were

the daughters of the King of Judah, a palace of his own at

Daphnae, 'Pharaoh's house at Tahpanhes,' as it is called by

Jeremiah. That prophet was among the fugitives, and uttered in

the palace a notable prophecy, (xliii. 9) that King

Nebuchadnezzar should come and spread his conquering tent over

the pavement before it. Formerly it was supposed that this

prophecy remained unfulfilled, but this opinion has to be

abandoned. Recently discovered Egyptian and Babylonian

inscriptions prove that Nebuchadnezzar conquered Egypt as far

as Syene. ... The fall of Apries as brought about by his

ingratitude to the Greeks, and his contempt for the lives of

his own subjects. He had formed the project of bringing under

his sway the Greek cities of the Cyrenaica. ... Apries

despatched against Cyrene a large force; but the Cyreneans

bravely defended themselves, and as the Egyptians on this

occasion marched without their Greek allies, they were

entirely defeated, and most of them perished by the sword, or

in the deserts which separate Cyrene from Egypt. The defeated

troops, and their countrymen who remained behind in garrison

in Egypt, imputed the disaster to treachery on the part of

Apries. ... They revolted, and chose as their leader Amasis, a

man of experience and daring. But Apries, though deserted by

his subjects, hoped still to maintain his throne by Greek aid.

At the head of 30,000 Ionians and Carians he marched against

Amasis. At Momemphis a battle took place between the rival

kings and between the rival nations; but the numbers of the

Egyptians prevailed over the arms and discipline of the

mercenaries, and Apries was defeated and captured by his

rival, who, however, allowed him for some years to retain the

name of joint-king. It is the best possible proof of the

solidity of Greek influence in Egypt at this time that Amasis,

though set on the throne by the native army after a victory

over the Greek mercenaries, yet did not expel these latter

from Egypt, but, on the contrary, raised them to higher favour

than before. ... In the delightful dawn of connected European

history we see Amasis as a wise and wealthy prince, ruling in

Egypt at the time when Polycrates was tyrant of Samos; and

when Croesus of Lydia, the richest king of his time, was

beginning to be alarmed by the rapid expansion of the Persian

power under Cyrus. ... In the days of Psammitichus III., the

son of Amasis, the storm which had overshadowed Asia broke

upon Egypt. One of the leaders of the Greek mercenaries in

Egypt named Phanes, a native of Halicarnassus, made his way to

the Persian Court, and persuaded Cambyses, who, according to

the story, had received from Amasis one of those affronts

which have so often produced wars between despots, to invade

Egypt in full force."

P. Gardner, New Chapters in Greek History, chapter 7.

ALSO IN:

W. M. F. Petrie, Naukratis.

See, also, NAUKRATIS.

EGYPT: B. C. 525-332.

Persian conquest and sovereignty.

The kings of the Twenty-Sixth or Saite Dynasty maintained the

independence of Egypt for nearly a century and a half, and

even revived its military glories briefly, by Necho's

ephemeral conquests in Syria and his overthrow of Josiah king

of Judah. In the meantime, Assyria and Babylonia had fallen

and the Persian power raised up by Cyrus had taken their

place. In his own time, Cyrus did not finish a plan of

conquest which included Egypt; his son Cambyses took up the

task. "It appears that four years were consumed by the Persian

monarch in his preparations for his Egyptian expedition. It

was not until B. C. 525 that he entered Egypt at the head of

his troops and fought the great battle which decided the fate

of the country. The struggle was long and bloody [see PERSIA:

B. C. 549-521]. Psammenitus, who had succeeded his father

Amasis, had the services, not only of his Egyptian subjects,

but of a large body of mercenaries besides, Greeks and

Carians. ... In spite of their courage and fanaticism, the

Egyptian army was completely defeated. ... The conquest of

Egypt was followed by the submission of the neighbouring

tribes. ... Even the Greeks of the more remote Barca and

Cyrene sent gifts to the conqueror and consented to become his

tributaries." But Cambyses wasted 50,000 men in a disastrous

expedition through the Libyan desert to Ammon, and he

retreated from Ethiopia with loss and shame. An attempted

rising of the Egyptians, before he had quitted their country,

was crushed with merciless severity. The deities, the temples

and the priests of Egypt were treated with insult and contempt

and the spirit of the people seems to have been entirely

broken. "Egypt became now for a full generation the obsequious

slave of Persia, and gave no more trouble to her subjugator

than the weakest, or the most contented, of the provinces."

George Rawlinson, The Five Great Monarchies: Persia,

chapter 7.

"The Persian kings, from Cambyses to Darius II. Nothus, are

enrolled as the Twenty-Seventh Dynasty of Manetho. The ensuing

revolts [see ATHENS: B. C. 460-449] are recognized in the

Twenty-Eighth (Saite) Dynasty, consisting only of Amyrtæus,

who restored the independence of Egypt (B. C. 414-408), and

the Twenty-Ninth (Mendesian) and Thirtieth (Sebennyte)

Dynasties (about B. C. 408-353), of whose intricate history we

need only here say that they ruled with great prosperity and

have left beautiful monuments of art. The last king of

independent Egypt was Nectanebo II., who succumbed to the

invasion of Artaxerxes Ochus, and fled to Ethiopia (B. C.

353). The last three kings of Persia, Ochus, Arses, and Darius

Codomannus, form the Thirty-First Dynasty of Manetho, ending

with the submission of Egypt to Alexander the Great (B. C.

332)."

P. Smith, Ancient History of the East (Students'), chapter 8.

ALSO IN: S. Sharpe, History of Egypt, chapter 5.

{758}

EGYPT: B. C. 332.

Alexander's conquest.

"In the summer of 332 [after the siege and destruction of

Tyre--see TYRE: B. C. 332, and MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 334-330]

Alexander set forward on his march toward Egypt, accompanied

by the fleet, which he had placed under the orders of

Hephæstion." But, being detained on the way several months by

the siege of Gaza, it was not before December that he entered

Egypt. "He might safely reckon not merely on an easy conquest,

but on an ardent reception, from a people who burnt to shake

off the Persian tyranny. ... Mazaces [the Persian commander]

himself, as soon as he heard of the battle of Issus, became

aware that all resistance to Alexander would be useless, and

met him with a voluntary submission. At Pelusium he found the

fleet, and, having left a garrison in the fortress, ordered it

to proceed up the Nile as far as Memphis, while he marched

across the desert. Here he conciliated the Egyptians by the

honours which he paid to all their gods, especially to Apis,

who had been so cruelly insulted by the Persian invaders. ...

He then embarked, and dropt down the western or Canobic arm of

the river to Canobus, to survey the extremity of the Delta on

that side, and having sailed round the lake Mareotis, landed

on the narrow belt of low ground which parts it from the sea,

and is sheltered from the violence of the northern gales ...

by a long ridge of rock, then separated from the main land by

a channel, nearly a mile (seven stades) broad and forming the

isle of Pharos. On this site stood the village of Racotis,

where the ancient kings of Egypt had stationed a permanent

guard to protect this entrance of their dominions from

adventurers. ... Alexander's keen eye was immediately struck

by the advantages of this position for a city, which should

become a great emporium of commerce, and a link between the

East and the West. ... He immediately gave orders for the

beginning of the work, himself traced the outline, which was

suggested by the natural features of the ground itself, and

marked the site of some of the principal buildings, squares,

palaces and temples" (see ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 332). Alexander

remained in Egypt until the spring of 331, arranging the

occupation and administration of the country. "The system

which he established served in some points as a model for the

policy of Rome under the Emperors." Before quitting the

country he made a toilsome march along the coast, westward,

and thence, far into the desert, to visit the famous oracle of

Ammon.

C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 50.

EGYPT: B. C. 323-30.

The kingdom of the Ptolemies.

In the division of the empire of Alexander the Great between

his generals, when he died, Ptolemy Lagus--reputed to be a

natural son of Alexander's father Philip--chose Egypt (see

MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316), with a modesty which proved to be

wise. In all the provinces of the Macedonian conquest, it was

the country most easily to be held as an independent state, by

reason of the sea and desert which separated it from the rest

of the world. It resulted from the prudence of Ptolemy that he

founded a kingdom which lasted longer and enjoyed more

security and prosperity than any other among the monarchies of

the Diadochi. He was king of Egypt, in fact, for seventeen

years before, in 307, B. C., he ventured to assume the name

(see MACEDONIA: B. C. 310-301). Meantime, he had added to his

dominion the little Greek state of Cyrene, on the African

coast with Phœnicia, Judæa, Cœle-Syria, and the island of

Cyprus. These latter became disputed territory, fought over

for two centuries, between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids,

sometimes dominated by the one and sometimes by the other (see

SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 281-224, and 224-187). At its greatest

extent, the dominion of the Ptolemies, under Ptolemy

Philadelphus, son of Ptolemy Lagus, included large parts of

Asia Minor and many of the Greek islands. Egypt and Cyrene

they held, with little disturbance, until Rome absorbed them.

Notwithstanding the vices which the family of Ptolemy

developed, and which were as rank of their kind as history can

show, Egypt under their rule appears to have been one of the

most prosperous countries of the time. In Alexandria, they

more than realized the dream of its Macedonian projector. They

made it not only the wealthiest city of their day, but the

greatest seat of learning,--the successor of Athens as the

capital of Greek civilization in the ancient world.

S. Sharpe, History of Egypt, chapter 7-12.

The first Ptolemy abdicated in favor of his son, Ptolemy

Philadelphus, in 284 B. C., and died in the second year

following.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 297-280.

"Although the political constitution of Egypt was not greatly

altered when the land fell into Greek hands, yet in other

respects great changes took place. The mere fact that Egypt

took its place among a family of Hellenistic nations, instead

of claiming as of old a proud isolation, must have had a great

effect on the trade, the manufactures, and the customs of the

country. To begin with trade. Under the native kings Egypt had

scarcely any external trade, and trade could scarcely spring

up during the wars with Persia. But under the Ptolemies,

intercourse between Egypt and Sicily, Syria or Greece, would

naturally and necessarily advance rapidly. Egypt produced

manufactured goods which were everywhere in demand; fine

linen, ivory, porcelain, notably that papyrus which Egypt

alone produced, and which was necessary to the growing trade

in manuscripts. Artificial barriers being once removed,

enterprising traders of Corinth and Tarentum, Ephesus and

Rhodes, would naturally seek these goods in Egypt, bringing in

return whatever of most attractive their own countries had to

offer. It seems probable that the subjects of the Ptolemies

seldom or never had the courage to sail direct down the Red

Sea to India. In Roman times this voyage became not unusual,

but at an earlier time the Indian trade was principally in the

hands of the Arabs of Yemen and of the Persian Gulf.

Nevertheless the commerce of Egypt under the Ptolemies spread

eastwards as well as westwards. The important towns of Arsinoë

and Berenice arose on the Red Sea as emporia of the Arabian

trade. And as always happens when Egypt is in vigorous hands,

the limits of Egyptian rule and commerce were pushed further

and further up the Nile. The influx into Alexandria and

Memphis of a crowd of Greek architects, artists, and artizans,

could not fail to produce movement in that stream of art which

had in Egypt long remained all but stagnant. ... If we may

trust the somewhat over-coloured and flighty panegyrics which

have come down to us, the material progress of Egypt under

Ptolemy Philadelphus was most wonderful. We read, though we

cannot for a moment trust the figures of Appian, that in his

reign Egypt possessed an army of 200,000 foot soldiers and

40,000 horsemen, 300 elephants and 2,000 chariots of war. The

fleet at the same period is said to have included 1,500 large

vessels, some of them with twenty or thirty banks of oars.

Allowing for exaggeration, we must suppose that Egypt was then

more powerful than it had been since the days of Rameses."

P. Gardner, New Chapters in Greek History, chapter 7.

See, also, ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 282-246;

and EDUCATION, ANCIENT: ALEXANDRIA.

{759}

EGYPT: B. C. 80-48.

Strife among the Ptolemies.

Roman pretensions.

The throne of Egypt being disputed, B. C. 80, between

Cleopatra Berenice, who had seized it, and her step-son,

Ptolemy Alexander, then in Rome, the latter bribed the Romans

to support his claims by making a will in which he named the

Roman Republic as his heir. The Senate, thereat, sent him to

Alexandria with orders that Berenice should marry him and that

they should reign jointly, as king and queen. The order was

obeyed. The foully mated pair were wedded, and, nineteen days

afterwards, the young king procured the death of his queen.

The crime provoked an insurrection in which Ptolemy Alexander

was slain by his own guard. This ended the legitimate line of

the Ptolemies; but an illegitimate prince, usually called

Auletes, or "the piper," was put on the throne, and he

succeeded in holding it for twenty-four years. The claim of

the Romans, under the will of Ptolemy Alexander, seems to have

been kept in abeyance by the bribes which Auletes employed

with liberality among the senatorial leaders. In 58 B. C. a

rising at Alexandria drove Auletes from the throne; in 54 B.

C. he bought the support of Gabinius, Roman pro-consul in

Syria, who reinstated him. He died in 51 B. C. leaving by will

his kingdom to his elder daughter, Cleopatra, and his elder

son, Ptolemy, who, according to the abominable custom of the

Ptolemies, were to marry one another and reign together. The

Roman people, by the terms of the will were made its

executors. When, therefore, Cæsar, coming to Alexandria, three

years afterwards, found the will of Auletes set at nought,

Ptolemy occupying the throne, alone, and Cleopatra struggling

against him, he had some ground for a pretension of right to

interfere.

S. Sharpe, History of Egypt, chapter 11.

EGYPT: B. C. 48-47.

Civil war between Cleopatra and Ptolemy.

Intervention of Cæsar.

The rising against him.

The Romans besieged in Alexandria.

Their ruthless victory.

See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.

EGYPT: B. C. 30.

Organized as a Roman province.

After the battle of Actium and the death of Cleopatra, Egypt

was reduced by Octavius to the rank of a Roman province and

the dynasty of the Ptolemies extinguished. But Octavius "had

no intention of giving to the senate the rich domain which he

tore from its native rulers. He would not sow in a foreign

soil the seeds of independence which he was intent upon

crushing nearer home. ... In due time he persuaded the senate

and people to establish it as a principle, that Egypt should

never be placed under the administration of any man of

superior rank to the equestrian, and that no senator should be

allowed even to visit it, without express permission from the

supreme authority."

C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 29.

EGYPT: A. D. 100-500.

Roman and Christian.

See ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47 to A. D. 413-415;

and CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 33-100, and 100-312.

EGYPT: A. D. 296.

Revolt crushed by Diocletian.

See ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.

EGYPT: A. D. 616-628.

Conquest by Chosroes, the Persian.

The career of conquest pursued by Chosroes, the last Persian

conqueror, extended even to Egypt, and beyond it. "Egypt

itself, the only province which had been exempt since the time

of Diocletian from foreign and domestic war, was again subdued

by the successors of Cyrus. Pelusium, the key of that

impervious country, was surprised by the cavalry of the

Persians: they passed with impunity the innumerable channels

of the Delta, and explored the long valley of the Nile from

the pyramids of Memphis to the confines of Æthiopia.

Alexandria might have been relieved by a naval force, but the

archbishop and the præfect embarked for Cyprus; and Chosroes

entered the second city of the empire, which still preserved a

wealthy remnant of industry and commerce. His western trophy

was erected, not on the walls of Carthage, but in the

neighbourhood of Tripoli: the Greek colonies of Cyrene were

finally extirpated." By the peace concluded in 628, after the

death of Chosroes, all of his conquests were restored to the

empire and the cities of Syria and Egypt evacuated by their

Persian garrisons.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 46.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717

See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

EGYPT: A. D. 640-646.

Moslem conquest.

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

EGYPT: A. D. 967-1171.

Under the Fatimite Caliphs.

See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 908-1171.

EGYPT: A. D. 1168-1250.

Under the Atabeg and Ayoubite sultans.

See SALADIN, THE EMPIRE OF.

EGYPT: A. D. 1218-1220.

Invasion by the Fifth Crusade.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1216-1229.

EGYPT: A. D. 1249-1250.

The crusading invasion by Saint Louis of France.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1248-1254.

EGYPT: A. D. 1250-1517.

The Mameluke Sultans.

The Mamelukes were a military body created by Saladin. "The

word means slave (literally, the possessed'), and ... they

were brought in youth from northern countries to serve in the

South. Saladin himself was a Kurd, and long before his

accession to power, Turkish and Kurdish mercenaries were

employed by the Caliphs of Bagdad and Cairo, as the Pope

employs Swiss. ... Subsequently, however, Circassia became the

country which most largely furnished this class of troops.

Their apprenticeship was a long and laborious one: they were

taught, first of all, to read the Koran and to write; then

followed lance-exercise, during which time nobody was allowed

to speak to them. At first they either resided in the castle,

or were exercised living under tents; but after the time of

Sultan Barkouk they were allowed to live in the town [Cairo],

and the quarter now occupied by the Jews was at that time

devoted to the Circassian Mamelukes. After this period they

neglected their religious and warlike exercises, and became

degenerate and corrupt. ... The dynasty of Saladin ... was of

no duration, and ended in 648 A. H., or 1250 of the Christian era.

{760}

Then began the so-called Bahrite Sultans, in consequence of

the Mamelukes of the sultan Negm-ed-din having lodged in

Rodah, the Island in the Nile (Bahr-en-Nil). The intriguer of

the period was Sheger-ed-dur, the widow of the monarch, who

married one of the Mamelukes, Moez-eddin-aibek-el-Turcomany,

who became the first of these Bahrite Sultans, and was himself

murdered in the Castle of Cairo through this woman. ... Their

subsequent history, until the conquest of Egypt by Sultan

Selim in 1517, presents nothing but a series of acts of lust,

murder and rapine. So rapidly did they expel each other from

power, that the average reign of each did not exceed five or

six years. ... The 'fleeting purple' of the decline and fall

of the Roman Empire is the spectacle which these Mameluke

Dynasties constantly present."

A. A. Paton, History of the Egyptian Revolution,

volume 1, chapter 3-5.

EGYPT: A. D. 1516-1517.

Overthrow of the Mameluke Sultans.

Ottoman conquest by Sultan Selim.

See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

EGYPT: A. D. 1798-1799.

The French conquest and occupation by Bonaparte.

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

and 1798-1799 (AUGUST-AUGUST).

EGYPT: A. D. 1798-1799.

Bonaparte's organization of government.

His victory at Aboukir.

His return to France.

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

and 1799 (NOVEMBER).

EGYPT: A. D. 1800.

Discontent and discouragement of the French.

The repudiated Treaty of El Arish.

Turkish defeat at Heliopolis.

Revolt crushed at Cairo.

Assassination of Kleber.

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

EGYPT: A. D. 1801-1802.

Expulsion of the French by the English.

Restoration of the province to Turkey.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

EGYPT: A. D. 1803-1811.

The rise of Mohammad 'Aly (or Mehemet Ali) to power.

His treacherous destruction of the Mamelukes.

"It was during the French occupation that Mohammad 'Aly [or

Mehemet Ali] came on the scene. He was born in 1768 at the

Albanian port of Kaballa, and by the patronage of the governor

was sent to Egypt in 1801 with the contingent of troops

furnished by Kaballa to the Ottoman army then operating with

the English against the French. He rapidly rose to the command

of the Arnaut or Albanian section of the Turkish army, and

soon found himself an important factor in the confused

political position which followed the departure of the British

army. The Memluk Beys had not been restored to their former

posts as provincial governors, and were consequently ripe for

revolt against the Porte; but their party was weakened by the

rivalry of its two leaders, El-Elfy and El-Bardisy, who

divided their followers into two hostile camps. On the other

hand, the Turkish Pasha appointed by the Porte had not yet

gained a firm grip of the country, and was perpetually

apprehensive of a recall to Constantinople. Mohammad 'Aly at

the head of his Albanians was an important ally for either

side to secure, and he fully appreciated his position. He

played off one party against the other, the Pasha against the

Beys, so successfully, that he not only weakened both sides,

but made the people of Cairo, who were disgusted with the

anarchy of Memluk and Turk alike, his firm friends; and at

last suffered himself, with becoming hesitation, to be

persuaded by the entreaty of the populace to become [1805]

their ruler, and thus stepped to the supreme power in the

curious guise of the people's friend. A fearful time followed

Mohammad 'Aly's election--for such it was--to the governorship

of Egypt. The Turkish Pasha, Khurshid, held the citadel, and

Mohammad 'Aly, energetically aided by the people of Cairo,

laid siege to it. From the minaret of the mosque of Sultan

Hasan, and from the heights of Mukattam, the besiegers poured

their fire into the citadel, and Khurshid replied with an

indiscriminate cannonade upon the city. The firing went on for

weeks (pausing on Fridays), till a messenger arrived from

Constantinople bringing the confirmation of the popular vote,

in the form of a firman, appointing Mohammad 'Aly governor of

Egypt. Khurshid shortly afterwards retired, and the soldiery

amused themselves in the approved Turkish and (even worse)

Albanian fashion by making havoc of the houses of the

citizens. Mohammad 'Aly now possessed the title of Governor of

Egypt, but beyond the walls of Cairo his authority was

everywhere disputed by the Beys. ... An attempt was made to

ensnare certain of the Beys, who were encamped north of the

metropolis. On the 17th of August, 1805, the dam of the canal

of Cairo was to be cut, and some chiefs of Mohammad 'Aly's

party wrote informing them that he would go forth early on

that morning with most of his troops to witness the ceremony,

inviting them to enter and seize the city, and, to deceive

them, stipulating for a certain sum of money as a reward. The

dam, however, was cut early in the preceding night, without

any ceremony. On the following morning these Beys, with their

Memluks, a very numerous body, broke open the gate of the

suburb El-Hosey-niyeh, and gained admittance into the city.

... They marched along the principal street for some distance,

with kettle-drums behind each company, and were received with

apparent joy by the citizens. At the mosque called the

Ashrafiyeh they separated, one party proceeding to the Azhar

and the houses of certain sheykhs, and the other party

continuing along the main street, and through the gate called

Bab-Zuweyleh, where they turned up towards the citadel. Here

they were fired on by some soldiers from the houses; and with

this signal a terrible massacre commenced. Falling back

towards their companions, they found the by-streets closed;

and in that part of the main thoroughfare called

Beyn-el-Kasreyn, they were suddenly placed between two fires.

Thus shut up in a narrow street, some sought refuge in the

collegiate mosque of the Barkukiyeh, while the remainder

fought their way through their enemies, and escaped over the

city wall with the loss of their horses. Two Memluks had in

the meantime succeeded, by great exertions, in giving the

alarm to their comrades in the quarter of the Azhar, who

escaped by the eastern gate called Bab-el-Ghureyyib. A

horrible fate awaited those who had shut themselves up in the

Barkukiyeh. Having begged for quarter and surrendered, they

were immediately stripped nearly naked, and about fifty were

slaughtered on the spot; and about the same number were

dragged away. ... The wretched captives were then chained and

left in the court of the Pasha's house; and on the following

morning the heads of their comrades, who had perished the day

before, were skinned and stuffed with straw before their eyes.

{761}

One Bey and two other men paid their ransom, and were

released; the rest, without exception, were tortured, and put

to death in the course of the ensuing night. ... The Beys were

disheartened by this revolting butchery, and most of them

retired to the upper country. Urged by England, or more

probably by the promise of a bribe from El-Elfy, the Porte

began a leisurely interference in favour of the Memluks; but

the failure of El-Elfy's treasury, and a handsome bribe from

Mohammad 'Aly, soon changed the Sultan's views, and the

Turkish fleet sailed away. ... An attempt of the English

Government to restore the Memluks by the action of a force of

5,000 men under General Fraser ended in disaster and

humiliation, and the citizens of Cairo had the satisfaction of

seeing the heads of Englishmen exposed on stakes in the

Ezbekiyeh. Mohammad 'Aly now adopted a more conciliatory

policy towards the Memluks, granted them land, and encouraged

them to return to Cairo. The clemency was only assumed in

order to prepare the way for the act of consummate treachery

which finally uprooted the Memluk power. ... Early in the year

1811, the preparations for an expedition against the Wahhabis

in Arabia being complete, all the Memluk Beys then in Cairo

were invited to the ceremony of investing Mohammad 'Aly's

favourite son, Tusun, with a pelisse and the command of the

army. As on the former occasion, the unfortunate Memluks fell

into the snare. On the 1st of March, Shahin Bey and the other

chiefs (one only excepted) repaired with their retinues to the

citadel, and were courteously received by the Pasha. Having

taken coffee, they formed in procession, and, preceded and

followed by the Pasha's troops, slowly descended the steep and

narrow road leading to the great gate of the citadel; but as

soon as the Memluks arrived at the gate it was suddenly closed

before them. The last of those who made their exit before the

gate was shut were Albanians under Salih Kush. To those troops

their chief now made known the Pasha's orders to massacre all

the Memluks within the citadel; therefore having returned by

another way, they gained the summit of the walls and houses,

that hem in the road in which the Memluks were, and some

stationed themselves upon the eminences of the rock through

which that road is partly cut. Thus securely placed, they

commenced a heavy fire on their defenceless victims, and

immediately the troops who closed the procession, and who had

the advantage of higher ground, followed their example. ...

470 Memluks entered the citadel, and of these very few, if

any, escaped. One of these is said to have been a Bey.

According to some, he leaped his horse from the ramparts, and

alighted uninjured, though the horse was killed by the fall.

Others say that he was prevented from joining his comrades,

and discovered the treachery while waiting without the gate.

He fled and made his way to Syria. This massacre was the

signal for an indiscriminate slaughter of the Memluks

throughout Egypt, orders to this effect being transmitted to

every governor; and in Cairo itself, the houses of the Beys

were given over to the soldiery, who slaughtered all their

adherents, treated their women in the most shameless manner,

and sacked their dwellings. ... The last of his rivals being

now destroyed, Mohammad 'Aly was free to organize the

administration of the country, and to engage in expeditions

abroad."

S. Lane-Poole, Egypt, chapter 8.

ALSO IN:

A. A. Paton, History of the Egyptian Revolution,

volume 2.

EGYPT: A. D. 1807.

Occupation of Alexandria by the English.

Disastrous failure of their expedition.

See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.

EGYPT: A. D. 1831-1840.

Rebellion of Mehemet Ali.

Successes against the Turks.

Intervention of the Western Powers.

Egypt made an hereditary Pashalik.

See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869.

Mehemet Ali and his successors.

The khedives.

The opening of the Suez Canal.

"By the treaty of 1840 between the Porte and the European

Powers, ... his title to Egypt having been ... affirmed ...

Mehemet Ali devoted himself during the next seven years to the

social and material improvement of the country, with an

aggregate of results which has fixed his place in history as

the 'Peter the Great' of Egypt. Indeed, except some additions

and further reforms made during the reign of his reputed

grandson, Ismail Pasha, the whole administrative system, up

till less than ten years ago, was, in the main, his work; and

notwithstanding many admitted defects, it was at his death

incomparably the most civilised and efficient of then existing

Mussulman Governments. In 1848, this great satrap, then

verging on his eightieth year, was attacked by a mental

malady, induced, as it was said, by a potion administered in

mistaken kindness by one of his own daughters, and the

government was taken over by his adopted son, Ibrahim Pasha,

the hero of Koniah and Nezib. He lingered till August 1849,

but Ibrahim had already pre-deceased him; and Abbas, a son of

the latter, succeeded to the viceregal throne. Though born and

bred in Egypt, Abbas was a Turk of the worst type--ignorant,

cowardly, sensual, fanatic, and opposed to reforms of every

sort. Thus his feeble reign of less than six years was, in

almost everything, a period of retrogression. On a night in

July, 1854, he was strangled in his sleep by a couple of his

own slaves,--acting, it was variously said, on a secret order

from Constantinople, or at the behest of one of his wives. To

Abbas succeeded Said, the third son of Mehemet Ali, an amiable

and liberal-minded prince who retrieved much of the mischief

done by his predecessor, but lacked the vigorous intelligence

and force of character required to carry on the great work

begun by his father. His reign will be chiefly memorable for

the concession and commencement of the Suez Canal, the

colossal work which, while benefiting the trade of the world,

has cost so much to Egypt. Said died in January 1863, and was

succeeded by his nephew Ismail Pasha, the second son of

Ibrahim. As most of the leading incidents of this Prince's

reign, as also the chief features of his character, are still

fresh in the public memory, I need merely recall a few of the

more salient of both. Amongst the former, history will give

the first place to his creation of the huge public debt which

forms the main element of a problem that still confronts

Europe.

{762}

But, for this the same impartial judge will at least

equally blame the financial panderers who ministered to his

extravagance, with exorbitant profit to themselves, but at

ruinous cost to Egypt. On the other hand, it is but historical

justice to say that Ismail did much for the material progress

of the country. He added more than 1,000 to the 200 miles of

railway in existence at the death of Said. He greatly improved

the irrigation, and so increased the cultivable area of the

country; multiplied the primary schools, and encouraged native

industries. For so much, at least, history will give him

credit. As memorable, though less meritorious, were the

magnificent fetes with which, in 1869, he opened the Suez

Canal, the great work which England had so long opposed, but

through which--as if by the irony of history--the first ship

that passed flew the English flag, and to the present traffic

of which we contribute more than eighty per cent. In personal

character, Ismail was of exceptional intelligence, but cruel,

crafty, and untrustworthy both in politics and in his private

relations. ... It may be mentioned that Ismail Pasha was the

first of these Ottoman Viceroys who bore the title of

'Khedive,' which is a Perso-Arabic designation signifying rank

a shade less than regal. This he obtained in 1867 by heavy

bribes to the Sultan and his chief ministers, as he had the

year before by similar means ousted his brother and uncle from

the succession, and secured it for his own eldest son,--in

virtue of which the latter now [1890] nominally reigns."

J. C. M'Coan, Egypt (National Life and Thought,

lecture 18).

J. C. M'Coan, Egypt under Ismail, chapter 1-4.

EGYPT: A. D. 1870-1883.

Conquest of the Soudan.

Measures for the suppression of the slave-trade.

The government of General Gordon.

Advent of the Mahdi and beginning of his revolt.

In 1870, Ismail Pasha "made an appeal for European assistance

to strengthen him in completing the conquest of Central

Africa. [Sir Samuel] Baker was accordingly placed in command

of 1,200 men, supplied with cannon and steam-boats, and

received the title of Governour-General of the provinces which

he was commissioned to subdue. Having elected to make

Gondokoro the seat of his government, he changed its name to

Ismailia. He was not long in bringing the Bari to submission,

and then, advancing southwards, he came to the districts of

Dufilé and Fatiko, a healthy region endowed by nature with

fertile valleys and irrigated by limpid streams, but for years

past converted into a sort of hell upon earth by the

slave-hunters who had made it their headquarters. From these

pests Baker delivered the locality, and having by his tact and

energy overcome the distrust of the native rulers, he

established over their territory a certain number of small

military settlements. ... Baker returned to Europe flattering

himself with the delusion that he had put an end to the

scourge of slave dealing. It was true that various

slave-dealers' dens on the Upper Nile had been destroyed, a

number of outlaws had been shot, and a few thousand miserable

slaves had been set at liberty; but beyond that nothing had

been accomplished; no sooner had the liberator turned his back

than the odious traffic recommenced with more vigour than

before through the region south of Gondokoro. This, however,

was only one of the slave-hunting districts, and by no means

the worst. ... Under European compulsion ... the Khedive

Ismail undertook to promote measures to put a stop to the

scandal. He entered into various conventions with England on

the subject; and in order to convince the Powers of the

sincerity of his intentions, he consented to put the

equatorial provinces under the administration of an European

officer, who should be commissioned to carry on the work of

repression, conquest and organisation that had been commenced

by Baker. His choice fell upon a man of exceptional ability, a

brilliant officer trained at Woolwich, who had already gained

high renown in China, not only for military talent, but for

his adroitness and skill in negotiation and diplomacy. This

was Colonel Gordon, familiarly known as 'Chinese Gordon,' who

was now to add fresh lustre to his name in Egypt as Gordon

Pasha. Gordon was appointed Governour-General of the Soudan in

1874. With him were associated Chaillé-Long, an American

officer, who was chief of his staff; the German, Dr. Emin

Effendi, medical officer to the expedition; Lieutenants

Chippendall and Watson; Gessi and Kemp, engineers. ...

Thenceforward the territories, of which so little had hitherto

been known, became the continual scene of military movements

and scientific excursions. ... The Soudan was so far conquered

as to be held by about a dozen military outposts stationed

along the Nile from Lake No to Lakes Albert and Ibrahim. ...

In 1876 Gordon went back to Cairo. Nevertheless, although he

was wearied with the continual struggle of the past two years,

worn down by the incessant labours of internal organisation

and geographical investigations, disheartened, too, by the

jealousies, rivalries, and intrigues of all around him, and by

the ill feeling of the very people whom the Khedive's

Government had sent to support him, he consented to return

again to his post; this time with the title of

Governour-General of the Soudan, Darfur, and the Equatorial

Provinces. At the beginning of 1877 he took possession of the

Government palace at Khartoum. ... Egyptian authority, allied

with European civilisation, appeared now at length to be

taking some hold on the various districts, and the Cairo

Government might begin to look forward to a time when it could

reckon on some reward for its labours and sacrifices. The area

of the new Egyptian Soudan had now become immense.

Geographically, its centre included the entire valley of the

Nile proper, from Berber to the great lakes; on the east were

such portions of the valleys of the Blue Nile and Atbara as

lay outside Abyssinia; and on the west were the districts

watered by the Bahr-el-Ghazal, and the Bahr-el-Arab, right

away to the confines of Wadai. ... Unfortunately in 1879

Ismail Pasha was deposed, and, to the grievous loss of the

Soudan, Gordon was recalled. As the immediate consequence, the

country fell back into the hands of Turkish pashas; apathy,

disorder, carelessness, and ill feeling reappeared at

Khartoum, and the Arab slave-dealers, who had for a period

been kept under by Baker, Gessi, and Gordon, came once more to

the front. ... It was Raouf Pasha who, in 1879, succeeded

Gordon as Governour-General. He had three Europeans as his

subordinates--Emin Bey, who before Gordon left, had been

placed in charge of the province of the equator; Lupton Bey,

an Englishman, who had followed Gessi as Governour on the

Bahr-el-Ghazal; and Slatin Bey, an Austrian, in command of

Darfur. Raouf had barely been two years at Khartoum when the

Mahdi appeared on the scene.

{763}

Prompted either by personal ambition or by religious hatred,

the idea of playing the part of 'Mahdi' had been acted upon by

many an Arab fanatic [see MAHDI]. Such an idea, at an early

age, had taken possession of a certain Soudanese of low birth,

a native of Dongola, by name Mohammed Ahmed. Before openly

aspiring to the role of the regenerator of Islam he had filled

several subordinate engagements, notably one under Dr. Peney,

the French surgeon-general in the Soudan, who died in 1861.

Shortly afterwards he received admittance into the powerful

order of the Ghelani dervishes, and then commenced his schemes

for stirring up a revolution in defence of his creed. His

proceedings did not fail to attract the attention of Gessi

Pasha, who had him arrested at Shekka and imprisoned for five

months. Under the government of Raouf he took up his abode

upon the small island of Abba, on the Nile above Khartoum,

where he gained a considerable notoriety by the austerity of

his life and by the fervour of his devotions, thus gradually

gaining a high reputation for sanctity. Not only offerings but

followers streamed in from every quarter. He became rich as

well as powerful. ... Waiting till May 1881, he then assumed

that a propitious time had arrived for the realisation of his

plans, and accordingly had himself publicly proclaimed as

'Mahdi,' inviting every fakir and every religious leader of

Islam to come and join him at Abba. ... Convinced that it was

impolitic to tolerate any longer the revolutionary intrigues

of such an adventurer at the very gates of Khartoum, Raouf

Pasha resolved to rid the country of Mohammed and to send him

to Cairo for trial. An expedition was accordingly despatched

to the island of Abba, but unfortunately the means employed

were inadequate to the task. Only a small body of black

soldiers were sent to arrest the agitator in his quarters, and

they, inspired no doubt by a vague and superstitious dread of

a man who represented himself as the messenger of Allah,

wavered and acted with indecision. Before their officers could

rally them to energy, the Mahdi, with a fierce train of

followers, knife in hand, rushed upon them, and killing many,

put the rest to flight; then, seeing that a renewed assault

was likely to be made, he withdrew the insurgent band into a

retreat of safety amongst the mountains of Southern Kordofan.

Henceforth revolt was openly declared. Such was the condition

of things in August 1881. Chase was given, but every effort to

secure the person of the pretended prophet was baffled. A

further attempt was made to arrest him by the Mudir of Fashoda

with 1,500 men, only to be attended with a still more

melancholy result. After a desperate struggle the Mudir lay

stretched upon the ground, his soldiers murdered all around

him. One single officer, with a few straggling cavalry,

escaped the massacre, and returned to report the fatal news.

The reverse caused an absolute panic in Khartoum, an intense

excitement spreading throughout the Soudan.... Meantime the

Mahdi's prestige was ever on the increase, and he soon felt

sufficiently strong to assume the offensive. His troops

overran Kordofan and Sennar, advancing on the one hand to the

town of Sennar, which they set on fire, and on the other to

El-Obeid, which they placed in a state of siege. In the

following July a fresh and more powerful expedition, this time

numbering 6,000 men, under the command of Yussuf Pasha, left

Fashoda and made towards the Mahdi's headquarters. It met with

no better fate than the expeditions that had gone before. ...

And then it was that the English Government, discerning danger

for Egypt in this insurrection of Islam, set to work to act

for the Khedive. It told off 11,000 men, and placed them under

the command of Hicks Pasha, an officer in the Egyptian service

who had made the Abyssinian campaign. At the end of December

1882 this expedition embarked at Suez for Suakin, crossed the

desert, reached the Nile at Berber, and after much endurance

on the way, arrived at Khartoum. Before this, El-Obeid had

fallen into the Mahdi's power, and there he had taken up his

headquarters. Some trifling advantages were gained by Hicks,

but having entered Kordofan with the design of retaking

El-Obeid, he was, on the 5th of November 1883, hemmed in

amongst the Kasgil passes, and after three days' heroic

fighting, his army of about 10,000 men was overpowered by a

force five or six times their superior in numbers, and

completely exterminated. Hicks Pasha himself, his European

staff, and many Egyptian officers of high rank, were among the

dead, and forty-two guns fell into the hands of the enemy.

Again, not a man was left to carry the fatal tidings to

Khartoum. Rebellion continued to spread. After being agitated

for months, the population of the Eastern Soudan also made a

rising. Osman Digna, the foremost of the Mahdi's lieutenants,

occupied the road between Suakin and Berber, and surrounded

Sinkat and Tokar; then, having destroyed, one after another,

two Egyptian columns that had been despatched for the relief

of these towns, he finally cut off the communication between

Khartoum and the Red Sea. The tide of insurrection by this

time had risen so high that it threatened not only to

overthrow the Khedive's authority in the Soudan, but to become

the source of serious peril to Egypt itself."

A. J. Wauters, Stanley's Emin Pasha Expedition, chapter 1-2.

ALSO IN:

Major R. F. Wingate, Mahdiism and the Egyptian Sudan,

books 1-4.

Colonel Sir. W. F. Butler, Charles George Gordon,

chapters 5-6.

A. E. Hake, The Story of Chinese Gordon, chapters 10-15.

EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882.

Bankruptcy of the state.

English and French control of finances.

Native hostility to the foreigners.

Rebellion, led by Arabi.

English bombardment of Alexandria.

"The facilities given by foreign money-lenders encouraged

extravagance and ostentation on the part of the sovereign and

the ruling classes, while mismanagement and corrupt practices

were common among officials, so that the public debt rose in

1875 to ninety-one millions, and in January, 1881, to

ninety-eight millions. ... The European capitalists obtained

for their money nominally six to nine per cent., but really

not less than eight to ten per cent., as the bonds were issued

at low rates. ... The interest on these borrowed millions was

punctually paid up to the end of 1875, when the Khedive found

that he could not satisfy his creditors, and the British

government interfered in his favour. Mr. Cave was sent to

examine into Egyptian finances, and he reported that loans at

twelve and thirteen per cent. were being agreed to and renewed

at twenty-five per cent., and that some measure of

consolidation was necessary. The two western Powers now took

the matter in hand, but they thereby recognized the whole of

these usurious demands.

{764}

The debt, although under their control, and therefore

secured, was not reduced by the amount already paid in

premiums for risk. Nor was the rate of interest diminished to

something more nearly approaching the rate payable on English

consols, which was three per cent. A tribunal under the

jurisdiction of united European and native judges was also

established in Egypt to decide complaints of foreigners

against natives, and vice versa. In May, 1876, this tribunal

gave judgment that the income of the Khedive Ismail, from his

private landed property, could be appropriated to pay the

creditors of the state, and an execution was put into the

Viceregal palace, Er Ramleh, near Alexandria. The Khedive

pronounced the judgment invalid, and the tribunal ceased to

act. Two commissioners were now again sent to report on

Egyptian finances--M. Joubert, the director of the Paris Bank,

for France, and Mr. Goschen, a former minister, for England.

These gentlemen proposed to hand over the control of the

finances to two Europeans, depriving the state of all

independence and governing power. The Khedive, in order to

resist these demands, convoked a sort of Parliament in order

to make an appeal to the people. From this Parliament was

afterwards developed the Assembly of Notables, and the

National party, now so often spoken of. In 1877 a European

commission of control over Egyptian finance was named. ...

Nubar Pasha was made Prime minister in 1878; the control of

the finances was entrusted to Mr. Wilson, an Englishman; and

later, the French controller, M. de Blignières, entered the

Cabinet. Better order was thus restored to the finances.

Rothschild's new loan of eight and a half millions was issued

at seventy-three, and therefore brought in from six to eight

per cent. nett. ... But to be able to pay the creditors their

full interest, economy had to be introduced into the national

expenditure. To do this, clumsy arrangements were made, and

the injustice shown in carrying them out embittered many

classes of the population, and laid the foundations of a

fanatical hatred of race against race. ... In consequence of

all this, the majority of the notables, many ulemas, officers,

and higher officials among the Egyptians, formed themselves

into a National party, with the object of resisting the

oppressive government of the foreigner. They were joined by

the great mass of the discharged soldiers and subordinate

officials, not to mention many others. At the end of February,

1870, a revolt broke out in Cairo. Nubar, hated by the

National party, was dismissed by the Khedive Ismail, who

installed his son Tewfik as Prime minister. In consequence of

this, the coupons due in April were not paid till the

beginning of May, and the western Powers demanded the

reinstatement of Nubar. That Tewfik on this occasion retired

and sided with the foreigners is the chief cause of his

present [1882] unpopularity in Egypt. Ismail, however, now

dismissed Wilson and De Blignières, and a Cabinet was formed,

consisting chiefly of native Egyptians, with Sherif Pasha as

Prime minister. Sherif now raised for the first time the cry

of which we have since heard so much, and which was inscribed

by Arabi on his banners, 'Egypt for the Egyptians.' The

western Powers retorted by a menacing naval demonstration, and

demanded of the Sultan the deposition of the Khedive. In June,

1870, this demand was agreed to. Ismail went into exile, and

his place was filled br Mahomed Tewfik. ... The new Khedive,

with apathetic weakness, yielded the reconstruction of his

ministry and the organization of his finances to the western

Powers. Mr. Baring and M. de Blignières, as commissioners of

the control, aided by officials named by Rothschild to watch

over his private interests, now ruled the land. They devoted

forty-five millions (about sixteen shillings per head on the

entire population) to the payment of interest. The people were

embittered by the distrust shown towards them, and the further

reduction of the army from fifty to fifteen thousand men threw

a large number out of employment. ... Many acts of military

insubordination occurred, and at last, on the 8th of November,

1881, the great military revolt broke out in Cairo. ... Ahmed

Arabi, colonel of the 4th regiment, now first came into public

notice. Several regiments, headed by their officers, openly

rebelled against the orders of the Khedive, who was compelled

to recall the nationalist, Sherif Pasha, and to refer the

further demands of the rebels for the increase of the army,

and for a constitution, to the Sultan. Sherif Pasha, however,

did not long enjoy the confidence of the National Egyptian

party, at whose head Arabi now stood, winning every day more

reputation and influence. The army, in which he permitted

great laxity of discipline, was entirely devoted to him. ... A

pretended plot of Circassian officers against his life he

dexterously used to increase his popularity. ... Twenty-six

officers were condemned to death by court-martial, but the

Khedive, at the instance of the western Powers, commuted the

sentence, and they were banished to Constantinople. This

leniency was stigmatized by the National party as treachery to

the country, and the Chamber of Notables retorted by naming

Arabi commander-in-chief of the army and Prime minister

without asking the consent of the Khedive. The Chamber soon

afterwards came into conflict with the foreign comptrollers.

... This ended in De Blignières resigning his post, and in the

May of the present year (1882) the consuls of the European

Powers declared that a fleet of English and French ironclads

would appear before Alexandria, to demand the disbanding of

the army and the punishment of its leaders. The threat was

realized, and, in spite of protests from the Sultan, a fleet

of English and French ironclads entered the harbour of

Alexandria. The Khedive, at the advice of his ministers and

the chiefs of the National party, appealed to the Sultan. ...

The popular hatred of foreigners now became more and more

apparent, and began to assume threatening dimensions. ... On

the 30th of May, Arabi announced that a despatch from the

Sultan had reached him, promising the deposition of Tewfik in

favour of his uncle Halim Pasha. ... On the 3rd of June,

Dervish Pasha, a man of energy notwithstanding his years, had

sailed from Constantinople. ... His object was to pacify Egypt

and to reconcile Tewfik and Arabi Pasha. ... Since the

publication of the despatch purporting to proclaim Halim Pasha

as Khedive, Arabi had done nothing towards dethroning the

actual ruler. But on the 2nd of June he began to strengthen

the fortifications of Alexandria with earthworks. ...

{765}

The British admiral protested, and the Sultan, on the

remonstrances of British diplomacy, forbad the continuation of

the works. ... Serious disturbances took place in Alexandria

on the 11th. The native rabble invaded the European quarter,

plundered the shops, and slew many foreigners. ... Though the

disturbances were not renewed, a general emigration of

foreigners was the result. ... On the 22nd a commission,

consisting of nine natives and nine Europeans ... began to try

the ringleaders of the riot. ... But events were hurrying on

towards war. The works at Alexandria were recommenced, and the

fortifications armed with heavy guns. The English admiral

received information that the entrance to the harbour would be

blocked by sunken storeships, and this, he declared, would be

an act of open war. A complete scheme for the destruction of

the Suez canal was also discovered. ... The English, on their

side, now began to make hostile demonstrations; and Arabi,

while repudiating warlike intentions, declared himself ready

for resistance. ... On the 27th the English vice-consul

advised his fellow-countrymen to leave Alexandria, and on the

3rd of July, according to the 'Times,' the arrangements for

war were complete. ... Finally, as a reconnaissance on the 9th

showed that the forts were still being strengthened, he [the

English admiral] informed the governor of Alexandria, Zulficar

Pasha, that unless the forts had been previously evacuated and

surrendered to the English, he intended to commence the

bombardment at four the next morning. ... As the French

government were unable to take part in any active measures (a

grant for that purpose having been refused by the National

Assembly), the greater part of their fleet, under Admiral

Conrad, left Alexandria for Port Said. The ironclads of other

nations, more than fifty in number, anchored outside the

harbour of Alexandria. ... On the evening of the 10th of July

... and at daybreak on the 11th, the ... ironclads took up the

positions assigned to them. There was a gentle breeze from the

east, and the weather was clear. At 6.30 a. m. all the ships

were cleared for action. At seven the admiral signalled to the

Alexandra to fire a shell into Fort Ada. ... The first shot

fired from the Alexandra was immediately replied to by the

Egyptians; whereupon the ships of the whole fleet and the

Egyptian forts and batteries opened fire, and the engagement

became general. ... At 8.30 Fort Marsa-el-Kanat was blown up

by shells from the Invincible and Monarch, and by nine o'clock

the Téméraire, Monarch, and Penelope had silenced most of the

guns in Fort Meks, although four defied every effort from

their protected situation. By 11.45 Forts Marabout and Adjemi

had ceased firing, and a landing party of seamen and marines

was despatched, under cover of the Bittern's guns, to spike

and blow up the guns in the forts. At 1.30 a shell from the

Superb burst in the chief powder magazine of Fort Ada and blew

it up. By four o'clock all the guns of Fort Pharos, and half

an hour later those of Fort Meks, were disabled, and at 5.30

the admiral ordered the firing to cease. The ships were

repeatedly struck and sustained some damage. ... The English

casualties were five killed and twenty-eight wounded, a

comparatively small loss. The Egyptian loss is not known. ...

At 1 p. m. on the 12th of July, the white flag was hoisted by

the Egyptians. Admiral Seymour demanded, as a preliminary

measure, the surrender of the forts commanding the entrance to

the harbour, and the negotiations on this point were

fruitlessly protracted for some hours. As night approached the

city was seen to be on fire in many places, and the flames

were spreading in all directions. The English now became aware

that the white flag had merely been used as means to gain time

for a hasty evacuation of Alexandria by Arabi and his army.

Sailors and marines were now landed, and ships of other

nations sent detachments on shore to protect their countrymen.

But it was too late; Bedouins, convicts, and ill-disciplined

soldiers had plundered and burnt the European quarter, killed

many foreigners, and a Reuter's telegram of the 14th said,

'Alexandria is completely destroyed.'"

H. Vogt, The Egyptian War of 1882, pages 2-32.

ALSO IN:

J. C. McCoan, Egypt under Ismail, chapter 8-10.

C. Royle, The Egyptian Campaigns, volume 1, chapter 1-20.

Khedives and Pashas.

C. F. Goodrich, Report on British Military and Naval

Operations in Egypt, 1882, part 1.

EGYPT: A. D. 1882-1883.

The massacre and destruction in Alexandria.

Declared rebellion of Arabi.

Its suppression by the English.

Banishment of Arabi.

English occupation.

The city of Alexandria had become "such a scene of pillage,

massacre, and wanton destruction as to make the world shudder.

It was the old tale of horrors. Houses were plundered and

burned; the European quarter, including the stately buildings

surrounding the Great Square of Mehemet Ali, was sacked and

left a heap of smoldering ruins; and more than two thousand

Europeans, for the most part Levantines, were massacred with

all the cruelty of oriental fanaticism. This was on the

afternoon of the 12th. It was the second massacre that had

occurred under the very eyes of the British fleet. The

admiral's failure to prevent it has been called unfortunate by

some and criminal by others. It seems to have been wholly

without excuse. ... The blue-jackets were landed on the 13th,

and cleared the way before them with a Gatling gun. The next

day, more ships having arrived, a sufficient force was landed

to take possession of the entire city. The khedive was

escorted back to Ras-el-Tin from Ramleh, and given a strong

guard. Summary justice was dealt out to all hostile Arabs who

had been captured in the city. In short, English intervention

was followed by English occupation. The bombardment of

Alexandria had defined clearly the respective positions of

Arabi and the khedive toward Egypt and the Egyptian people.

... The khedive was not only weak in the eyes of his people,

but he was regarded as the tool of England. ... From the

moment the first shot was fired upon Alexandria, Arabi was the

real ruler of the people. ... The conference at Constantinople

was stirred by the news of the bombardment of Alexandria. It

presented a note to the Porte, July 15, requesting the

dispatch of Turkish troops to restore the status quo in Egypt.

But the sultan had no idea of taking the part of the Christian

in what all Islam regarded as a contest between the Moslem and

the unbeliever. ... In Egypt, the khedive had been prevailed

upon, after some demur, to proclaim Arabi a rebel and

discharge him from his cabinet. Arabi had issued a

counter-proclamation, on the same day, declaring Tewfik a

traitor to his people and his religion.

{766}

Having received the news of the khedive's proclamation, Lord

Dufferin, the British ambassador at Constantinople, announced

to the conference that England was about to send an expedition

to Egypt to suppress the rebellion and to restore the

authority of the khedive. Thereupon the sultan declared that

he had decided to send a Turkish expedition. Lord Dufferin

feigned to accept the sultan's cooperation, but demanded that

the Porte, as a preliminary step, should declare Arabi a

rebel. Again the sultan was confronted with the danger of

incurring the wrath of the Moslem world. He could not declare

Arabi a rebel. ... In his desperation, he sent a force of

3,000 men to Suda bay with orders to hold themselves in

readiness to enter Egypt at a moment's notice. ... In the

meantime, however, the English expedition had arrived in Egypt

and was proceeding to crush the rebellion, regardless of the

diplomatic delays and bickerings at Constantinople. ... It was

not until the 15th of August that Sir Garnet Wolseley arrived

with his force in Egypt. The English at that time held only

two points, Alexandria and Suez, while the entire Egyptian

interior, as well as Port Said and Ismailia, were held by

Arabi, whose force, it was estimated, now amounted to about

70,000 men, of whom at least 50,000 were regulars. The

objective point of General Wolseley's expedition to crush

Arabi was, of course, the city of Cairo. There were two ways

of approaching that city, one from Alexandria, through the

Delta, and the other from the Suez canal. There were many

objections to the former route. ... The Suez canal was

supposed to be neutral water. ... But England felt no

obligation to recognize any neutrality, ... acting upon the

principle, which is doubtless sound, that 'the neutrality of

any canal joining the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific

oceans will be maintained, if at all, by the nation which can

place and keep the strongest ships at each extremity.' In

other words, General Wolseley decided to enter Cairo by way of

the Suez canal and Ismailia. But he kept his plan a profound

secret. Admiral Seymour alone knew his purpose. ... On the

19th, the transports moved eastward from Alexandria, as if to

attack Abukir; but under the cover of darkness that night,

they were escorted on to Port Said, where they learned that

the entire canal, owing to the preconcerted action of Admiral

Seymour, was in the hands of the British. On the 21st, the

troops met Sir Henry McPherson's Indian contingent at

Ismailia. Two days were now consumed in rest and preparation.

The Egyptians cut off the water supply, which came from the

Delta by the Sweet Water Canal, by damming the canal. A sortie

to secure possession of the dam was therefore deemed

necessary, and was successfully made on the 24th. Further

advances were made, and on the 26th, Kassassin, a station of

some importance on the canal and railway, was occupied. Here

the British force was obliged to delay for two weeks, while

organizing a hospital and a transport service. This gave Arabi

opportunity to concentrate his forces at Zagazig and

Tel-el-Kebir. But he knew it was for his interest to strike at

once before the British transports could come up with the

advance. He therefore made two attempts, one on August 28, and

the other on September 9, to regain the position lost at

Kassassin. But he failed in both, though inflicting some loss

upon his opponents. On the 12th of September preparations were

made by General Wolseley for a decisive battle. He had become

convinced from daily reconnoissance and from the view obtained

in the engagement of September 9, that the fortifications at

Tel-el-Kebir were both extensive and formidable. ... It was

therefore decided to make the approach under cover of

darkness. ... At 1.30 on the morning of the 13th General

Wolseley gave the order for the advance, his force consisting

of about 11,000 infantry, 2,000 cavalrymen, and sixty

field-guns. They had only the stars to guide them, but so

accurately was the movement conducted that the leading

brigades of each division reached the enemy's outposts within

two minutes of each other. 'The enemy (says General Wolseley)

were completely surprised, and it was not until one or two of

their advanced sentries fired their rifles that they realized

our close proximity to their works.' ... The intrenchments

were not carried without a severe struggle. The Egyptians

fought with a desperate courage and hundreds of them were

bayoneted at their posts. ... But what could the rank and file

accomplish when 'each officer knew that he would run, but

hoped his neighbor would stay.' At the first shot Arabi and

his second in command took horse and galloped to Belbeis,

where they caught a train for Cairo. Most of the other

officers, as the reports of killed and wounded show, did the

same. The Egyptians fired their first shot at 4.55 A. M., and

at 6.45 the English had possession of Arabi's headquarters and

the canal bridge. The British loss was 57 killed, 380 wounded,

and 22 missing. The Egyptian army left about 2,000 dead in the

fortifications. ... A proof of the completeness of the success

was the entire dissipation of Arabi's army. Groups of

soldiers, it is true, were scattered to different parts of

Egypt; but the army organization was completely broken up with

the battle of Tel-el-Kebir. ... 'Major-General Lowe was

ordered to push on with all possible speed to Cairo. ...

General Lowe [reached] the great barracks of Abbassieh, just

outside of Cairo, at 4.45 P. M., on the 14th instant. The

cavalry marched sixty-five miles in these two days. ... A

message was sent to Arabi Pasha through the prefect of the

city, calling upon him to surrender forthwith, which he did

unconditionally.' ... Before leaving England, Wolseley had

predicted that he would enter Cairo on the 16th of September;

but with still a day to spare the feat was accomplished, and

Arabi's rebellion was completely crushed. England now stood

alone. Victory had been won without the aid of France or the

intervention of Turkey. In Constantinople negotiations

regarding Turkish expeditions were still pending when Lord

Dufferin received the news of Wolseley's success, and

announced to the Porte that there was now no need of a Turkish

force in Egypt, as the war was ended. France at once prepared

to resume her share in the control; but England, having borne

the sole burden of the war, did not propose now to share the

influence her success had given her. And it was for the

interest of Egypt that she should not. ... England's first

duty, after quiet was assured, was to send away all the

British troops except a force of about 11,000 men, which it

was deemed advisable to retain in Egypt until the khedive's

authority was placed on a safe footing throughout the land. ...

{767}

What should be done with Arabi was the question of paramount

interest, when once the khedive's authority was re-established

and recognized. Tewfik and his ministers, if left to

themselves, would unquestionably have taken his life. ... But

England was determined that Arabi should have a fair trial.

... It was decided that the rebel leaders should appear before

a military tribunal, and they were given English counsel to

plead their cause. ... The trial was a farce. Everything was

'cut and dried' beforehand. It was arranged that Arabi was to

plead guilty to rebellion, that he was forthwith to be

condemned to death by the court, and that the khedive was

immediately to commute the sentence to perpetual exile. In

fact, the necessary papers were drawn up and signed before the

court met for Arabi's trial on December 3. ... On the 26th of

December Arabi and his six companions ... upon whom the same

sentence had been passed, left Cairo for the Island of Ceylon,

there to spend their life of perpetual exile. ... Lord

Dufferin ... had been sent from Constantinople to Cairo, early

in November, with the special mission of bringing order out of

governmental chaos. In two months he had prepared a scheme of

legislative reorganization. This was, however, somewhat

altered; so that it was not until May, 1883, that the plan in

its improved form was accepted by the decree of the khedive.

The new constitution provided for three classes of assemblies:

the 'Legislative' Council,' the 'General Assembly,' and the

'Provincial Councils,' of which there were to be fourteen, one

for each province. ... Every Egyptian man, over twenty years

of age, was to vote (by ballot) for an 'elector-delegate' from

the village in the neighborhood of which he lived, and the

'electors-delegate' from all the villages in a province were

to form the constituency that should elect the provincial

council. ... The scheme for reorganization was carried forward

to the extent of electing the 'electors-delegate' in

September; but by that time Egypt was again in a state of such

disquietude that the British advisers of the khedive

considered it unwise to put the new institutions into

operation. In place of legislative council and general

assembly, the khedive appointed a council of state, consisting

of eleven Egyptians, two Armenians, and ten Europeans. The

reforms were set aside for the time being in view of impending

troubles and dangers in the Sudan."

J. E. Bowen, The Conflict of East and West

in Egypt, chapter 5-6.

ALSO IN:

Colonel J. F. Maurice, Military History of

the Campaign of 1882 in Egypt.

C. Royle, The Egyptian Campaigns, volume 1, chapter 22-44.

EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885.

General Gordon's Mission to Khartoum.

The town beleaguered by the Mahdists.

English rescue expedition.

The energy that was too late.

"The abandonment of the Soudan being decided upon, the British

Government confided to General Gordon the task of extricating

the Egyptian garrisons scattered throughout the country. ...

Gordon's original instructions were dated the 18th January,

1884. He was to proceed at once to Egypt, to report on the

military situation in the Soudan, and on the measures which it

might be advisable to take for the security of the Egyptian

garrisons and for the safety of the European population in

Khartoum. ... He was to be accompanied by Colonel Stewart. ...

Gordon's final instructions were given him by the Egyptian

Government in a firman appointing him Governor-General. ...

Gordon arrived at Khartoum on the 18th February. ... While

Gordon was sending almost daily expressions of his view as to

the only way of carrying out the policy of eventual

evacuation, it was also becoming clear to him that he would

very soon be cut off from the rest of Egypt. His first remark

on this subject was to express 'the conviction that I shall be

caught in Khartoum'; and he wrote,--'Even if I was mean enough

to escape I have no power to do so.' The accuracy of this

forecast was speedily demonstrated. Within a few days

communications with Khartoum were interrupted, and although

subsequently restored for a time, the rising of the riparian

tribes rendered the receipt and despatch of messages

exceedingly uncertain. ... Long before the summer of 1884, it

was evident that the position of Gordon at Khartoum had become

so critical, that if he were to be rescued at all, it could

only be by the despatch of a British force. ... Early in May,

war preparations were commenced in England, and on the 10th of

the month the military authorities in Cairo received

instructions to prepare for the despatch in October of an

expedition for the relief of the Soudanese capital. 12,000

camels were ordered to be purchased and held in readiness for

a forward march in the autumn. On the 16th May a

half-battalion of English troops was moved up the Nile to Wady

Halfa. A few weeks later some other positions on the Nile were

occupied by portions of the Army of Occupation. Naval officers

were also sent up the river to examine and report upon the

cataracts and other impediments to navigation. Still it was

not till the 5th August that Mr. Gladstone rose in the House

of Commons to move a vote of credit of £300,000 to enable the

Government to undertake operations for the relief of Gordon.

... It was agreed that there were but two routes by which

Khartoum could be approached by an expedition. One by way of

the Nile, and the other via Souakim and Berber. ... The Nile

route having been decided on, preparations on a large scale

were begun. ... It was at first arranged that not more than

5,000 men should form the Expedition, but later on the number

was raised to 7,000. ... The instructions given to Lord

Wolseley stated that the primary object of the Expedition was

to bring away Gordon and Stewart from Khartoum; and when that

purpose should be effected, no further offensive operations of

any kind were to be undertaken."

C. Royle, The Egyptian Campaigns, 1882-1885,

volume 2, chapter 12-18.

"First, it was said that our troops would be before the gates

of Khartoum on January 14th; next it was the middle of

February; and then the time stretched out to the middle of

March. ... Lord Wolseley offered a hundred pounds to the

regiment covering the distance from Sarras to Debbeh most

expeditiously and with least damage to boats. ... He also

dispatched Sir Herbert Stewart on the immortal march to

Gakdul. Stewart's force, composed principally of the Mounted

Infantry and Camel Corps, and led by a troop of the 19th

Hussars, acting as scouts--numbering about 1,100 in all--set

out from Korti on December 30th. Its destination was about 100

miles from headquarters, and about 80 from the Nile at Shendy.

{768}

The enterprise, difficult and desperate as it was, was

achieved with perfect success. ... On the 17th January Sir

Herbert Stewart engaged the enemy on the road to Metemneh, and

after defeating some 10,000 Arabs--collected from Berber,

Metemneh, and Omdurman--pushed forward to the Abu Klea Wells.

His tactics were much the same as those of General Graham at

Elteb, and those of the Mahdi's men--of attacking when thirst

and fatigue had well-nigh prostrated the force--were at all

points similar to those adopted against Hicks. Our losses were

65 non-commissioned officers and men killed and 85 wounded,

with 9 officers killed--among them Colonel Burnaby--and 9

wounded. Stewart at once pushed on for Metemneh and the Nile.

He left the Wells on the 18th January to occupy Metemneh, if

possible, but, failing that, to make for the Nile and entrench

himself. After a night's march, some five miles south of

Metemneh, the column found itself in presence of an enemy said

to have been about 18,000 strong. Stewart halted and formed a

zareba under a deadly fire. He himself was mortally hurt in

the groin, and Mr. Cameron, of the Standard, and Mr. Herbert,

of the Morning Post, were killed. The zareba completed, the

column advanced in square, and the Arabs, profiting by Abu

Klea, moved forward in echelon, apparently with the purpose of

charging. At thirty yards or so they were brought to bay, so

terrific was the fire from the square, and so splendidly

served was Norton's artillery. For two hours the battle raged;

and then the Arabs, 'mown down in heaps,' gave way. Meantime

Sir Charles Wilson had made a dash for the Nile, where he

found steamers and reinforcements from Gordon, and the laconic

message, 'An right at Khartoum. Can hold out for years.' ...

In the joy at the good news, none had stopped to consider the

true meaning of the message, 'All right. Can hold out for

years,' for none was aware that nearly two months before

Gordon had said he had just provisions enough for 40 days, and

that what he really meant was that he had come to his last

biscuit. The message--which was written for the enemy--was

dated December 20, and Sir Charles Wilson would reach Khartoum on

January 28, just a month after its despatch. ... The public,

carefully kept in ignorance ... and hopeful beyond their wont,

were simply stupefied to hear, on February 5, that Khartoum was in

the hands of the Mahdi and Gordon captured or dead."

A. E. Hake, The Story of Chinese Gordon,

volume 2, chapter 10.

ALSO IN:

H. M. Stanley, In Darkest Africa, chapter 1.

Colonel H. E. Colvile, History of the Soudan Campaign.

Colonel C. W. Wilson, From Korti to Khartoum.

Colonel Sir W. F. Butler, The Campaign of the Cataracts.

W. M. Pimblett, The Story of the Soudan War.

Gen. C. G. Gordon, Journals at Khartoum.

H. W. Gordon, Events in the Life of

Charles George Gordon, chapter 14-20.

EGYPT: A. D. 1893.

The reigning khedive.

Mohamed Tewfik died in January, 1802 and was succeeded by his

son Abbas, born in 1874.

Statesman's Year-book, 1893.

----------EGYPT: End----------

EGYPTIAN EDUCATION.

See EDUCATION, ANCIENT.

EGYPTIAN TALENT.

See TALENT.

EIDGENOSSEN.

The German word Eidgenossen, signifying "confederates," is

often used in a special sense, historically, as applied to the

members of the Swiss Confederation/

See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

The name of the Huguenots is believed by some writers to be a

corruption of the same term.

EIGHT SAINTS OF WAR, The.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1375-1378.

EIKON BASILIKE, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (FEBRUARY).

EION, Siege and capture of (B. C. 470).

See ATHENS: B. C. 470-466.

EIRE.

See IRELAND: THE NAME.

EKKLESIA.

See ECCLESIA.

EKOWE, Defence of (1879).

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1877-1870.

ELAGABALUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 218-222.

ELAM.

"Genesis calls a tribe dwelling on the Lower Tigris, between

the river and the mountains of Iran, the Elamites, the oldest

son of Shem. Among the Greeks the land of the Elamites was

known as Kissia [Cissia], and afterwards as Susiana, from the

name of the capital. It was also called Elymais."

M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 2, chapter 1.

About 2300 B. C. Chaldea, or Babylonia, was overwhelmed by an

Elamite invasion--an invasion recorded by king Asshurbanipal,

and which is stated to have laid waste the land of Accad and

desecrated its temples. "Nor was this a passing inroad or raid

of booty-seeking mountaineers. It was a real conquest.

Khudur-Nankhundi and his successors remained in Southern

Chaldea. ... This is the first time we meet authentic

monumental records of a country which was destined through the

next sixteen centuries to be in continual contact, mostly

hostile, with both Babylonia and her northern rival, Assyria,

until its final annihilation by the latter [B. C. 649, under

Asshurbanipal, the Sardanapulus of the Greeks, who reduced the

whole country to a wilderness]. Its capital was Shushan

(afterwards pronounced by foreigners Susa), and its own

original name Shushinak. Its people were of Turanian stock,

its language was nearly akin to that of Shumir and Accad. ...

Elam, the name under which the country is best known, both

from the Bible and later monuments, is a Turanian word, which

means, like 'Accad,' 'Highlands.' ... One of

Khudur-Nankhundi's next successors, Khudur-Lagamar, was not

content with the addition of Chaldea to his kingdom of Elam.

He had the ambition of a born conqueror, and the generalship

of one. The Chapter xiv, of Genesis--which calls him

Chedorlaomer--is the only document we have descriptive of this

king's warlike career, and a very striking picture it gives of

it, ... Khudur-Lagamar ... lived, according to the most

probable calculations, about 2200 B. C."

Z. A. Ragozin, Story of Chaldea, chapter 4.

It is among the discoveries of recent times, derived from the

records in clay unearthed in Babylonia, that Cyrus the Great

was originally king of Elam, and acquired Persia, as he

acquired his later dominions, by conquest.

See PERSIA, B. C. 549-521.

See, also, BABYLONIA.

EL ARISH, Treaty of.

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

ELBA: A. D. 1735.

Ceded to Spain by Austria.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735.

ELBA: A. D. 1802.

Annexation to France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1802 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

ELBA: A. D. 1814.

Napoleon in exile.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (MARCH-APRIL),

and (APRIL-JUNE).

{i}

APPENDIX A.

NOTES TO ETHNOGRAPHICAL MAP, PLACED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS VOLUME.

To the eye of modern scholarship "language" forms the basis of

every ethnic distinction. Physical and exterior features like the

stature, the color of the skin, the diversity of habits and

customs, the distinctions which once formed in great part the

basis of ethnic research have all in our own day been relegated

to a subordinate place.

The "language" test is of course subject to very serious

limitations. The intermingling of different peoples, more general

to be sure in our own day than in past ages, has nevertheless

been sufficiently great in every age to make the tracing of

linguistic forms a task of great difficulty. In special cases

where both the civilization and language of one people have

become lost in that of another the test must of course fail

utterly.

With all these restrictions however the adoption of the

linguistic method by modern criticism has been practically

universal. Its defence, if it requires any, is apparent. It is

the only method of ethnic study the deductions of which, where

successful at all, approach anything like certainty. The points

wherein linguistic criticism has failed have been freely

admitted; on the other hand the facts which it has established

are unassailable by any other school of criticism.

Taking language then as the only tangible working basis the

subject resolves itself from the start into a two-fold division:

the debatable and the certain. It is the purpose to indicate in

the course of these notes, what is merely conjecture and what may

be safely accepted as fact.

The ethnology of Europe, studied on this basis, has for its

central feature the Indo-Germanic (Indo-European)

or Aryan race. The distinction between the races clearly

Aryan and those doubtful or non-Aryan forms the primary division

of the subject. As the map is intended to deal only with the

Europe of the present, a historical distinction must be made at

the outset between the doubtful or non-Aryan peoples who preceded

the Aryans and the non-Aryan peoples who have appeared in Europe

in comparatively recent times. The simple formula, pre-Aryan,

Aryan, non-Aryan, affords the key to the historical

development of European ethnology.

PRE-ARYAN PEOPLES.

Of the presumably pre-Aryan peoples of western Europe the

Iberians occupy easily the first place. The seat of this

people at the dawn of history was in Spain and southern France;

their ethnology belongs entirely to the realm of conjecture. They

are of much darker complexion than the Aryans and their racial

characteristic is conservatism even to stubbornness, which places

them in marked contrast to their immediate Aryan neighbors, the

volatile Celts. Among the speculations concerning the origin of

the Iberians a plausible one is that of Dr. Bodichon, who assigns

to them an African origin making them, indeed, cognate with the

modern Berbers (see R. H. Patterson's "Ethnology of Europe" in

"Lectures on History and Art"). This generalization is made to

include also the Bretons of the north west. It is clear

however that the population of modern Brittany is purely Celtic:

made up largely from the immigrations from the British Isles

during the fifth century.

To the stubbornness with which the Iberians resisted every

foreign aggression and refused intermingling with surrounding

races is due the survival to the present day of their

descendants, the Basques.

The mountain ranges of northern Spain, the Cantabrians and

Eastern Pyrenees have formed the very donjon-keep of this people

in every age. Here the Cantabri successfully resisted the

Roman arms for more than a century after the subjugation of the

remainder of Spain, the final conquest not occurring until the

last years of Augustus. While the Iberian race as a whole

has become lost in the greater mass of Celtic and Latin

intruders, it has remained almost pure in this quarter. The

present seat of the Basques is in the Spanish provinces of

Viscaya, Alava, Guipuzcoa, and Navarre and in the French

department of Basses Pyrénées. The Ivernians of Ireland, now lost

in the Celtic population, and the Ligurians along the shores of

the Genoese gulf, later absorbed by the Romans, both belong

likewise to this pre-Aryan class. (Modern research concerning

these pre-Aryan peoples has in large part taken its inspiration

from the "Untersuchungen" of Humboldt, whose view concerning the

connection between the Basques and Iberians is substantially the

one stated.)

Another early non-Aryan race now extinct were the Etruscans of

Italy. Their origin was manifestly different from that of the

pre-Aryan peoples just mentioned. By many they have been regarded

as a branch of the great Ural-Altaic family. This again is

conjecture.

ARYAN PEOPLES.

In beginning the survey of the Aryan peoples it is necessary to

mention the principal divisions of the race. As generally

enumerated there are seven of these, viz., the Sanskrit(Hindoo), Zend (Persian), Greek, Latin, Celtic,

Germanic and Slavic. To these may be added two others

not definitely classified, the Albanian and the

Lithuanian. These bear the closest affinity respectively

to the Latin and the Slavic.

Speculation concerning the origin of the Aryans need not concern

us. It belongs as yet entirely to the arena of controversy. The

vital question which divides the opposing schools is concerning

their European or Asiatic origin. Of the numerous writers on this

subject the two who perhaps afford the reader of English the best

view of the opposing opinions are, on the Asiatic side, Dr. Max

Müller (Lectures on the Science of Language); on the other, Professor

A. H. Sayce (Introduction to the Science of Language).

{ii}

Of the divisions of the Aryan race above enumerated the first two

do not appear in European ethnology. Of the other branches, the

Latin, Germanic and Slavic form by great

odds the bulk of the European population.

THE LATIN BRANCH.

The Latin countries are France, Spain, Portugal, Italy and

the territory north of the Danube, between the Dniester and the

Theiss. In the strictest ethnic sense however the term Latin can

be applied only to Italy and then only to the central part. As

Italy first appears in history it is inhabited by a number of

different races: the Iapygians and Oenotrians of

the south who were thrown in direct contact with the Greek

settlers; the Umbrians, Sabines, Latins, Volscians and

Oscans in the centre; the Etruscans on the west

shore north of the Tiber; while in the north we find the

Gauls in the valley of the Po, with the Liguriansand Venetians respectively on the west and east coasts. Of

this motley collection the central group bore a close affinity to

the Latin, yet all alike received the Latin stamp with the

growing power of Rome.

The ethnic complexion of Italy thus formed was hardly modified by

the great Germanic invasions which followed with the fall of the

West-Roman Empire.

This observation applies with more or less truth to all the Latin

countries, the Germanic conquerors becoming everywhere merged and

finally lost in the greater mass of the conquered. Only in

Lombardy where a more enduring Germanic kingdom existed for over

two centuries (568-774), has the Germanic made any impression,

and this indeed a slight one, on the distinctly Latin character

of the Italian peninsula.

In Spain an interval between the Iberian period and the Roman

conquest appears to have existed, during which the population is

best described as Celt-Iberian. Upon this population the

Latin stamp was placed by the long and toilsome, but for that

reason more thorough, Roman conquest. The ethnic character of

Spain thus formed has passed without material change through the

ordeal both of Germanic and Saracenic conquest. The Gothickingdom of Spain (418-714) and the Suevic kingdom of

northern Portugal (406-584) have left behind them scarcely a

trace. The effects of the great Mohammedan invasion cannot be

dismissed so lightly.

Conquered entirely by the Arabs and Moors in 714, the entire

country was not freed from the invader for nearly eight

centuries. In the south (Granada) where the Moors clung longest

their influence has been greatest. Here their impress on the pure

Aryan stock has never been effaced.

The opening phrase of Cæsar's Gallic war, "all Gaul is divided

into three parts," states a fact as truly ethnic as it is

geographical or historical. In the south (Aquitania) we find the

Celtic blending with the Iberian; in the northeast the

Cimbrian Belgae, the last comers of the Celtic family, are

strongly marked by the characteristics of the Germans; while in

the vast central territory the people "calling themselves Galli"

are of pure Celtic race. This brief statement of Caesar, allowing

for the subsequent influx of the German, is no mean description

of the ethnic divisions of France as they exist at the present

day, and is an evidence of the remarkable continuity of

ethnological as opposed to mere political conditions.

The four and a half centuries of Roman rule placed the Latin

stamp on the Gallic nation, a preparation for the most determined

siege of Germanic race influence which any Latin nation was fated

to undergo.

In Italy and Spain the exotic kingdoms were quickly overthrown;

the Frankish kingdom in northern Gaul was in strictness

never overthrown at all.

In addition we soon have in the extreme north a second Germanic

element in the Scandinavian Norman. Over all these outside

elements, however, the Latin influence eventually triumphed.

While the Franks have imposed their name upon the natives,

the latter have imposed their language and civilization on the

invaders.

The result of this clashing of influences is seen, however, in

the present linguistic division of the old Gallic lands. The line

running east and west through the centre of France marks the

division between the French and the Provençal dialects,

the langued'oil and the langued'oc. It is south of

this line in the country of the langued'oc that the Latin

or Romance influence reigns most absolute in the native speech.

In the northeast, on the other hand, in the Walloonprovinces of Belgium, we have, as with the Belgae of classic

times, the near approach of the Gallic to the Germanic stems.

Our survey of the Latin peoples must close with a short notice of

its outlying members in the Balkan and Danubian lands. The

Albanians (Skipetars) and the Roumans(Vlachs or Wallachs) represent as nearly as

ethnology can determine the ancient populations respectively of

Illyricum and Thrace. The ethnology of the Albanians is entirely

uncertain. Their present location, considerably to the south of

their supposed pristine seat in Illyricum, indicates some

southern migration of the race. This migration occurred at an

entirely unknown time, though it is generally believed to have

been contemporary with the great southward movement of the Slavic

races in the seventh century.

The Albanian migrations of the time penetrated Attica,

Aetolia and the entire Peloponnesus; with the Slavs and

Vlachs they formed indeed a great part of the population

of Greece during the Middle Ages. While the Slavic stems have

since been merged in the native Greek population, and the

Vlachs have almost entirely disappeared from these

southern lands, the Albanians in Greece have shown a greater

tenacity. Their part in later Greek history has been a prominent

one and they form to-day a great part of the population of Attica

and Argolis.

The Roumans or Vlachs, the supposed native

population of Thrace, are more closely identified than the

Albanians with the other Latin peoples. They occupy at present

the vast country north of the Danube, their boundary extending on

the east to the Dniester, on the west almost to the Theiss.

Historically these people form a perplexing yet interesting

study. The theory once general that they represented a continuous

Latin civilization north of the Danube, connecting the classic

Dacia by an unbroken chain to the present, has now been generally

abandoned. (See Roesler's "Romänische Studien" or Freeman's

"Historical Geography of Europe," page 435.)

{iii}

The present geographical location of the Vlach peoples is

probably the result of a migration from the Thracian lands south

of the Danube, which occurred for unexplained causes in the

twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The kernel of the race at the

present day is the separate state of Roumania; in the East and

West they come under the respective rules of Russia and Hungary.

In mediaeval times the part played by them south of the Balkans

was an important one, and to this day they still linger in

considerable numbers on either side of the range of Pindus. (For

a short dissertation on the Vlach peoples, see Finlay, "History

of Greece," volume 3, pages 224-230.)

THE GERMANIC BRANCH.

The Germanic nations of modern Europe are England,

Germany, Holland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The

Germanic races also form the major part of the population of

Switzerland, the Cis-Leithan division of the Austrian Empire, and

appear in isolated settlements throughout Hungary and Russia.

Of the earlier Germanic nations who overthrew the Roman Empire of

the West scarcely a trace remains.

The population of the British Isles at the dawn of history

furnishes a close parallel to that of Gaul. The pre-Aryan

Ivernians (the possible Iberians of the British

Isles) had been forced back into the recesses of Scotland and

Ireland; next to them came the Celts, like those of Gaul, in two

divisions, the Goidels or Gaels and the

Britons.

In Britain, contrary to the usual rule, the Roman domination did

not give the perpetual Latin stamp to the island; it is in fact

the only country save the Pannonian and Rhaetian lands south of

the upper Danube, once a Roman possession, where the Germanic

element has since gained a complete mastery. The invasion of the

Germanic races, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, from

the sixth to the eighth centuries, were practically wars of

extermination. The Celtic race is to-day represented on the

British Isles only in Wales and the western portions of

Scotland and Ireland. The invasions of the

Danes, and later the Norman conquest, bringing with

them only slight infusions of kindred Germanic nations, have

produced in England no marked modification of the Saxonstock.

The German Empire, with the smaller adjoining realms,

Holland and Switzerland and the Austrian provinces of Austria,

Styria, Carinthia, Salzburg and Tyrol, contain the great mass of

the Germanic peoples of the continent.

During the confusion following the overthrow of the West-Roman

Empire the Germanic peoples were grouped much further

westward than they are at present; the eastward reaction

involving the dispossession of the Slavic peoples on the

Elbe and Oder, has been going on ever since the days of

Charlemagne. Germany like France possesses a linguistic division,

Low German (Nieder-Deutsche) being generally spoken in the lands

north of the cross line, High German (Hoch-Deutsche) from which

the written language is derived, to the south of it, Holland uses

the Flemish, a form of the Nieder-Deutsche; Belgium is

about equally divided between the Flemish and the

Walloon. Switzerland, though predominantly German, is

encroached upon by the French in the western cantons, while in

the southeast is used the Italian and a form allied to the same,

the Romance speech of the Rhaetian (Tyrolese) Alps. This form

also prevails in Friuli and some mountainous parts of northern

Italy.

The present population of the German Empire is almost exclusively

Germanic, the exceptions being the Slavic Poles of Posen,

Pomerellen, southeastern Prussia and eastern Silesia, the remnant

of the Wends of Lusatia and the French element in the

recently acquired Imperial lands of Alsace and Lorraine. Beyond

the Empire we find a German population in the Austrian

territories already noted, in the border lands of Bohemia, and in

isolated settlements further east. The great settlement in the

Siebenbürgen was made by German emigrants in the eleventh century

and similar settlements dot the map both of Hungary and Russia.

On the Volga indeed exists the greatest of them all.

Denmark, Norway and Sweden are peopled by the Scandinavianbranch of the Germanic race. Only in the extreme north do we find

another and non-Aryan race, the Lapps. On the other hand a

remnant of the Swedes still retain a precarious hold on the coast

line of their former possession, the Russian Finland.

THE SLAVIC BRANCH.

The Slavs, though the last of the Aryan nations to appear

in history, form numerically by far the greatest branch of the

Indo-European family. Their present number in Europe is computed

at nearly one hundred million souls.

At the time of the great migrations they extended over nearly all

modern Germany; their slow dispossession by the Germanic peoples,

beginning in the eighth century, has already been noticed. In the

course of this dispossession the most westerly Slavic group, the

Polabic, between the Elbe and the Oder, were merged in the

German, and, barring the remnant of Wends in Lusatia (the

Sorabi or Northern Serbs), have disappeared

entirely from ethnic geography.

The great Slavic nation of the present day is Russia, but

the great number of Slavic peoples who are not Russian and the

considerable Russian population which is not Slavic renders

impossible the study of this race on strictly national lines.

The Slavic peoples are separated, partly by geographical

conditions, into three great divisions: the Eastern, the

Western and the Southern. The greatest of these

divisions, the Eastern, lies entirely within the boundaries of

the Russian Empire. The sub-divisions of the Eastern group are as

follows: The Great Russians occupying the vast inland

territory and numbering alone between forty and fifty millions,

the Little Russians inhabiting the entire south of Russia

from Poland to the Caspian, and the White Russians, the

least numerous of this division, in Smolensk, Wilna, and Minsk,

the west provinces bordering on the Lithuanians and Poles.

The West Slavic group, omitting names of peoples now

extinct, are the Poles, Slovaks, Czechs and the remnants

of the Lusatian Wends. The Poles, excepting those

already mentioned as within the German empire, and the Austrian

Poles of Cracow, are all under the domination of Russia. Under

the sovereignty of Austria are the Slovaks, Moravians and

Czechs of Bohemia, the latter the most westerly as well as

historically the oldest of the surviving Slavic peoples, having

appeared in their present seats in the last years of the fifth

century.

{iv}

In connection with this West Slavic group we should also refer to

the Lithuanians whose history, despite the racial

difference, is so closely allied with that of Poland. Their

present location in the Russian provinces of Kowno, Kurland and

Livland has been practically the same since the dawn of history.

The South Slavic peoples were isolated from their northern

kinsmen by the great Finno-Tatar invasions.

The invasion of Europe by the Avars in the sixth century clove

like a wedge the two great divisions of the Slavic race, the

southernmost being forced upon the confines of the East-Roman

Empire. Though less imposing as conquests than the Germanic

invasions of the Western Empire, the racial importance of these

Slavic movements is far greater since they constitute, in

connection with the Finno-Tatar invasions which caused

them, the most important and clearly defined series of ethnic

changes which Europe has experienced during the Christian Era.

During the sixth and seventh centuries these Slavic emigrants

spread over almost the entire Balkan peninsula, including Epirus

and the Peloponnesus. In Greece they afterwards disappeared as a

separate people, but in the region between the Danube, the Save

and the Balkans they immediately developed separate states

(Servia in 641, Bulgaria in 678). As they exist at present they

may be classed in three divisions. The Bulgarians, so

called from the Finno-Tatar people whom they absorbed

while accepting their name, occupy the district included in the

separate state of Bulgaria and Eastern Roumelia, with a

considerable territory to the south of it in Macedonia and

Thrace. It was this last named territory or one very nearly

corresponding to it that was actually ceded to Bulgaria by the

peace of San Stefano, though she unfortunately lost it by the

subsequent compromise effected at the Congress of Berlin. The

second division includes the Servians, Montenegrans,

Bosnians and Croatians, the last two under Austrian

control; the third and smallest are the Slovenes of

Carniola, likewise under Austrian sovereignty. (Schafarik's

"Slawische Alterthümer" is the greatest single authority on the

early history and also comparative ethnology of the

Slavs.)

The territory occupied by the Greek speaking people is

clearly shown on the accompanying map. As in all history, it is

the coast lands where they seem to have formed the strongest

hold. In free Greece itself and in the Turkish territories

immediately adjoining, the Greek population overwhelmingly

preponderates.

Nevertheless there is still a considerable Albanian element in

Attica and Argolis, a Vlach element in Epirus while the

Turk himself still lingers in certain quarters of

Thessaly. All these are remnants left over from the successive

migrations of the Middle Ages. The Slavs, who also figured

most prominently in these migrations, have disappeared in Greece

as a distinct race. The question as to the degree of Slavic

admixture among the modern Greeks is however another fruitful

source of ethnic controversy. The general features of the

question are most compactly stated in Finlay, volume 4, pages 1-37.

NON-ARYAN PEOPLES.

The Non-Aryan peoples on the soil of modern Europe,

excepting the Jews and also probably excepting those already

placed in the unsolved class of pre-Aryan, all belong to the

Finno-Tatar or Ural-Altaic family, and all,

possibly excepting the Finns, date their arrival in Europe

from comparatively recent and historic times. The four principal

divisions of this race, the Ugric, Finnic, Turkic and

Mongolic, all have their European representatives.

Of the first the only representatives are the Hungarians(Magyars). The rift between the North and South Slavic

peoples opened by the Huns in the fifth century, reopened

and enlarged by the Avars in the sixth, was finally

occupied by their kinsmen the Magyars in the ninth. The

receding of this wave of Asiatic invasion left the Magyarsin utter isolation among their Aryan neighbors. It follows as a

natural consequence that they have been the only one of the

Ural-Altaic peoples to accept the religion and

civilization of the West. Since the conversion of their king St.

Stephen in the year 1000, their geographical position has not

altered. Roughly speaking, it comprises the western half of

Hungary, with an outlying branch in the Carpathians.

More closely allied to the Magyars than to their more

immediate neighbors of the same race are the Finnic stems

of the extreme north. Stretching originally over nearly the whole

northern half of Scandinavia and Russia they have been gradually

displaced, in the one case by their Germanic, in the other by

their Slavic neighbors. Their present representatives are the

Ehsts and Tschudes of Ehstland, the Finnsand Karelians of Finland, the Tscheremissians of

the upper Volga, the Siryenians in the basin of the

Petchora and the Lapps in northern Scandinavia and along

the shores of the Arctic ocean.

East of the Lapps, also bordering the Arctic ocean, lie

the Samojedes, a people forming a distinct branch of the

Ural-Altaic family though most closely allied to the Finnic

peoples. The great division of the Ural-Altaic family known

indifferently as Tatar (Tartar) or Turk,

has, like the Aryan Slavs, through the accidents of historical

geography rather than race divergence been separated into two

great divisions: the northern or Russian division commonly

comprised under the specific name of Tartar; and the

southern, the Turk.

These are the latest additions to the European family of races.

The Mongol-Tatar invasion of Russia occurred as late as

the thirteenth century, while the Turks did not gain their

first foothold in Europe through the gates of Gallipoli until

1353. The bulk of the Turks of the present day are congregated in

Asia-Minor.

Barring the Armenians, the Georgians of the

northeast, the Greeks of the seacoast and the scattered

Circassians, the whole peninsula is substantially Turkish.

In Europe proper the Turks as a distinct people never cut a great

figure. Even in the grandest days of Osmanli conquest they were

always outnumbered by the conquered nations whose land they

occupied, and with the decline of their power this numerical

inferiority has become more and more marked. At the present day

there are very few portions of the Balkan peninsula where the

Turkish population actually predominates; their general

distribution is clearly shown on the map.

{v}

The Tartars or Russian Turks represent the siftings

of the Asiatic invasions of the thirteenth century.

Their number has been steadily dwindling until they now count

scarcely three millions, a mere handful in the mass of their

former Slavic subjects.

The survivors are scattered in irregular and isolated groups over

the south and east. Prominent among them are the Crim

Tartars, the kindred Nogais of the west shores of the

Caspian, the Kirghis of the north shore and Ural valley,

and the Bashkirs between the upper Ural and the Volga,

with an isolated branch of Tartars in the valley of the Araxes

south of the Caucasus.

The great Asiatic irruption of the thirteenth century has been

commonly known as the Mongol invasion. Such it was in leadership,

though the residuum which it has left behind in European Russia

proves that the rank and file were mostly Tartars. One Mongol

people however, the Kalmucks, did make their way into

Europe and still exist in the steppes between the lower Don and

the lower Volga.

The ethnology of the Caucasian peoples is the most difficult part

of the entire subject. On the steppes of the Black and Caspian

seas up to the very limit of the Caucasus we have two races

between whom the ethnic distinction is clearly defined, the

Mongol-Tartar and the Slav. Entering the Caucasus however we find

a vast number of races differing alike from these and from each

other.

To enumerate all the different divisions of these races, whose

ethnology is so very uncertain, would be useless. Grouped in

three general divisions however they are as follows: the

so-called Circassians who formerly occupied the whole

western Caucasus with the adjoining Black sea coast but who,

since the Russian conquest of 1864, have for the most part

emigrated to different quarters of the Turkish Empire; the

Lesghians, under which general name are included the

motley crowd of peoples inhabiting the eastern Caucasus; and the

Georgians, the supposed descendants of the ancient

Iberians of the Caucasus, who inhabit the southern slope,

including all the Tiflis province and the Trapezuntine lands on

the southeast coast of the Black sea.

The Tartars are hardly found in the Caucasus though they

reappear immediately south of it in the lower basin of the Kura

and the Araxes. Here also appear the various Iranian stems

of the Asiatic Aryans, the Armenians, the Persiansand the Kurds.

R. H. Latham's works on "European Ethnology" are the best general

authority in English. Of more recent German guides, map and

otherwise, the following are noteworthy: Bastain's

"Ethnologisches Bilderbuch," "Das Beständige in den

Menschenrassen," "Allgemeine Grundzüge der Ethnologie," Kiepert's

"Ethnographische Uebersichtskarte des Europäischen Orients,"

Menke's "Europa nach seinen Ethnologischen Verhältnissen in der

Mitte des 19. Jahrhundert," Rittich's "Ethnographie des

europäischen Russland," Sax's "Ethnographische Karte der

europäischen Turkei," Berghaus's "Ethnographische Karte vom

österreichischen Kaiserstaat," Wendt's "Bilder Atlas der Länder

und Völkerkunde," Andree's "Allgemeiner Hand-atlas

(Ethnographischen Karten)," Gerland's "Atlas der Ethnographie."

A. C. Reiley.

{vi}

APPENDIX B.

NOTES TO FOUR MAPS OF THE BALKAN PENINSULA.

(TWELFTH TO THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY.)

There exists to-day upon the map of Europe no section whose

historical geography has a greater present interest than the

Danubian, Balkan and Levantine states. It is these and the

Austro-Hungarian lands immediately adjoining which have formed

one of the great fulcrums for those national movements which

constitute the prime feature of the historical geography of the

present age.

Upon the present map of Europe in this quarter we discover a

number of separate and diminutive national entities, the

Roumanian, Bulgarian, Servian and Montenegrin, the

Greek and Albanian, all struggling desperately to

establish themselves on the debris of the crumbling Turkish

Empire.

What the issue will be of these numerous and mutually conflicting

struggles for separate national existence it is out of our

province to forecast.

It is only intended in this map series to throw all possible

light on their true character from the lessons and analogies of

the past. At first sight the period treated in the four Levantine

maps (from the last of the twelfth to the middle of the fifteenth

century) must appear the most intricate and the most obscure in

the entire history of this region. The most intricate it

certainly is, and possibly the most obscure, though the obscurity

arises largely from neglect. Its importance, however, arises from

the fact that it is the only past period of Levantine history

which presents a clear analogy to the present, not alone in its

purely transitionary character, but also from the several

national movements which during this time were diligently at

work.

During the Roman and the earlier Byzantine periods, which from

their continuity may be taken as one, any special tendency was of

course stifled under the preponderant rule of a single great

empire.

The same was equally true at a later time, when all of these

regions passed under the rule of the Turk. These four maps

treat of that most interesting period intervening between the

crumbling of the Byzantine power and the Turkish conquest. That

in our own day the crumbling in turn of the Turkish power has

repeated, in its general features, the same historical situation,

is the point upon which the interest must inevitably centre.

What the outcome will be in modern times forms the most

interesting of political studies. Whether the native races of the

Danube, the Balkans and the southern peninsula are to work out

their full national development, either federately or

independently, or whether they are destined to pass again, as is

threatened, under the domination of another and greater empire,

is one of the most important of the questions which agitates the

mind of the modern European statesman. That the latter outcome is

now the less likely is due to the great unfolding of separate

national spirit which marks so strongly the age in which we live.

The reason why the previous age treated in this map series ended

in nothing better than foreign and Mohammedan conquest may

perhaps be sought in the imperfect development of this same

national spirit.

THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE.

The first map (Asia Minor and the Balkans near the close of the

twelfth century) is intended to show the geographical situation

as it existed immediately prior to the dismemberment of the

Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire of this period is in

itself an important study. It must be regarded more as the

offspring than the direct continuation of the great East-Roman

Empire of Arcadius and Justinian; for with the centuries which

had intervened the great changes in polity, internal geography,

external neighbors and lastly the continual geographical

contraction, present us with an entirely new series of relations.

It is this geographical contraction which concerns us most

vitally, for with it the frontiers of the empire conform more and

more closely to the ethnic limits of the Greek nation. The

later Byzantine Empire was, therefore, essentially a Greek

Empire, and as such it appeals most vividly to the national

consciousness of the Greek of our own time. The restoration of

this empire, with the little kingdom of free Greece as the

nucleus, is the vision which inspires the more aggressive and

venturesome school of modern Greek politicians. In the twelfth

century the bulk of Asia Minor had been wrested from the

Byzantine Empire by the Turks, but it was the Crusaders,

not the Turks, who overthrew the first empire. In one view

this fact is fortunate, otherwise there would have been no

transition period whose study would be productive of such

fruitful results.

Owing to the artful policy of the Comnenian emperors, the

Byzantine Empire actually profited by the early crusades and was

enabled through them to recover a considerable part of Asia Minor

from the Turks. This apparent success, however, was only the

prelude to final disaster.

Isolated from western Christendom by the schism, the

Greeks were an object of suspicion and hatred to the Latin

Crusaders and it only required a slight abatement of the original

crusading spirit for their warlike ardor to be diverted from

Jerusalem to Constantinople. Cyprus was torn away from the Greek

Empire and created a separate kingdom under Latin rule, in 1191.

Finally, the so-called Fourth Crusade, controlled by Venetian

intrigue, ended in the complete dismemberment of the Byzantine

Empire (1204).

{vii}

This nefarious enterprise forms a dark spot in history: it also

ushers in the greatest period of geographical intricacy in

Levantine annals, the geography which immediately resulted from

it is not directly shown in this Levantine map series, but can be

seen on the general map of Europe at the opening of the

thirteenth century. Briefly stated, it represented the

establishment of a fragmentary and disjointed Latin Empire in the

place of the former Greek Empire of Constantinople. Known as the

Latin Empire of Romania, this new creation included the Empire of

Constantinople proper and its feudal dependencies, the kingdom of

Thessalonica, the duchy of Athens, and the principality of

Achaia.

Three orphan Greek states survived the fall of the parent power:

in Europe, the despotat of Epirus, and in Asia, the empires of

Nicæa and Trebizond.

The Latin states of the East are scarcely worthy the historian's

notice. They have no place whatever in the natural development,

either political or geographical, of the Levantine states. They

were not only forced by foreign lances upon an unwilling

population, but were clumsy feudalisms, established among a

people to whom the feudal idea was unintelligible and barbarous.

Like their prototypes, the Crusading states of Syria, they

resembled artificial encroachments upon the sea, standing for a

time, but with the ordinary course of nature the ocean reclaims

its own.

Even the weak little Greek states were strong in comparison and

immediately began to recover ground at their expense. The kingdom

of Thessalonica was overthrown by the despot of Epirus in 1222;

the Latin Empire of Constantinople itself fell before the Greek

Emperor of Nicæa in 1261; while the last of the barons of the

principality of Achaia submitted to the Byzantine despots of the

Morea in 1430.

The duchy of Athens alone of all these Latin states survived long

enough to fall at last before the Turkish conquest. The

Levantine possessions won by Venice at this and later times were

destined, partly from their insular or maritime location, and

partly from the greater vitality of trade relations, to enjoy a

somewhat longer life.

To the Nicæan emperors of the house of Paleologus belongs the

achievement of having restored the Byzantine Empire in the event

of 1261. The expression Restored Byzantine Empire has been

employed, since it has the sanction of usage, though a complete

restoration never occurred. The geography of the Restored Empire

as shown on the second map (1265 A. D.) fails to include the

greater part of what we may term the cradle of the Greek race.

The only subsequent extension was over the balance of the Morea.

In every other quarter the frontiers of the Restored Empire soon

began to recede until it included only the city of Constantinople

and an ever decreasing portion of Thrace. With the commencement

of the fourteenth century the Turks, having thrown off the

Mongol-Tartar dominion, began under the house of Osmanlis their

final career of conquest. This, of course, was the beginning of

the end. Their first foothold in Europe was gained in 1353, but

over a century was destined to elapse before the completion of

their sovereignty in all the lands south of the Danube. There

remains, therefore, a considerable period during which whatever

separate national tendencies existed had full opportunity to

work.

THE FIRST AND SECOND BULGARIAN KINGDOMS.

It was this age which saw not only the highest point in the

national greatness of Bulgaria and Servia, but also witnessed the

evolution of the Wallachian principalities in the lands north of

the Danube.

The separate states of Bulgaria and Servia, born in the seventh

century of the great southward migration of the Slavicpeoples, had in after times risen or fallen according to the

strength or weakness of the Byzantine Empire. Bulgaria had

hitherto shown the greatest power. At several different periods,

notably under Simeon (883-927), and again under Samuel

(976-1014), it developed a strength which fairly overawed the

Empire itself. These Slavic states had, however, been

subjected by the Byzantine Empire in the first half of the

eleventh century, and, though Servia enjoyed another period of

independence (1040-1148), it was not until the final crumbling of

the Byzantine Empire, the premonition of the event of 1204, that

their expansion recommences. The Wallachian, or Second Bulgarian

kingdom, which came into existence in 1187 in the lands between

the Balkans and the Danube, has been the subject of an ethnic

discussion which need not detain us. That it was not purely

Slavic is well established, for the great and singular

revival of the Vlach or Rouman peoples and their

movement from the lands south of Haemus to their present seats

north of the Danube, which is one of the great features of this

age, had already begun. (The country between the Danube and the

Balkans, the seat of the Second Bulgarian kingdom, appears as

Aspro or White-Wallachia in some Byzantine writings. So also

north of the Danube the later Moldavia and Great Wallachia are

known respectively as Mavro [Black] and Hungarowallachia. Still

the fact of a continuous Roumnn civilization north of the Danube

is not established. The theory of a great northward movement of

the Vlach peoples is the one now generally accepted and is ably

advocated in Roesler's "Romänische Studien.")

At the present day this movement has been so long completed that

scarcely the trace of Vlach population remains in the

lands south of the Danube. These emigrants appear, as it were, in

passing, to have shared with the native Bulgarians in the

creation of this Second Bulgarian kingdom. This realm achieved a

momentary greatness under its rulers of the house of Asau. The

dismemberment of the Byzantine Empire in 1204 enabled them to

make great encroachments to the south, and it seemed for a time

that to the Bulgarian, not the Greek, would fall the task of

overthrowing the Latin Empire of Roumania (see general map of

Europe at the opening of the thirteenth century). With the

reëstablishment, however, of the Greek Empire of Constantinople,

in 1261, the Bulgarian kingdom began to lose much of its

importance, and its power was finally broken in 1285 by the

Mongols.

SERVIA.

In the following century it was the turn of Servia to enjoy a

period of preeminent greatness. The latter kingdom had recovered

its independence under the house of Nemanja in 1183.

{viii}

Under the great giant conqueror Stephen Dushan (1321-1355) it

enjoyed a period of greater power than has ever before or since

fallen to the lot of a single Balkan state. The Restored

Byzantine Empire had sustained no permanent loss from the period

of Bulgarian greatness: it was by the sudden Servian conquest

that it was deprived forever of nearly all its European

possessions (see Balkan map III). A Byzantine reaction might have

come under other conditions, but already another and greater

enemy was at her gates. Dushan died in 1355; and already, in

1353, two years before, the Turk at Gallipoli had made his

entrance into Europe. From this time every Christian state of the

East grew steadily weaker until Bulgaria, Servia, the Greek

Empire, and finally even Hungary, had passed under the Turkish

dominion.

THE VLACHS.

Passing on from these Slavic peoples, another national

manifestation of the greatest importance belonging to this

period, one which, unlike the Greek and Slavic, may be said in

one sense to have originated in the period, was that of the

Vlachs. This Latin population, which ethnologists

have attempted to identify with the ancient Thracians,

was, previous to the twelfth century, scattered in irregular

groups throughout the entire Balkan peninsula. During the twelfth

century their great northward migration began. A single result of

this movement has already been noticed in the rise of the Second

Bulgarian kingdom. South of the Danube, however, their influence

was transitory. It was north of the river that the evolution of

the two principalities, Great Wallachia (Roumania) and Moldavia,

and the growth of a Vlach population in the Transylvanian

lands of Eastern Hungary, has yielded the ethnic and in great

part the political geography of the present day.

The process of this evolution may be understood from a

comparative study of the four Balkan maps. Upon the first map the

Cumanians, a Finno-Tatar people, who in the twelfth

century had displaced a kindred race, the Patzinaks or

Petschenegs, occupy the whole country between the Danube and the

Transylvanian Alps. These were in turn swept forever from the map

of Europe by the Mongols (1224). With the receding of this

exterminating wave of Asiatic conquest the great wilderness was

thrown open to new settlers. The settlements of the Vlachsnorth of the Danube and east of the Aluta became the principality

of Great Wallachia, the nucleus of the modern Roumania. West of

the Aluta the district of Little Wallachia was incorporated for a

long period, as the banat of Severin, in the Hungarian kingdom.

Finally, the principality of Moldavia came into existence in

1341, in land previously won by the Hungarians from the Mongols,

between the Dniester and the Carpathians. Both the principalities

of Great Wallachia and Moldavia were in the fourteenth century

dependencies of Hungary. The grasp of Hungary was loosened,

however, towards the close of the century and after a period of

shifting dependence, now on Hungary, now on Turkey, and for a

time, in the case of Moldavia, on Poland, we come to the period

of permanent Turkish supremacy.

With the presence and influence of the Vlachs south of the

Balkans, during this period, we are less interested, since their

subsequent disappearance has removed the subject from any direct

connection with modern politics. The only quarter where they

still linger and where this influence led to the founding of an

independent state, was in the country east of the range of

Pindus, the Great Wallachia of the Byzantines. Here the

principality of Wallachian Thessaly appeared as an offshoot of

the Greek despotat of Epirus in 1259 (see map II).

This state retained its independent existence until 1308, when it

was divided between the Catalan dukes of Athens and the Byzantine

Empire.

ALBANIANS.

The Skipetars (Albanians) during this period appear

to have been the slowest to grasp out for a separate national

existence. The southern section of Albania formed, after the fall

of Constantinople, a part of the despotat of Epirus, and whatever

independence existed in the northern section was lost in the

revival, first of the Byzantine, then, in the ensuing century, of

the Servian power. It was not until 1444 that a certain George

Castriot, known to the Turks as Iskander-i-beg, or Scanderbeg,

created a Christian principality in the mountain fastnesses of

Albania. This little realm stretched along the Adriatic from

Butrinto almost to Antivari, embracing, further inland, Kroja and

the basin of the Drin (see map IV).

It was not until after Scanderbeg's death that Ottoman control

was confirmed over this spirited Albanian population.

THE TURKISH CONQUEST.

The reign of Mohammed II. (1451-1481) witnessed the final

conquest of the entire country south of the Danube and the Save.

The extent of the Turkish Empire at his accession is shown on map

IV. The acquisitions of territory during his reign included in

Asia Minor the old Greek Empire of Trebizond (1461) and the

Turkish dynasty of Karaman; in Europe, Constantinople, whose fall

brought the Byzantine Empire to a close in 1453, the duchy of

Athens (1456), the despotats of Patras and Misithra (1460),

Servia (1458), Bosnia (1463), Albania (1468), Epirus and

Acarnania, the continental dominion of the Counts of Cephalonia

(1479), and Herzegovina (1481). In the mountainous district

immediately south of Herzegovina, the principality of Montenegro,

situated in lands which had formed the southern part of the first

Servian kingdom, alone preserved its independence, even at the

height of the Turkish domination.

The chronicle of Turkish history thereafter records only conquest

after conquest. The islands of the Ægean were many of them won

during Mohammed's own reign, the acquisition of the remainder

ensued shortly after. Venice was hunted step by step out of all

her Levantine possessions save the Ionian Islands; the

superiority over the Crim Tartars, Wallachia, Moldavia and

Jedisan followed, finally, the defeat at Mohacs (1526), and the

subsequent internal anarchy left nearly all Hungary at the mercy

of the Ottoman conqueror.

The geographical homogeneity thus restored by the Turkish

conquest was not again disturbed until the present century. The

repetition of almost the same conditions in our own time, though

with the process reversed, has been referred to in the sketch of

Balkan geography of the present day. The extreme importance of

the period just described, for the purposes of minute historical

analogy, will be apparent at once wherever comparison is

attempted.

{ix}

The thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries were of

course periods of far greater geographical intricacy, but the

purpose has been rather to indicate the nature of this intricacy

than to describe it in detail. The principal feature, namely, the

national movements, wherever they have manifested themselves,

have been more carefully dwelt upon. The object has been simply

to show that the four separate national movements, the

Greek, the Slavic, the Rouman, and the

Albanian, which may be said to have created the present

Levantine problem, were all present, and in the case of the two

last may even be said to have had their inception, in the period

just traversed.

In the present century the unfolding of national spirit has been

so much greater and far-reaching that a different outcome may be

looked for. It is sufficient for the present that the incipient

existence of these same movements has been shown to have existed

in a previous age. The best general text authority in English for

the geography of this period is George Finlay's "History of

Greece," volumes. III. and IV.; a more exhaustive guide in German is

Hopf's "Geschichte Griechenlands." For the purely geographical

works see the general bibliography of historical geography.

A. C. Reiley.

{x}

APPENDIX C.

NOTES TO THE MAP OF THE BALKAN PENINSULA. (PRESENT CENTURY.)

The present century has been a remarkable one for the settlement

of great political and geographical questions. These questions

resolve themselves into two great classes, which indicate the

political forces of the present age,--the first, represented in

the growth of democratic thought, and the second arising from the

awakening of national spirit. The first of these concerns

historical geography only incidentally, but the second has

already done much to reconstruct the political geography of our

time.

RECENT NATIONAL MOVEMENTS.

Within a little over thirty years it has changed the map of

central Europe from a medley of small states into a united Italy

and a united Germany; it has also led to a reconstruction of the

Austro-Hungarian Empire, In Italy, Germany and Austria-Hungary,

the national questions may, however, be regarded as settled; and

if, in the case of Austria-Hungary, owing to exactly reverse

conditions, the settlement has been a tentative one, it has at

least removed the question from the more immediate concern of the

present. In a different quarter of Europe, however, the rise of

the national movements has led to a question, infinitely more

complicated than the others, and which, so far from being

settled, is becoming ever more pressing year by year. This

reference is to the great Balkan problem. That this question has

been delayed in its solution for over four centuries, is due, no

doubt, to the conquests of the Turk, and it is still complicated

by his presence. In the notes to the four previous Balkan maps

(1191-1451), attention was especially directed to the national

movements, so far as they had opportunity to develop themselves

during this period. These movements, feeble in their character,

were all smothered by the Turkish conquest. With the decline of

this power in the present century these forces once more have

opportunity for reappearance. In this regard the history of the

Balkans during the nineteenth century is simply the history of

the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries read backwards.

The Turkish Empire had suffered terrible reverses during the

eighteenth century. Hungary (1699), the Crim Tartars (1774),

Bukovina (1777), Jedisan (1792), Bessarabia and Eastern Moldavia

(1812) were all successively wrested from the Ottomans, while

Egypt on one side and Moldavia and Wallachia on another recovered

practical autonomy, the one under the restored rule of the

Mamelukes (1766), the other under native hospodars.

THE SERVIAN AND GREEK REVOLTS.

All of these losses, though greatly weakening the Ottoman power,

did not destroy its geographical integrity. It was with the

Servian revolt of 1804 that the series of events pointing to the

actual disruption of the Turkish Empire may be said to have

begun. The first period of dissolution was measured by the reign

of Mahmoud II. (1808-1839), at once the greatest and the most

unfortunate of all the later Turkish sultans. Servia, first under

Kara Georg, then under Milosch Obrenovitch, the founder of the

present dynasty, maintained a struggle which led to the

recognition of Servian local autonomy in 1817. The second step in

the process of dissolution was the tragic Greek revolution

(1821-1828). The Sultan, after a terrible war of extermination,

had practically reduced Greece to subjection, when all his work

was undone by the intervention of the great powers.

The Turkish fleet was destroyed by the combined squadrons of

England, France and Russia at Navarin, October 20, 1827, and in

the campaign of the ensuing year the Moscovite arms for the first

time in history penetrated south of the Balkans. The treaty of

Adrianople, between Russia and Turkey (September 14, 1829), gave

to the Czar the protectorate over Moldavia and Wallachia. By the

treaty of London earlier in this year Greece was made autonomous

under the suzerainty of the Sultan, and the protocol of March 22,

1829, drew her northern frontier in a line between the gulfs of

Arta and Volo. The titular sovereignty of the Sultan over Greece

was annulled later in the year at the peace of Adrianople, though

the northern boundary of the Hellenic kingdom was then curtailed

to a line drawn from the mouth of the Achelous to the gulf of

Lamia. With the accession of the Bavarian king Otho, in 1833,

after the failure of the republic, the northern boundary was

again adjusted, returning to about the limits laid down in the

March protocol of 1829. Greece then remained for over fifty years

bounded on the north by Mount Othrys, the Pindus range and the

gulf of Arta. In 1863, on the accession of the Danish king George

I., the Ionian Isles, which had been under English administration

since the Napoleonic wars, were ceded to the Greek kingdom, and

in May, 1881, almost the last change in European geography to the

present day was accomplished in the cession, by the Sultan, of

Thessaly and a small part of Epirus. The agitation in 1886 for a

further extension of Greek territory was unsuccessful.

THE TREATY OF UNKIAR SKELESSI.

A series of still greater reverses brought the reign of the

Sultan Mahmoud to a close. The chief of these were the defeats

sustained at the hands of his rebellious vassal Mehemet Ali,

pacha of Egypt, a man who takes rank even before the Sultan

himself as the greatest figure in the Mohammedan world during the

present century. The immediate issue of this struggle was the

practical independence of Egypt, where the descendants of Mehemet

still rule, their title having been changed in 1867 from viceroy

to that of khedive. An event incidental to the strife between

Mehemet Ali and the Sultan is of far greater importance in the

history of European Turkey.

{xi}

Mahmoud in his distress looked for aid to the great powers, and

the final issue of the rival interests struggling at

Constantinople was the memorable treaty of Unkiar Skelessi (July,

1833) by which the Sultan resigned himself completely to the

interests of his former implacable foe, the Czar of Russia. In

outward appearance this treaty was an offensive and defensive

alliance; in practical results it gave the Moscovite, in exchange

for armed assistance, when needed, the practical control of the

Dardanelles. It is no extravagance of statement to say that this

treaty forms absolutely the high watermark of Russian

predominance in the affairs of the Levant. During the subsequent

sixty years, this influence, taken as a whole, strange paradox as

it may seem, has rather receded than advanced. The utter

prostration of the Turkish Empire on the death of Mahmoud (1839)

compelled Russia to recede from the conditions of Unkiar Skelessi

while a concert of the European powers undertook the task of

rehabilitating the prostrate power; the Crimean war (1854-1855)

struck a more damaging blow at the Russian power, and the events

of 1878, though they again shattered the Turkish Empire, did not,

as will be shown, lead to corresponding return of the Czar's

ascendency.

THE CRIMEAN WAR AND TREATY OF PARIS.

The Crimean War was brought on by the attempt of the Czar to

dictate concerning the internal affairs of the Ottoman Empire--a

policy which culminated in the occupation of Moldavia and

Wallachia (1853). All Europe became arrayed against Russia on

this question,--Prussia and Austria in tacit opposition, while

England, France, and afterwards Piedmont, drifted into war with

the northern power.

By the treaty of Paris (1856), which terminated the sanguinary

struggle, the Danube, closed since the peace of Adrianople

(1829), was reopened; the southern part of Bessarabia was taken

from Russia and added to the principality of Moldavia; the treaty

powers renounced all right to interfere in the internal affairs

of the Porte; and, lastly, the Black Sea, which twenty years

before, by the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, had become a private

Russian pond, was swept of the Russian fleets and converted into

a neutral sea. The latter condition however was abrogated by the

powers (March 13, 1871).

Despite the defeat of Russia, the settlement effected at the

congress of Paris was but tentative. The most that the allied

powers could possibly have hoped for, was so far to cripple

Russia as to render her no longer a menace to the Ottoman Empire.

They succeeded only in so far as to defer the recurrence of a

Turkish crisis for another twenty years.

The chief event of importance during this interval was the birth

of the united Roumania. In 1857 the representative councils of

both Moldavia and Wallachia voted for their union under this

name. This personal union was accomplished by the choice of a

common ruler, John Cuza (1859), whose election was confirmed by a

new conference at Paris in 1861. A single ministry and single

assembly were formed at Bucharest in 1862. Prince Karl of

Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen was elected hospodar in 1866, and

finally crowned as king in 1881.

THE REVIVED EASTERN QUESTION OF 1875-78.

The Eastern question was reopened with all its perplexities in

the Herzegovinian and Bosnian revolt of August, 1875. These

provinces, almost cut off from the Turkish Empire by Montenegro

and Servia, occupied a position which rendered their subjugation

almost a hopeless task. Preparations were already under way for a

settlement by joint action of the powers, when a wave of

fanatical fury sweeping over the Ottoman Empire rendered all

these efforts abortive. Another Christian insurrection in

Bulgaria was suppressed in a series of wholesale and atrocious

massacres. Servia and Montenegro in a ferment declared war on

Turkey (July 2, 1876). The Turkish arms, however, were easily

victorious, and Russia only saved the Servian capital by

compelling an armistice (October 30). A conference of the

representatives of the powers was then held at Constantinople in

a final effort to arrange for a reorganization of the Empire,

which should include the granting of autonomy to Bosnia,

Herzegovina and Bulgaria. These conditions, though subsequently

embodied in a general ultimatum, the London protocol of March 31,

1877, were rejected by the Porte, and Russia, who had determined

to proceed alone in the event of this rejection, immediately

declared war (April 24). Into this war, owing to the horror

excited in England by the Bulgarian massacres, and the altered

policy of France, the Turk was compelled to go without allies,

and thus unassisted his defeat was assured. Then followed the

sanguinary campaigns in Bulgaria, the memories of which are still

recent and unobscured. Plevna, the central point of the Turkish

resistance, fell on December 10th; Adrianople was occupied by the

Russians on January 20th, 1878; and on January 31st., an

armistice was granted.

Great Britain now seemed roused to a sense of the danger to

herself in the Russian approach to Constantinople, and public

opinion at last permitted Lord Beaconsfield to send a fleet to

the Bosporus.

By the Russo-Turkish peace of San Stephano (March 3, 1878) Turkey

recognized the complete independence of Servia, Roumania and

Montenegro, while Bulgaria became what Servia and Roumania had

just ceased to be, an autonomous principality under nominal

Turkish sovereignty. Russia received the Dobrutcha in Europe,

which was to be given by the Czar to Roumania in exchange for the

portion of Bessarabia lost in 1856. Servia and Montenegro

received accessions of territory, the latter securing Antivari on

the coast, but the greatest geographical change was the frontier

assigned to the new Bulgaria, which was to include all the

territory bounded by an irregular line beginning at Midia on the

Black Sea and running north of Adrianople, and, in addition, a

vast realm in Macedonia, bounded on the west only by Albania,

approaching Salonica, and touching the Ægean on either side of

the Chalcidice.

It was evident that the terms of this treaty involved the

interests of other powers, especially of Great Britain. An

ultimate settlement which involved as parties only the conqueror

and conquered was therefore impossible. A general congress of the

Powers was seen to be the only solvent of the difficulty; but

before such a congress was possible it was necessary for Great

Britain and Russia to find at least a tangible basis of

negotiation for the adjustment of their differences.

{xii}

By the secret agreement of May 30th, Russia agreed to abandon the

disputed points--chief among these the creation of a Bulgarian

seaboard on the Ægean--and the congress of Berlin then assembled

(June 13-July 13, 1878).

ARRANGEMENTS OF THE TREATY OF BERLIN.

Great Britain was represented at the congress by the Marquis of

Salisbury and the premier, the Earl of Beaconsfield. The treaty

of Berlin modified the conditions of San Stephano by reducing the

Russian acquisitions in Asia Minor and also by curtailing the

cessions of territory to Servia and Montenegro. A recommendation

was also made to the Porte to cede Thessaly and a part of Epirus

to Greece, a transfer which was accomplished in 1881. A more

important provision was the transfer of the administrative

control of the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Austria.

This cession was the outcome of the secret agreement between

Russia and Austria at Reichstadt, in July of the previous year,

by which the former had secured from her rival a free hand in the

Turkish war. These districts were at once occupied by Austria,

despite the resistance of the Mohammedan population, and the

sanjak of Novibazar, the military occupation of which was agreed

to by the Porte, was also entered by Austrian troops in September

of the following year. England secured as her share of the spoil

the control of the island of Cyprus.

The greatest work accomplished at Berlin, however, was the

complete readjustment of the boundaries of the new Bulgarian

principality. This result was achieved through the agency of

Great Britain. The great Bulgarian domain, which by the treaty of

San Stephano would have conformed almost to the limits of the

Bulgarian Empire of the tenth century, was, with the exception of

a small western strip including the capital, Sofia, pushed

entirely north of the Balkans. This new principality was to enjoy

local autonomy; and immediately south of the Balkans was formed a

new province, Eastern Roumelia, also with local autonomy,

although under the military authority of the Sultan.

The result of the Berlin Congress was the apparent triumph of the

Beaconsfield policy. It is doubtful, however, if the idea of this

triumph has been fully sustained by the course of subsequent

events. The idea of Beaconsfield appears to have been that the

new Bulgaria could not become other than a virtual dependency of

Russia, and that in curtailing its boundaries he was checking by

so much the growth of Russian influence. If he could have

foreseen, however, the unexpected spirit with which the

Bulgarians have defended their autonomy, not from Turkish but

from Russian aggression, it is doubtful if he would have lent

himself with such vigor to that portion of his policy which had

for its result the weakening of this "buffer" state. The

determination to resist Russian aggression in the Balkans

continues to form the purpose of English politicians of nearly

all schools; but the idea that this policy is best served by

maintaining the integrity of the Ottoman Empire in Europe has

been steadily losing adherents since Beaconsfield's day. The one

event of importance in Balkan history since 1878 has served well

to illustrate this fact.

LATER CHANGES.

In September, 1885, the revolt of Eastern Roumelia partially

undid the work of the Berlin treaty. After the usual negotiations

between the Powers, the question at issue was settled by a

conference of ambassadors at Constantinople in November, by which

Eastern Roumelia was placed under the rule of the Bulgarian

prince as vassal of the Sultan. This result was achieved through

the agency of England, and against the opposition of Russia and

other continental powers. England and Russia had in fact

exchanged policies since 1878, now that the real temper of the

Bulgarian people was more generally understood.

The governments of Greece and Servia, alarmed at the predominance

thus given to Bulgaria among the liberated states, sought similar

compensation, but were both foiled.

Servia, which sought this direct from Bulgaria, was worsted in a

short war (Nov.-Dec. 1885), and Greece was checked in her

aspiration for further territorial aggrandizement at the expense

of Turkey by the combined blockade of the Powers in the spring of

1886.

Since then, no geographical change has taken place in the old

lands of European Turkey. Prince Alexander of Bulgaria was forced

to abdicate by Russian intrigue in September 1886; but under his

successor, Prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg (crowned in 1887), und

his able minister Stambouloff, Bulgaria has successfully

preserved its autonomy.

THE PRESENT-DAY PROBLEM.

A general statement of the Balkan problem as it exists to-day may

be briefly given. The non-Turkish populations of European

Turkey, for the most part Christian, are divided ethnically into

four groups: the Roumans or Vlachs, the

Greeks, the Albanians and the Slavs. The

process of liberation, as it has proceeded during the present

century, has given among these people the following separate

states. The Vlachs are represented in the present kingdom

of Roumania ruled by a Hohenzollern prince; the Greeks are

represented in the little kingdom of Greece ruled by a prince of

the house of Denmark; while the Slavs are represented by

three autonomous realms: Bulgaria under Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg,

Servia under the native dynasty of Obrenovitch, and the little

principality of Montenegro, the only one of all which had never

yielded to Turkish supremacy, under the Petrovic house, which is

likewise native.

The Albanians alone of the four races, owing in part,

perhaps, to their more or less general acceptance of

Mohammedanism, have not as yet made a determined effort for

separate national existence.

To these peoples, under any normal process of development,

belongs the inheritance of the Turkish Empire in Europe. The time

has long passed when any such process can be effectually hindered

on the Turkish side. It will be hindered, if at all, either by

the aggressive and rival ambitions of their two great neighbors,

Austria and Russia, or by the mutual jealousies and opposing

claims of the peoples themselves. The unfortunate part which

these jealousies are likely to play in the history of the future

was dimly foreshadowed in the events of 1885.

{xiii}

It is indeed these rival aspirations, rather than the collapse of

the Turkish power, which are most likely to afford Russia and

even Austria the opportunity for territorial extension over the

Balkan lands. A confederation, or even a tacit understanding

between the Balkan states, would do much to provide against this

danger; but the idea of a confederation, though often suggested

and even planned, belongs at present only to the realm of

possibilities. On the one hand Servia, menaced by the proximity

of Austria, leans upon Russian support; on the other, Bulgaria,

under exactly reverse conditions, yields to the influence of

Austria. It will be seen at once that these are unfavorable

conditions on which to build up any federative action. If at the

next crisis, however, the liberated states are fated to act

independently, it will be seen at once that Greece and Bulgaria

possess the better chance. Not only are they the most remote from

any of the great powers, but they alone possess a geography which

is entirely open on the Turkish side. Moreover, what is of still

greater consequence, it is they who, from an ethnic standpoint,

have the most legitimate interest in the still unliberated

population of European Turkey. The unliberated Greekpopulation predominates in southern Macedonia, the Chalcidian

peninsula and along almost the entire seaboard, both of Thrace

and Asia Minor; on the other hand the ethnographical limits of

the Bulgarian people conform almost exactly to the

boundaries of Bulgaria as provided for at San Stephano. The

creation of a political Bulgaria to correspond to the ethnic

Bulgaria was indeed the purpose of the Russian government in

1878, though with the repetition of the same conditions it would

hardly be its purpose again. Barring, therefore, the Albanians of

the west, who as yet have asserted no clearly defined national

claim, the Greeks and the Bulgarians are the logical heirs

to what remains of European Turkey.

These observations are not intended as a fore-cast; they merely

indicate what would be an inevitable outcome, were the question

permitted a natural settlement.

Concerning the Turks themselves a popular fallacy has ever

been to consider their destiny as a whole. But here again an

important division of the subject intrudes itself.

In Asia Minor, where the Turkish population overwhelmingly

preponderates, the question of their destiny, barring the ever

threatened Russian interference, ought not to arouse great

concern in the present. But in European Turkey the utter lack of

this predominance seems to deprive the Ottoman of his only

legitimate title. The Turkish population in Thrace and the

Balkans never did in fact constitute a majority; and with its

continual decline, measured indeed by the decline of the Ottoman

Empire itself, the greatest of all obstacles to an equitable and

final settlement has been removed. (See the ethnic map of Europe

at the present day.)

The historical geography of the Balkans during the present

century is not so intricate that it may not be understood even

from the current literature of the subject. The best purely

geographical authority is E. Hertslet's "Map of Europe by

Treaty." Of text works A. C. Fyffe's. "History of Modern Europe,"

and J. H. Rose's "A Century of Continental History" afford

excellent general views. The facts concerning the settlement of

the first northern boundary of free Greece are given in Finlay's

"History of Greece," Volume VII. Of excellent works dealing more or

less directly with present Balkan politics there is hardly an

end. It is necessary to mention but a few: E. de Laveleye's "The

Balkan Peninsula," E. A. Freeman's "The Ottoman Power in Europe,"

the Duke of Argyll's "The Eastern Question," and James Baker's

"Turkey." See also the general bibliography of historical

geography.

A. C. Reiley.

{xiv}

APPENDIX D.

NOTES TO THE DEVELOPMENT MAP OF CHRISTIANITY.

The subject matter contained in this map is of a character so

distinct from that of the other maps of this series that the

reader must expect a corresponding modification in the method of

treatment.

The use of historical maps is confined, for the most part, to the

statement of purely political conditions.

This is in fact almost the only field which admits of exact

portrayal, within the limits of historical knowledge, by this

method. Any other phase of human life, whether religious or

social, which concerns the belief or the thought of the people

rather than the exact extent of their race or their government,

must remain, so far as the limitations of cartography is

concerned, comparatively intangible.

Again, it should be noted that, even in the map treatment of a

subject as comparatively exact as political geography, it is one

condition of exactness that this treatment should be specific in

its relation to a date, or at least to a limited period.

The map which treats a subject in its historical development has

the undoubted merit of greater comprehensiveness; but this

advantage cannot be gained without a certain loss of relation and

proportion. Between the "development" map and the "date" map

there is this difference: In the one, the whole subject passes

before the eye in a sort of moving panorama, the salient points

evident, but with their relation to external facts often

obscured: in the other, the subject stands still at one

particular point and permits itself to be photographed. A

progressive series of such photographs, each forming a perfect

picture by itself, yet each showing the clear relation with what

precedes and follows, affords the method which all must regard as

the most logical and the most exact. But from the very intangible

nature of the subject treated in this map, the date method, with

its demand for exactness, becomes impracticable. These

observations are necessary in explaining the limitations of

cartography in dealing with a subject of this nature. The notes

that follow are intended as a simple elucidation of the plan of

treatment.

The central feature in the early development of Christianity is

soon stated. The new faith spread by churches from city to city

until it became the religion of the Roman Empire; afterwards this

spread was continued from people to people until it became the

religion of Europe. The statement of the general fact in this

crude and untempered form might in an ordinary case provoke

criticism, and its invariable historic truth with reference to

the second period be open to some question; but within the limits

of map presentation it is substantially accurate. It forms,

indeed, the key upon which the entire map is constructed.

THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCHES.

During the first three centuries of the Christian era, up to the

Constantinian or Nicene period, there is no country, state or

province which can be safely described as Christian; yet as early

as the second century there is hardly a portion of the Empire

which does not number some Christians in its population. The

subject of the historical geography of the Christian church

during the ante-Nicene period is confined, therefore, to the

locating of these Christian bodies wherever they are to be found.

On this portion of the subject the map makes its own statement.

It is possible merely to elucidate this statement, with the

suggestion, in addition, of a few points which the map does not

and cannot contain.

Concerning the ante-Nicene churches there is only one division

attempted. This division, into the "Apostolic" and

"post-Apostolic," concerns merely the period of their foundation.

Concerning the churches founded in the Apostolic period (33-100),

our knowledge is practically limited to the facts culled from the

Acts, the Epistles and the Apocalypse. The churches of the

post-Apostolic period afford a much wider field for research,

although the materials for study bearing upon them are almost as

inadequate. According to the estimate of the late Professor R. D.

Hitchcock, there were in the Roman Empire at the close of the

persecutions about 1,800 churches, 1,000 in the East and 800 in

the West. Of this total, the cities in which churches have been

definitely located number only 525. They are distributed as

follows: Europe 188, Asia 214, Africa 123 (see volume I, page 443).

Through the labors of Professor Henry W. Hulbert, the locations of

these 525 cities, so far as established, have been cast in

available cartographic form.

It is much to be regretted that, despite the sanction of the

author, it has been found impossible, owing to the limitations of

space, to locate all of these cities in the present map. The

attempt has been limited therefore to the placing of only the

more prominent cities, or those whose location is subject to the

least dispute.

The Apostolic and post-Apostolic churches, as they appear upon

the map, are distinguished by underlines in separate colors. A

special feature has been the insertion of double underlines to

mark the greater centres of diffusion, so far as their special

activity in this respect can be safely assumed. In this class we

have as centres in Apostolic times Jerusalem, Antioch,

Ephesus, Philippi, Thessalonica and Corinth; in

post-Apostolic times, when the widening of the field necessitates

special and limited notices, we may name Alexandria, Edessa,

Rome and Carthage.

The city of Rome contains a Christian community in

Apostolic times, but its activity as a great diffusion centre,

prior to early post-Apostolic times, is a point of considerable

historical controversy. In this respect it occupies a peculiar

position, which is suggested by the special underlines in the

map.

{xv}

CONVERSION OF THE EMPIRE.

The above method of treatment carries us in safety up to the

accession in the West of the first Christian Emperor (311). The

attempt, however, to pursue the same method beyond that period

would involve us at once in insurmountable difficulties.

The exact time of the advent of the Christian-Roman world it is

indeed impossible to define with precision. The Empire after the

time of Constantine was predominantly Christian, yet paganism

still lingered in formidable though declining strength. A map of

religions designed to explain this period, even with unlimited

historical material, could hardly be executed by any system, for

the result could be little better than a chaos, the fragments of

the old religion everywhere disappearing or blending with the

new. The further treatment of the growth of Christianity by

cities or churches is now impossible; for the rapid increase of

the latter has carried the subject into details and intricacies

where it cannot be followed: on the other hand, to describe the

Roman world in the fourth century as a Christian world would be

taking an unwarranted liberty with the plain facts of history.

The last feeble remnants of paganism were in fact burned away in

the fierce heat of the barbaric invasions of the fifth century.

After that time we can safely designate the former limits of the

Roman Empire as the Christian world. From this point we can

resume the subject of church expansion by the "second method"

indicated at the head of this article. But concerning the

transition period of the fourth and fifth centuries, from the

time Christianity is predominant in the Roman world until it

becomes the sole religion of the Roman world, both methods fail

us and the map can tell us practically nothing.

BARBARIANS OF THE INVASION.

Another source of intricacy occurring at this point should not

escape notice. It was in the fourth century that Christianity

began its spread among the barbarian Teutonic nations north of

the Danube. The Goths, located on the Danube, between the

Theiss and the Euxine, were converted to Christianity, in the

form known as Arianism, by the missionary bishop Ulphilas, and

the faith extended in the succeeding century to many other

confederations of the Germanic race. This fact represented, for a

time, the Christianization, whole or partial, of some peoples

beyond the borders of the Empire. With the migrations of the

fifth and sixth centuries, however, these converts, without

exception, carried their new faith with them into the Empire, and

their deserted homes, left open to new and pagan settlers, simply

became the field for the renewed missionary effort of a later

age. It is a historical fact, from a cartographic standpoint a

fortunate one, that, with all the geographic oscillations of this

period between Christianity and paganism, the Christian world

finally emerged with its boundaries conforming, with only a few

exceptions, to the former frontiers of the Roman Empire.

Whether or not this is a historical accident it nevertheless

gives technical accuracy from the geographic standpoint to the

statement that Christianity first made the conquest of the Roman

world; from thence it went out to complete the conquest of

Europe.

CONVERSION OF EUROPE.

With the view, as afforded on the map, of the extent of

Christianity at the commencement of the seventh century, we have

entered definitely upon the "second method." Indeed, in Ireland,

Wales and Scotland, where the Celtic church has already put forth

its missionary effort, the method has, in point of date, been

anticipated; but this fact need cause no confusion in treatment.

Henceforth the spread of Christianity is noted as it made its way

from "people to people." At this point, however, occurs the

greatest intangibility of the subject. The dates given under each

country represent, as stated in the key to the map, "the

approximate periods of conversion." It is not to be inferred,

however, that Christianity was completely unknown in any of these

countries prior to the periods given, or that the work of

conversion was in each case entirely completed within the time

specified. But it is an absolute necessity to give some

definiteness to these "periods of conversion"; to assign with all

distinctness possible the time when each land passed from the

list of pagan to the list of Christian nations. The dates marking

the limits to these periods are perhaps chosen by an arbitrary

method. The basis of their selection, however, has been almost

invariably some salient point, first in the introduction and

finally in the general acceptance of the Christian faith. In

order that the reader may possess the easy means of independent

opinion or critical judgment, the explanation is appended of the

dates thus used, concerning which a question might legitimately

arise.

Goths.

Converted to Arian Christianity by Ulphilas, 341-381.

These dates cover the period of the ministry of Ulphilas,

whose efforts resulted in the conversion of the great body of

the Danubian Goths. He received his ordination and entered

upon his work in 341, and died at Constantinople in 381. (See

C. A. A. Scott's "Ulfilas.")

Suevi, Burgundians and Lombards.

These people, like the Goths, passed from paganism through the

medium of Arian Christianity to final Orthodoxy. Concerning

the first process, it is possible to establish nothing, save

that these Teutonic peoples appeared in the Empire in the

fifth century as professors of the Arian faith. The exact time

of the acceptance of this faith is of less consequence. The

second transition from Arianism to Orthodoxy occurred at a

different time in each case. The Suevi embraced the Catholic

faith in 550; the Visigoths, through their Catholic king

Reccared, were brought within the church at the third council

of Toledo (589). Further north the Burgundians embraced

Catholicism through their king Sigismond in 517, and, finally,

the Lombards, the last of the Arians, accepted Orthodoxy in

the beginning of the seventh century. The Vandals, another

Arian German nation of this period, figured in Africa in the

fourth century.

They were destroyed, however, by the arms of Belisarius in

534, and their early disappearance renders unnecessary their

representation on the present map.

Franks.

Christianity introduced in 496.

This is the date of the historic conversion of Clovis and his

warriors on the battlefield of Tolbiac. The Franks were the

first of the Germanic peoples to pass, as a nation, to

orthodoxy direct from paganism, and their conversion, as we

have seen, was soon followed by the progress from Arianism to

Orthodoxy of the other Germanic nations within the borders of

the Empire.

{xvi}

Ireland.

Christianity introduced by Patrick, 440-493.

St. Patrick entered upon his missionary work in Ireland in

440; he died on the scene of his labors in 493. This period

witnessed the conversion of the bulk of the Irish nation.

Picts.

Christianity introduced from Ireland by Columba, 563-597.

These dates cover the period of St. Columba's ministry. The

work of St. Ninian, the "apostle of the Lowlands" in the

previous century, left very few enduring results. The period

from 563, the date of the founding of the famous Celtic

monastery of Iona, to the death of Columba in 597, witnessed,

however, the conversion of the great mass of the Pictish

nation.

Strathclyde.

Christianity introduced by Kentigern, 550-603.

These dates, like the two preceding, cover the period of the

ministry of a single man, Kentigern, the "apostle of

Strathclyde." The date marking the commencement of Kentigern's

labors is approximate. He died in 603.

England.

The Celtic church had been uprooted in England by the

Anglo-Saxon invasions of the fifth and sixth centuries. While

its missionary efforts were now being expended on Scotland,

Strathclyde, and Cornwall, its pristine seat had thus fallen

away to complete paganism. The Christianization of England was

the work of the seventh century, and in this work the Celtic

church, though expending great effort, was anticipated and

ultimately outstripped by the church of Rome.

Kent.

Christianity introduced by Augustine, 597-604.

These dates cover the ministry of St. Augustine, the apostle

of Kent. This was the first foothold gained by the Roman

church on the soil of Britain.

Northumbria.--627-651.

Edwin (Eadwine), king of Northumbria, received baptism from

the Kentish missionary Paulinus on Easter Eve, 627.

The process of conversion was continued by the Celtic

missionary, Aidin, who died in 651. The Christianity of

Northumbria had begun before the latter date, however, to

influence the surrounding states.

East Anglia.--630-647.

East Anglia had one Christian king prior to this period; but

it was only with the accession of Sigebert (630) that great

progress was made in the conversion of the people. The reign

of king Anna witnesses the practical completion of this work.

In 647 the efforts of this sovereign led to the baptism of

Cenwalch, king of the West Saxons.

Wessex.--634-648.

The conversion of the West Saxons was begun by the missionary

Birinus in 634. The year 648 witnessed the restoration of the

Christian king Cenwalch.

Mercia.--654-670.

Mercia was one of the last of the great English kingdoms to

accept the faith. Their king, Penda, was indeed the most

formidable foe the church encountered in the British Isles.

The conversion of Penda's son Peada admitted the gospel to the

Middle Angles, who accepted Christianity in 653. The East

Saxons embraced the faith at about the same time. Finally in

654 the defeat and death of Penda at the hand of Oswy, the

Christian king of Northumbria, opened the doors of Mercia as

well. The conversion of the realm was practically accomplished

during the next few years.

Sussex.--681.

The leaders of the South Saxons received baptism at the hands

of the apostle Wilfred in 681. Sussex was the last retreat of

paganism on the English mainland, and five years later the

conversion of the inhabitants of the Isle of Wight completed

the spread of Christianity over every portion of the British

Isles.

Frisians.

Christianity introduced by Willibrord, 690-739.

The work of St. Willibrord among the Frisians was one of many

manifestations of the missionary activity of the Celtic

church. Willibrord introduced Christianity among these people

during the years of his ministry, but to judge by the

subsequent martyrdom of Boniface in Friesland (755) the work

of conversion was not fully completed in all quarters until a

later time.

Mission Field of Boniface.--722-755.

The object of the map is not merely to locate the mission

field of the great "apostle of Germany," but also to give the

location and date of the various bishoprics which owed their

foundation to his missionary efforts.

Saxons.--787-805.

Of all the nations converted to Christianity up to this time

the Saxons were the first conquest of the sword. The two most

powerful Saxon chiefs were baptized in 787; but it was not

until their complete defeat and subjugation by Charlemagne in

805 that the work of conversion showed a degree of

completeness. With the Christianization of the Saxons the

cordon of the church was completed around the Germanic

nations.

Moravia.

Christianity introduced by Cyrillus and Methodius, 863-900.

St. Cyrillus, the "apostle of the Slavs," entered upon his

mission in Moravia in 863. The political Moravia of the ninth

century, under Rastislav and Sviatopluk, exceeded greatly the

limits of the modern province; but the missionary labor of the

brothers Cyrillus and Methodius seems to have produced its

principal results in the modern Moravian territory, as

indicated on the map. Methodius, the survivor of the brothers,

died about 900. In the tenth century Moravia figures as

Christian.

Czechs.--880-1039.

The door to Bohemia was first opened from Moravia in the time

of Sviatopluk. The reactions in favor of paganism were,

however, unusually prolonged and violent. Severus, Archbishop

of Prague, finally succeeded in enforcing the various rules of

the Christian cultus (1039).

Poles.--966-1034.

The Polish duke Mieczyslav was baptized in 966. Mieczyslav II.

died in 1034. These dates cover the active missionary time

when, indeed, the efforts of the clergy were backed by the

strong arm of the sovereign. Poland did not, however, become

completely Christian until a somewhat later period.

Bulgarians.--863-900.

The Bulgarian prince Bogoris was baptized in 863. Again, as in

so many other cases, the faith was compelled to pass to the

people through the medium of the sovereign. The second date is

arbitrary, although Bulgaria appears definitely as a Christian

country at the commencement of the tenth century.

Magyars.--950-1050.

Missionaries were admitted into the territory of the Magyars

in 950.

{xvii}

The coronation of St. Stephen, the "apostolic king," (1000)

marked the real triumph of Christianity in Hungary. A number of

pagan reactions occurred, however, in the eleventh century, so

that it is impossible to place the conversion of the Magyars at

an earlier date than the last one assigned.

Russians.--988-1015.

The Russian grand-duke Vladimir was baptized on the occasion

of his marriage to the princess Anne, sister of the Byzantine

Emperor, in 988. Before his death in 1015 Christianity had

through his efforts become the accepted religion of his

people.

Danes.--Converted by Ansgar and his successors, 827-1035.

The Danes had been visited by missionaries prior to the ninth

century, but their work had left no permanent result. The

arrival of Ansgar, the "apostle of the North" (827), marks the

real beginning of the period of conversion. This period in

Denmark was an unusually long one. It was not fully complete

until the reign of Canute the Great (1019-1035).

Swedes (Gothia).

Christianity introduced by Ansgar and his successors, 829-1000.

Ansgar made his first visit to Sweden in 829, two years after

his arrival in Denmark. The period of conversion, as in

Denmark, was a long one; but by the year 1000 the southern

section, Gothia or Gothland, had become Christian. The

conversion of the northern Swedes was not completed for

another century.

Norwegians.--935-1030.

The period of conversion in Norway began with the reign of the

Christian king Hakon the Good. The faith made slow progress,

however, until the reign of Olaf Trygveson, who ascended the

throne near the end of the tenth century. The work of

conversion was completed in the reign of Olaf the Saint

(1014-1030).

Pomeranians.

Christianity introduced by Otho of Bamberg, 1124-1128.

The attempt of the Poles to convert the Pomeranians by the

sword prior to these dates had proven unavailing, and

missionaries had been driven from the country. Within the

short space of four years, however, Otho of Bamberg succeeded

in bringing the great mass of the people within the pale of

the church.

Abotrites.--1125-1162.

The conversion of these people was clearly the work of the

sword. It was accomplished within the time specified by Albert

the Bear, first margrave of Brandenburg, and Henry the Lion,

duke of Saxony. The last heathen king became the first

Christian duke of Mecklenburg in 1162. Further south the

kindred Wend nations between the Elbe and the Oder had been

the object of German effort, both missionary and military, for

over two centuries, but had generally come within the church

before this time.

Lives and Prussians.

Christianity introduced by the Sword Brothers, 1202-1236,

and by the Teutonic Knights, 1230-1289.

These conversions, the work of the transplanted military

orders of Palestine, were direct conquests of the sword, and

as such possess a definiteness which is so unfortunately

lacking in so many other cases.

So much for the character and the purpose of the dates which

appear on this map. In the employment of the colors, the periods

covered are longer, and as a consequence the general results are

somewhat more definite. The use of a color system directly over a

date system is intended to afford an immediate though general

view, From this to the special aspects presented by the date

features is a simple step in the development of the subject.

Another feature of the map which may not escape notice is the

different systems used, respectively, in the Roman and Mediæval

period for the spelling of urban names. A development map

covering a long period of history cannot be entirely free from

anachronisms of this nature; but a method has nevertheless been

followed in the spelling of these place names:--to give in each

case the spelling current at the period of conversion. The fact

that the labors of the Christian missionaries were confined

mostly to the Roman world in the Roman period, and did not extend

to non-Roman lands until the Middle Ages, enables us to limit our

spelling of civic names to a double system. The cities of the

Roman and of the Mediæval period are shown on the map and in the

key in two different styles of type. Only in the cases of cities

like Rome, Constantinople and Antioch, where the current form has

the absolute sanction of usage even for classic times, has there

been any deviation from the strict line of this method.

In conclusion, the general features of the subject present

themselves as follows: Had the advance of Christianity, like

Mohammedanism, been by conquest, had the bounds of the Christian

faith been thus rendered ever conterminous with the limits of a

people or an empire, then, indeed, the subject of church

expansion would possess a tangibility and coherency concerning

which exact statement would be possible. The historical geography

of the Christian church would then partake of some of the

precision of political division. But the non-political element in

the Christian cultus deprives us, in the study of the subject, of

this invaluable aid. At a later time, when the conquests of the

soul were backed by the strong arm of power, and when the new

faith, as often happened, passed to the people from the

sovereign, a measure of this exactness is perhaps possible.

We have witnessed an indication of these tendencies in many

cases, as we approached the termination of the period covered by

this map. But the fact remains that the fundamental character of

the Christian faith precludes, in the main, the possibility of

its growth being measured by the rules which govern ordinary

political expansion.

This being then a subject on which definiteness is well nigh

impossible, it has been treated by a method correspondingly

elastic. A working basis for the study of the subject is,

however, afforded by this system. This basis secured, the student

may then systematically pursue his theme.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

The historical geography of the Christian church, if studied only

within narrow limits, can be culled from the pages of general

church history. All of these accounts, however, are brief--those

in the smaller histories extremely so. If studied thus, the

reader will derive the most help from:

Neander's "History of the Christian Religion and Church,"

volume I, pages 68-86.

volume II, pages 1-84, 93-129;

Schaff's "History of the Christian Church,"

volume I, pages 224-406,

volume II, pages 13-84,

volume III, pages 10-71,

volume IV, pages 17-142,

Moeller's "History of the Christian Church."

{xviii}

These works may be supplemented by a vast number of books

treating of special phases of church history, though the number

in English dealing specifically with geographical expansion is

very small.

The most recent, dealing with the ante-Nicene period, is Ramsey's

"Church in the Roman Empire before A. D. 170," to which the same

author's "Historical Geography of Asia Minor" forms a most

indispensible prelude.

Entering the mediæval period, the best general guides are the

little books of G. F. Maclear, entitled respectively the

conversion of the Celts, English, Continental Teutons, Northmen

and Slavs. These works may be supplemented by Thomas Smith's

"Mediæval Missions," and for special subjects by G. T. Stokes'

"Ireland and the Celtic Church," W. F. Skene's "Celtic Scotland"

(volume II), and S. Baring Gould's "The Church in Germany."

The texts of the Councils as contained in Harduin, Labbe, and

Mansi are indispensible original aids in the study of church

geography.

Of German Works, J. E. T. Wiltsch's "Atlas Sacer," and the same

author's "Church Geography and Statistics," translated by John

Leitch, have long remained the standard guides for a study of the

historical geography of the church. The Atlas Sacer, containing

five large plates, is the only pure atlas guide to the subject.

The "Church Geography and Statistics," being an ecclesiastical

work, dwells with great fulness on the internal facts of church

geography, but the outward expansion, barring the early growth of

the church, is not so concisely treated. For the history of

mediæval missions the reader will be better served elsewhere. To

the reader using German, C. G. Blumhardt's "Die

Missionsgeschichte der Kirche Christi" (3 volumes, 1828-1837), and

a later work, "Handbuch der Missionsgeschichte und

Missionsgeographie" (2 volumes, 1863), may be noted.

For modern missions there is a very full literature.

Comprehensive works on this subject are Grundemann's "Allgemeine

Missions Atlas," Burkhardt and Grundemann's "Les Missions

Evangéliques" (4 vols.), and in English the "Encyclopædia of

Missions." Several articles in the "Encyclopædia of Missions"

should not escape notice. Among them are "Mediæval Missions," and

the "Historical Geography of Missions," the latter by Dr. Henry

W. Hulbert. The writer is glad at this point to return his thanks

to Dr. Hulbert for the valued aid extended in the location of the

Church of the ante-Nicene period.

A. C. Reiley

{xix}

APPENDIX E.

THE FOLLOWING NOTES AND CORRECTIONS TO MATTER

RELATING TO AMERICAN ABORIGINES.

(PP. 76-108) HAVE BEEN KINDLY MADE BY MAJOR J. W. POWELL

AND MR. J. OWEN DORSEY, OF THE BUREAU OF ETHNOLOGY.

Adai.

This tribe, formerly classed as a distinct family--the

Adaizan--is now regarded by the Bureau of Ethnology as but a

part of the Caddoan or Pawnee.

Apache Group.

Indians of different families are here mentioned together:

(A) the Comanches, etc., of the Shoshonean Family;

(B) the Apaches (including the Chiricaguis, or Chiri cahua,

Coyoteros, etc., but excluding the Tejuas who are Tañoan) of

the Athapascan Family, the Navajos of the same family; and

(C) the Yuman Family, including the Cosninos, who are not

Apache (Athapascan stock).

Athapascan Family.

Not an exact synonym of "Chippewyans, Tinneh and Sarcees." The

whole family is sometimes known as Tinneh, though that

appellation is more frequently limited to part of the Northern

group, the Chippewyans. The Surcees are an offshoot of the

Beaver tribe, which latter form part of one of the

subdivisions of the Northern group of the Athapascan Family.

The Sarcees are now with the Blackfeet.

Atsinas (Caddoes).

The Atsinas are not a Caddoan people, but they are Algonquian,

as are the Blackfeet (Sik-sik-a). The Atsinas are the "Fall

Indians," "Minnetarees of the Plains," or "Gros Ventres of the

Plains," as distinguished from the Hidatsa, who are sometimes

called the "Minnetarees of the Missouri," "Gros Ventres of the

Missouri."

Blackfeet or Siksikas.

The Sarcee are a Tinneh or Athapascan tribe, but they are not

the Tinneh (see above). The "Atsina" are not a Caddo tribe

(see above).

Cherokees.

These people are now included in the Iroquoian Family. See

Powell, in Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 79.

Flatheads (Salishan Family).

The "Cherakis," though included among the Flatheads by Force,

are of the Iroquoian Family. The "Chicachas" or Chickasaws,

are not Salishan, but Muskhogean. See Powell, Seventh Annual

Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 95. The Totiris of Force, are

the Tutelos, a tribe of the Siouan Family. See Powell,

Seventh, Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 116. The

Cathlamahs, Killmucks (i. e., Tillamooks), Clatsops, Chinooks

and Chilts are of the Chinookan Family. See Powell, Seventh

Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, pages 65, 66.

Gros Ventres (Minnetaree; Hidatsa).

There are two distinct tribes which are often confounded, both

being known as the Gros Ventres or Minnetarees. 1. The Atsina

or Fall Indians, an Algonquian tribe, the "Gros Ventres of the

Plains," or the "Minnetarees of the Plains." 2. The Hidatsa, a

Siouan tribe, the "Gros Ventres of the Missouri," or the

"Minnetarees of the Missouri." The former, the Atsina, have

been wrongly styled "Caddoes" on page 81.

Hidatsa, or Minnetaree, or Gros Ventres.

Often confounded with the Atsina, who belong to the Algonquian

Family, the Hidatsa being a tribe of the Siouan Family. The

Hidatsa have been called Gros Ventres, "Big Paunches," but

this nickname could have no reference to any personal

peculiarities of the Hidatsa. It seems to have originated in a

quarrel between some Indians over the big paunch of a buffalo,

resulting in the separation of the people into the present

tribes of Hidatsas and Absarokas or Crows, the latter of whom

now call the Hidatsa, "Ki-kha-tsa," from ki-kha, a paunch.

Hupas.

They belong to the Athapascan Family: the reference to the

Modocs is misleading.

Iroquois Tribes of the South.

"The Meherrins or Tuteloes."

These were not identical, the Tutelos being a Siouan tribe,

the Meherrins being now identified with the Susquehannocks.

Kenai or Blood Indians.

The Kenai are an Athapascan people inhabiting the shores of

Cook's Inlet and the Kenai Peninsula, Southern Alaska; while

the Blood Indians are a division of the Blackfeet (Siksika),

an Algonquian tribe, in Montana.

Kusan Family.

The villages of this family were on Coos River and Bay, and on

both sides of Coquille River, near the mouth. See Powell,

Seventh, Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 80.

ALSO IN:

J. Owen Dorsey, The Gentile System of the

Siletz Tribes, in Journal American Folk-Lore,

July-Sept., 1890, page 231.

Minnetarees.

See above, ATSINA and HIDATSA.

Modocs (Klamaths) and their California and Oregon neighbors.

The Klamaths and Modocs are of the Lutuamian Family; the

Shastas of the Sastean; the Pit River Indians of the

Palaihnihan; the Eurocs of the Weitspekan; the Cahrocs of the

Quoratean; the Hoopahs, Tolewas, and the lower Rogue River

Indians of the Athapascan; the upper Rogue River Indians of

the Takilman.

Muskhogean Family.

The Biloxi tribe is not Muskhogean but Siouan. See Dorsey

(James Owen), "The Biloxi Indians of Louisiana," reprinted

from volume 42, Proc. American Association Advancement

of Science., Madison meeting, 1893.

Natchitoches.

A tribe of the Caddoan Family.

Dorsey (J. Owen), MS. in the Bureau of Ethnology, 1882.

ALSO IN:

Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 61.

Pueblos.

"That Zuni was Cibola it is needless to attempt to prove any

further."

A. F. Bandelier, Journal of American Eth. and Arch., volume 3,

page 19, 1892.

{xx}

Rogue River Indians.

This includes tribes of various families: the upper Rogue

River Indians being the Takelma, who are assigned to a special

family, the Takilman; and the lower Rogue River Indians, who

are Athapascan tribes.

See Dorsey (J. Owen), "The Gentile System of the Siletz

Tribes," in Journal of American Folk-Lore,

July-September., 1890, pages 228, 232-236.

Santees.

Two divisions of the Siouan Family are known by this name: 1.

The I san-ya-ti or Dwellers on Knife Lake, Minnesota,

identical with the Mdewakantonwan Dakota. These figured in the

Minnesota outbreak of 1862. The survivors are in Knox County,

Nebraska, on what was once the Santee reservation, and near

Flandreau, South Dakota. 2. The Santees of South Carolina were

part of the Catawba confederacy. The Santee river is named

after them.

Sarcee.

These are not all of the Tinneh, nor are they really

Blackfeet, though living with them. The Sarcees are an

offshoot of the Beaver Indians, a tribe of one of the

divisions of the Northern group of the Athapascan Family.

Siouan Family.

All the tribes of this family do not speak the Sioux language,

as is wrongly stated on page 103. Those who speak the "Sioux"

language are the Dakota proper, nicknamed Sioux, and the

Assiniboin. There are, or have been, nine other groups of

Indians in this family: to the Cegiha or Dhegiha group belong

the Omahas, Ponkas, Osages, Kansas or Kaws, and Kwapas or

Quapaws; to the Tchiwere group belong the Iowas, Otos, and

Missouris; the Winnebago or Hochangara constitute another

group; the fifth group consists of the survivors of the Mandan

nation; to the sixth group belong the Hidatsa and the

Absarokas or Crows; the Tutelos, Keyauwees, Aconeechis, etc.,

constituted the seventh group; the tribes of the Catawba

confederacy, the eighth; the Biloxis, the ninth; and certain

Virginia tribes the tenth group. The Winnebagos call

themselves Hochangara, or First Speech (not "Trout Nation"),

they are not called Horoje ("fish-eaters") by the Omahas, but

Hu-tan-ga, Big Voices, a mistranslation of Hochangara. The

Dakotas proper sometimes speak of themselves as the "O-che-ti

sha-ko-win," or the Seven Council-fires. Their Algonquian foes

called them Nadowe-ssi-wak, the Snake-like ones, from nadowe,

a snake; this was corrupted by the Canadian French to

Nadouessioux, of which the last syllable is Sioux. The seven

primary divisions of the Dakota are as follow: Mdewakantonwan,

Wakhpekute, Sisitonwan or Sisseton, Wakhpetonwan or Warpeton,

Ihanktonwan or Yankton, Ihanktonwanna or Yanktonnai, and

Titonwan or Teton.

The Sheyennes or Cheyennes, mentioned in connection with the

Sioux by Gallatin and Carver, are an Algonquian people. Gallatin

styles the "Mandanes" a Minnetaree tribe; but as has just been

stated, the survivors of the Mandan nation, a people that

formerly inhabited many villages (according to Dr. Washington

Matthews and others) belong to a distinct group of the Siouan

Family, and the Hidatsa (including the Amakhami or "Annahawas" of

Gallatin) and the Absaroka, Upsaroka or Crows constitute the

sixth group of that family. The "Quappas or Arkansas" of Gallatin

are the Kwapas or Quapaws of recent times. The Osages call

themselves, not "Wausashe," but Wa-sha-she.

Takilman Family.

"The Takilma formerly dwelt in villages along upper Rogue

River, Oregon, all the latter, with one exception, being on

the south side, from Illinois River on the southwest, to Deep

Rock, which was nearer the head of the stream. They are now

included among the 'Rogue River Indians,' and they reside on

the Siletz Reservation, Tillamook County, Oregon, where Dorsey

found them in 1884."

Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,

page 121.

They call themselves, Ta-kel-ma

Dorsey.

Dorsey had their chief make a map showing the locations of all

their villages.

{xxi}

[Transcriber's note:

The internet links listed were active at the time of this

production in 2021. The link may be to a different edition than

listed. Most are to archive.org or gutenberg.org,

both excellent repositories of free books.

An internet search (duckduckgo, google, bing, ...) will provide

links to many other sources. These were produced by entering the

author and title, as shown in the list, eg.,

BANCROFT, GEORGE. History of the United States of America, site:archive.org

Without the site restriction (site:archive.org) the search

results are flooded with links to commercial sites, hiding the

actual targets.

Results can be extended by noting the sequence number in a link such as:

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds04banciala

(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds05banciala

Try modifying the number for adjacent volumes of the same title.]

APPENDIX F.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

THE BETTER LITERATURE OF HISTORY IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

ON SUBJECTS NAMED BELOW.

In the following Classified List, the date of the first

appearance of each one among the older works is given in

parentheses, if ascertained. The period covered by the several

memoirs, and other works limited in time, is stated in

brackets.

AMERICA.

DISCOVERY.

EXPLORATION.

SETTLEMENT.

ARCHÆOLOGY.

ETHNOLOGY.

GENERAL.

BANCROFT, GEORGE.

History of the United States of America, part 1.

(Author's last revision.)

New York: D. Appleton & Company 1883-5. 6 volumes.

https://archive.org/details/historyoftheunit037605mbp

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofusa01bancrich

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofunited32banc

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofusa03bancrich

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds04banciala

(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds05banciala

(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds06banciala

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyoftheunit037606mbp

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds0004banc/page/n7/mode/2up

BANCROFT, HUBERT HOWE.

History of the Pacific States of North America:

Central America, volumes 1-2;

Mexico, volumes 1-2.

San Francisco: A. L. Bancroft & Company 1882-3.

(Volume  1) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics11bategoog

(Volume  2) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics15bategoog

(Volume  2) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics16bategoog

(Volume  2) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics26bategoog

(Volume  4) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics24bategoog

(Volume  5) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics13bategoog

(Volume  6) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics30bategoog

(Volume  7) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics02bategoog

(Volume  7) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics23bategoog

(Volume  8) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics04bategoog

(Volume  8) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics29bategoog

(Volume  9) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics03bategoog

(Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics06bategoog

(Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics07bategoog

(Volume 12) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics05bategoog

(Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/historyofpacific13bancrich

(Volume 14) https://archive.org/details/historyofpacific14bancrich

(Volume 14) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics09bategoog

(Volume 15) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics01bategoog

(Volume 16) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics10bategoog

(Volume 17) https://archive.org/details/historyofpacific17bancrich

(Volume 17) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics22bategoog

(Volume 18) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics08bategoog

(Volume 19) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics20bategoog

(Volume 19) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics27bategoog

(Volume 20) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics31bategoog

(Volume 21) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics17bategoog

(Volume 22) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics18bategoog

(Volume 23) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics28bategoog

(Volume 24) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics19bategoog

(Volume 25) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics26bategoog

(Volume 26) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics12bategoog

(Volume 27) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics21bategoog

(Volume 31) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics25bategoog

(Volume 32) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics15bategoog

(Volume 33) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics14bategoog

BANVARD, REVEREND JOSEPH.

Novelties of the new world.

Boston: Gould & Lincoln. 1851.

https://archive.org/details/noveltiesofnew00banv

BELKNAP, JEREMY.

American biography, volume 1. (1794-8.)

New York: Harper & Brothers. 3 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/americanbiograph185101belk

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_48978

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37965

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY.

Notes of Americana.

(Bulletins, volume 3. pages 205-209.)

BROWNELL, HENRY.

North and South America Illustrated, from its first discovery.

Hartford: Hurlbut, Kellogg & Company 1800. 2 volumes.

https://archive.org/details/northsouthameric11brow

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/northsouthamill01browrich

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/northandsoutham00browgoog

BRYANT, WILLIAM CULLEN, and SIDNEY H. GAY.

Popular history of the United States, volume 1.

New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co. 1870-81. 4 volumes.

https://archive.org/details/3704730.1-4

BUMP, C. W.

Bibliographies of America. Baltimore. 1892.

(Johns Hopkins University studies in historical

and political science. 10th series, nos. 10-11. appendix)

CARVER, ELVIRA, and MARA L. PRATT.

Our fatherland. [Juvenile.]

Boston: Educational Publication Company. 1890. volume 1-.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/ourfatherland00carv

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/ourfatherlandvol01carvuoft

FISKE, JOHN.

The discovery of America: with some account of

ancient America and the Spanish conquest.

Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1892. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/discoveryamerica01fisk

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/discoveryofameri02fisk

GORDON, THOMAS F.

History of America, volumes. 1-2;

containing the history of the Spanish discoveries

prior to 1520. Philadelphia. 1832. 2 volumes.

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyamericab00gordgoog

HAKLUYT, RICHARD. collection

Divers voyages touching the discovery of America and

the Islands adjacent (1582); with notes by John W. Jones.

London: Hakluyt Society. 1850.

https://archive.org/details/diversvoyagesto00thorgoog

HARRISSE, HENRY.

The discovery of North America: a critical, documentary,

and historic investigation.

London: H. Stevens & Son. 1892.

HIGGINSON, THOMAS WENTWORTH.

A book of American explorers.

Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1877.

Larger history of the United States of America, chapters 1-5.

New York: Harper & Brothers. 1880.

HOLMES, ABIEL.

The annals of America, 1492-1826 (1805); 2d edition.

Cambridge: Hilliard & Brown. 1829. 2 volumes.

https://archive.org/details/annalsamer00holmrich

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/annalsamerica02holmgoog

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cihm_47269

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/americanannals00unkngoog

HUMBOLDT, ALEXANDER VON.

Cosmos (1845-58), translated by E. C. Otté,

part 2, section 6 (volume 2).

London: H. Bohn. 1847-58. 5 volumes

(Audio) https://archive.org/details/cosmos_1603_librivox

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cosmosasketchap00dallgoog

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cosmossketchofph0002humb/page/n5/mode/2up

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/cosmosofph03humbrich

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/sketchofphcosmos04humbrich

New York: Harper & Brothers 1850-. 5 volumes.

https://archive.org/details/cosmos01humbgoog

KERR, ROBERT, ed.

General history and collection of voyages and travels (1811-1824).

volumes 1-6.

Edinburgh: W. Blackwood. 18 volumes.

(Volume  1) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory06kerrgoog

(Volume  2) https://archive.org/details/generalhistoryco02kerrrich

(Volume  2) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory02kerrgoog

(Volume  3) https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_zb46AAAAIAAJ

(Volume  3) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory07kerrgoog

(Volume  4) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory08kerrgoog

(Volume  5) https://archive.org/details/generalhistoryco05kerrrich

(Volume  6) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory15kerrgoog

(Volume  7) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory10kerrgoog

(Volume  8) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory12kerrgoog

(Volume  9) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory09kerrgoog

(Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory11kerrgoog

(Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory04kerrgoog

(Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.18187

(Volume 12) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory14kerrgoog

(Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory05kerrgoog

(Volume 15) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory13kerrgoog

(Volume 18) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory10unkngoog/page/n5/mode/2up

(Volume 18) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory03kerrgoog

KINGSLEY, CHARLES.

The first discovery of America.

(Lectures delivered in America in 1874.

London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1875.

Philadelphia: Porter & Coates. 1875.)

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1360

https://archive.org/details/lecturesdelivere00king

LODGE, H. C.

Gravier's Découverte de l'Amérique.

(North American Review 119: 166. 1874.)

MACGREGOR, JOHN.

Progress in America.

London: Whittaker & Company. 1847. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/progressofameric01macguoft

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/progressamerica02macggoog

MACKENZIE, ROBERT.

America; a history.

London: Nelson & Sons. 1882.

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.87679

MAVOR, WILLIAM.

Historical account of the most celebrated voyages.

volumes 1 and 17.

London: 1790-7. 20 volumes.

(Volume  1) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou01conggoog/page/n9/mode/2up

(Volume  5) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou02conggoog/page/n6/mode/2up

(Volume  6) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou13conggoog

(Volume  7) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37601

(Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37604

(Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/anhistoricalacc03mavogoog

(Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou11conggoog

(Volume 16) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou09conggoog

(Volume 17) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou17mavogoog

(Volume 19) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou09mavogoog

(Volume 20) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37614

(Volume 21) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37615

(Volume 22) https://archive.org/details/anhistoricalacc10mavogoog

(Volume 23) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37617

(Volume 24) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou08mavogoog/page/n8/mode/2up

(Volume 24) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37618

PALFREY, JOHN G.

History of New England, volume 1, chapter 2.

Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1858-90.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historynewengla23palfgoog

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofnewengl02palf

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofnewengl0002palf/page/n5/mode/2up

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofnewengl00palf

PAYNE, EDWARD JOHN.

History of the new world called America.

Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1892-. volume 1-.

New York: Macmillan & Company. 1892-. volume 1-.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/histnewworld01paynrich

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/histnewworld02paynrich

PINKERTON, JOHN, ed.

General collection of the best and most interesting

voyages and travels, volume 14.

London: Longman. 1808-14. 17 volumes.

(Volume  1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_18698

(Volume  1) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio01pink

(Volume  2) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio02pink

(Volume  4) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio04pink

(Volume  4) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio04pinkuoft

(Volume  5) https://archive.org/details/ageneralcollect05pinkgoog/page/n15/mode/2up

(Volume  6) https://archive.org/details/cihm_18703

(Volume  7) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio07pink

(Volume  8) https://archive.org/details/ageneralcollect03unkngoog/page/n11/mode/2up

(Volume  9) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio09pink

(Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio10pink

(Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio11pink

(Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio12pink

(Volume 14) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio14pink

(Volume 16) https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.5489

(Volume 17) https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.1668

ROBERTSON, WILLIAM.

History of America (1777-96).

(Works, volumes 6-8.

Oxford: Talboys & Wheeler. 1825.)

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyamerica12robegoog

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/americarobertson00willrich/page/n3/mode/2up

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyamericab00robegoog

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofamerica03robe

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyamerica01unkngoog

SCAIFE, WALTER B.

America, its geographical history, 1492-1892.

(Johns Hopkins University studies in historical and

political science, extra volume 13.) Baltimore. 1892.

https://archive.org/details/americaitsgeogra00scairich

SNOWDEN, RICHARD.

History of North and South America, from its discovery

to the death of General Washington. (1806.)

Philadelphia: B. Warner. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1, 2) /phttps://archive.org/details/historynorthand00snowgoog

STEVENS, HENRY.

Historical and geographical notes on the earliest

discoveries in America, 1453-1530.

London: Henry Stevens. 1869.

New Haven: American Journal of Science. 1869.

https://archive.org/details/historicalandge00stevgoog

WILLSON, MARCIUS.

American history.

New York: Mark H. Newman & Company. 1847.

https://archive.org/details/americanhistory00will

WINSOR, JUSTIN.

Harrisse's Discovery of North America

Nation, 55: 244. 264.

https://archive.org/details/jstor-196715/page/n11/mode/2up

Editor, Narrative and critical history of America

Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company 1886. 8 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica01wins/page/n11/mode/2up

(Volume 1, 1)https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica51wins

(Volume 1, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica12wins

(Volume 2    )https://archive.org/details/narrcrithistamerica02winsrich

(Volume 2, 1)  https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica21wins

(Volume 2, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica22wins

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica0003wins/page/n7/mode/2up

(Volume 3, 1)  https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica31wins

(Volume 3, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica32wins

(Volume 4 )  https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica04wins

(Volume 4, 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica41wins

(Volume 4, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica42wins

(Volume 5    ) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica0005wins/page/n7/mode/2up

(Volume 5, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica52wins

(Volume 6, 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica61wins

(Volume 6, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica62wins/page/n7/mode/2up

(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica0007wins/page/n5/mode/2up

(Volume 7, 2)  https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica72wins

(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica0008wins/page/n7/mode/2up

(Volume 8, 2)  https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica82wins

YATES, JOHN V. N., and MOULTON, JOS. W.

History of the state of New York, volume 1, part 1.

New York: A. T. Goodrich. 1924-6. 2 volumes.

(Volume1, 1)https://archive.org/details/historyofstateof12moul_0

(Part 2)https://archive.org/details/historyofstateof02moul/page/n3/mode/2up

PRE-COLUMBIAN DISCOVERIES.

ANDERSON, RASMUS B.

America not discovered by Columbus.

Chicago: S. C. Griggs & Company. 1874.

https://archive.org/details/americanotdiscov00andeiala

BEAMISH, NORTH LUDLOW.

The discovery of America by the Northmen in the 10th century.

London: T. & W. Boone 1841.

https://archive.org/details/discoveryameric00beamgoog

BOWEN, Reverend BENJ. F.

America discovered by the Welsh in 1170. A. D.

Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 1876.

https://archive.org/details/americadiscovere00boweuoft

DALL, W. H.

Alleged early Chinese voyages to America.

(Science, 8: 402. 1886.)

DAVIS, ASAHEL.

Discovery of America by the Northmen.

Rochester: D. Hoyt. 1839.

https://archive.org/details/lectureondiscove00davi

DE COSTA, Reverend BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, editor.

The pre-Columbian discovery of America by the Northmen,

illustrated by translations from the Icelandic sagas.

Albany: Joel Munsell. 1868.

https://archive.org/details/precolumbiandisc00deco

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41221

{xxii}

DIMAN, J. L.

De Costa's Pre-Columbian discovery of America,

(North American Review, 109: 205. 1869.)

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41221

DISCOVERY OF AMERICA BY THE NORTHMEN.

(Atlantic Monthly, 54: 282. 1884.)

DU BOIS, B. H.

Did the Norse discover America?

(Magazines of American History, 27: 369. 1892.)

ELLIOTT, CHARLES W.

The New England history, chapter 1.

New York: Charles Scribner. 1857. 2 volumes.

https://archive.org/details/newenglandhisto04elligoog

EVERETT, EDWARD.

Discovery of America by the Northmen.

(North American Review, 46: 161. 1838.)

FISKE, JOHN.

How America came to be discovered.

(Harper's Magazine, 64: 111. 1881.)

HIGGINSON, THOMAS W.

The visit of the Vikings,

(Harper's Magazine, 65: 515. 1882.)

HORSFORD, EBEN NORTON.

The problem of the Northmen.

Cambridge: J. Wilson & Son. 1889.

https://archive.org/details/problemofnorthme00hors

LEGENDS OF OLD America.

(Cornhill Magazine 26: 452. 1872.)

LELAND, CHARLES GODFREY.

The ante-Norse discoverers of America

(Continental Monthly, 1: 389,530. 1862)

Fusang: or the discovery of America by Chinese Buddhist

priests in the 5th century.

London: Trübner. 1875.

New York: J. W. Bouton, 1875.

http://link.archive.org/portal/Fusang-or-The-discovery-of-America-by-Chinese/ZD2URRe5Nbs/

MacLEAN, J. P. Pre-Columbian discovery of America

(American Antiquarian, 14, 1892)

MAJOR, RICHARD HENRY.

The life of prince Henry of Portugal,

surnamed the navigator, and its results.

London: A. Asher & Company, 1868.

https://archive.org/details/lifeofprincehenr00majo

On the voyages of the Venetian brothers Zeno.

(Massachusetts History Society Proceedings, 1873-75.)

Translator and editor.   Voyages of the Venetian brothers, Nicolò and Antonio Zeno,

to the northern seas, in the 14th century.

London: Hakluyt Society. 1873.

https://archive.org/details/voyagesofvenetia00zenorich

ONDERDONK, J. L.

Pre-Columbian discoveries of America,

(National Quarterly Review, 33: 1. 1876.)

https://archive.org/details/precolumbiandis00ondegoog/page/n4/mode/2up

PILON, M. R.

Visits of Europeans to America

in the 10th and 11th centuries.

(Potter's American Monthly, 5: 903. 1875.)

RANKING, JOHN,

Historical researches on the conquest of Peru, Mexico, etc.,

in the 13th century, by the Mongols.

London: Longman. 1827.

https://archive.org/details/historicalresear00rank

REEVES, ARTHUR MIDDLETON.

The finding of Wineland the good.

London: Henry Frowde. 1890.

https://archive.org/details/winelandthegood00reevrich

ROPES, A. R.

Early explorations of America, real and imaginary.

(English Historical Review, 2: 78. 1887.)

SHORT, JOHN T.

Claims to the discovery of America

(Galaxy, 20: 509. 1875.)

SLAFTER, Rev. EDMUND F.

The discovery of America by the Northmen 985-1015:

a discourse delivered before the New Hampshire

Historical Society, April 24, 1888.

https://archive.org/details/winelandthegood00reevrich

Editor.   Voyages of the Northmen to America; including extracts from

the Icelandic sagas in an English translation by N. L. Beamish,

opinion of Professor Rafn, etc.

Boston: Prince Society. 1877.

https://archive.org/details/voyagesofnorthme00slafiala

SMITH, JOSHUA TOULMIN.

The discovery of America by the Northmen In the 10th century;

comprising translations of all the most important original

narratives (1839). 2d edition.

London: William S. Orr & Company 1842.

https://archive.org/details/discoveryofameri00smit

SOUTHEY, ROBERT.

Madoc (1805).

London: Longmans.

Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/madoc03soutgoog/page/n11/mode/2up

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/madoc00soutgoog/page/n6/mode/2up

STEPHENS, THOMAS.

Madoc; an essay on the discovery of America by

Madoc ap Owen Gwynedd in the 12th century.

London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1893.

https://archive.org/details/madocessayondisc00stepuoft

STORM, GUSTAV.

Studies on the Vineland voyages.

Copenhagen: Thiele. 1889.

VINING, EDWARD P.

An inglorious Columbus; or, evidence that Hwui Shán

and a party of Buddhist monks from Afghanistan discovered

America in the 5th century.

New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1885.

https://archive.org/details/ingloriouscolumb00vini

VOYAGES TO VINLAND, THE; from the saga of Eric the red.

Boston: D. C. Heath & Company.

(Old South leaflets, general series, No.31.)

https://archive.org/details/cihm_07112/page/n5/mode/2up

WATSON, PAUL B.

Bibliography of the pre-Columbian discoveries of America.

(Library Journal, 6: 227. 1881.)

WINSOR, JUSTIN.

America prefigured: an address at Harvard, October 21, 1892.

Cambridge. 1893.

https://archive.org/details/prefiguredamerica00winsrich/page/4/mode/2up

COLUMBUS

ADAMS, CHARLES KENDALL.

Christopher Columbus, his life and work.

("Makers of America.")

New York: Dodd, Mead & Company. 1892.

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/54929

https://archive.org/details/christophercolum00adamrich

Some recent discoveries concerning Columbus.

(Magazine of American History, 27: 161, 1892.)

ADAMS, HERBERT B., and HENRY WOOD.

Columbus and his discovery of America.

(Johns Hopkins University studies in historical and political

science, 10th series, Numbers 10-11,)

Baltimore, October-November, 1892.

https://archive.org/details/columbusandhisd00woodgoog

BLIND, K.

The forerunners of Columbus.

(New Review, 7: 346, Living Age, 195: 387. 1892.)

CASTELAR, EMILIO.

Christopher Columbus.

(Century, 22: 123-921. 1892.)

https://archive.org/details/centuryillustrat44newyuoft

COLUMBUS, CHRISTOPHER.

Journal, 1492-3; and documents relating to the voyages of John

[and Sebastian] Cabot and Gaspar Corte Real; translated by

C. R. Markham.

London: Hakluyt Society. 1893.

https://archive.org/details/cihm_05312

The letter on the discovery of America; a facsimile

of the pictorial edition, with a new and literal translation.

Printed by the Lenox Library. New York. 1882.

https://archive.org/details/letterofcolumbus00colum

Letter to Gabriel Sanchez, 1493.

Boston: D. C. Heath & Company.

(Old South leaflets, general series, No. 33.)

https://archive.org/details/spanishletterco00kerngoog

Select letters, with other original documents; translated

and edited by R. H. Major.

London: Hakluyt Society. 1847.

Writings descriptive of the discovery and occupation

of the new world; edited by Paul Leicester Ford.

New York: C. L. Webster & Company. 1892.

COLUMBUS, FERDINAND.

The discovery of America; from the life of Columbus.

Boston: D. C. Heath & Company.

(Old South leaflets, general series, No. 29.)

ELTON, CHARLES.

The career of Columbus.

New York: Cassell Publishing Company. 1892.

https://archive.org/details/careercolumbus00eltogoog

GOODRICH, AARON.

History of the character and achievements of the

so-called Christopher Columbus.

New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1874.

https://archive.org/details/historyofcharact00good

HELPS, Sir ARTHUR, and H. P. Thomas.

Life of Columbus.

London: Bell & Daldy. 1869.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/15336

IRVING, WASHINGTON.

Life and voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828);

to which are added those of his companions (1831).

New York: G. P. Putnam. 3 volumes.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8519

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyoflifeand01irviiala

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyoflifeand02irviiala

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyoflifeand03irviiala

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/lifeandvoyagesc05irvigoog

LORGUES, ROSELLY DE.

Life of Christopher Columbus, from Spanish and Italian

documents; comp. from the French by J. J. Barry.

Boston: P. Donahoe. 1870.

https://archive.org/details/lifeofchristophe00rose

MACKIE, CHARLES PAUL.

The last voyages of the Admiral of the Ocean Sea,

as related by himself and his companions.

Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Company. 1892.

https://archive.org/details/lastvoyagesadmi00paulgoog

MACKINTOSH, J.

The discovery of America by Columbus and the

origin of the North American Indians.

Toronto. 1836.

https://archive.org/details/discoveryameric00mcingoog

MARKHAM, CLEMENTS R.

Life of Christopher Columbus.

London: George Philip & Son. 1892.

https://archive.org/details/cu31924020393413

MAURY, M.

An examination of the claims of Columbus.

(Harper's Magazines, 42: 425, 527. 1871.)

OBER, FREDERICK A.

In the wake of Columbus; adventures of the special

commissioner sent by the World's Columbian Exposition

to the West Indies.

Boston: D. Lothrop Company. 1893.

https://archive.org/details/inwakecolumbusa00obergoog

SEELYE, ELIZABETH EGGLESTON.

The story of Columbus; with introduction by Edward Eggleston.

New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1892.

https://archive.org/details/storyofcolumbus00seel

SPALDING, J. L.,

Columbus, (Catholic World, 56: 1. 1892.)

TARDUCCI, FRANCESCO.

The life of Christopher Columbus;

translated from the Italian by H. F. Brownson.

Detroit: H. F. Brownson. 1890. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/lifechriscolum01tardrich

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/lifechristopher00browgoog

WINSOR, JUSTIN.

Christopher Columbus, and how he received and imparted

the spirit of discovery.

Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1891.

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.158654

Columbiana. (Nation, 52: 297. 1891.)

POST-COLUMBIAN DISCOVERIES.

ARBER, EDWARD. editor.

The first three English books on America (?1511)-1555 A. D.;

being chiefly translations, compilations, &c., by

Richard Eden, from the writings of Pietro Martire,

Sebastian Münster, Sebastian Cabot.

Birmingham. 1885.

https://archive.org/details/firstthreeenglis00arberich

ASHER, G. M., editor

Henry Hudson the navigator: original documents in which

his career is recorded.

London: Hakluyt Society. 1860.

https://archive.org/details/henryhudsonnavig27ashe

BIDDLE, RICHARD.

Memoir of Sebastian Cabot.

Philadelphia: Carey & Lea. 1831.

https://archive.org/details/sebastiancabot00biddrich

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY.

America in the 16th century

(bibliographical note in Bulletins, volume 3, pages 130-141).

Early English explorations in America

(bibliographical note in Bulletins, volume 3, pages 241-244).

Early explorations in America

(bibliographical note in Bulletins, volume 3, pages 103-100).

{xxiii}

BREVOORT, J. C.

Verrazano the navigator [from report of the American

Geographical Society of New York for 1873].

New York. 1874.

https://archive.org/details/verrazanonavigator00brevrich

CHAMPLAIN, SAMUEL DE.

Voyages (1603-1610): translated Charles P. Otis, [editor]

with memoir by E. F. Slafter.

Boston: Prince Society. 1878-82. 3 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_26911

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/voyagessamuelde00massgoog

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/voyagessamuelde00unkngoog

DE VRIES. D. P.

Extracts from the voyages; translated from a

Dutch ms. in the Philadelphia Library, by Dr. G.

Troost. (Collections of the New York Historical Society.,

2d series, volume 1.

New York. 1841.)

Voyages from Holland to America, 1632-1644;

translated by H. C. Murphy. (Collections of the New

York Historical Society, 2d series, volume 3.

New York. 1857.)

https://archive.org/details/cu31924028729402/page/n25/mode/2up

FISKE, JOHN.

The romance of the Spanish and French explorers.

(Harper's Magazines, 64: 438. 1882.)

FORCE, M. F.

Some observations on the letters of Amerigo Vespucci (1879).

Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company 1885.

https://archive.org/details/someobservation01forcgoog

HAKLUYT, RICHARD, editor.

The principal navigations, voyages, traffiques and

discoveries of the English nation

(1589); edited by E. Goldsmid. volume 12-15.

Edinburgh: E. & G. Goldsmid. 1889-90.

(Volume  1) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.178849

(Volume  2) https://archive.org/details/principalnavigat02hakluoft

(Volume  5) https://archive.org/details/principalnaviga00haklgoog

(Volume  6) https://archive.org/details/principalnaviga06hakl

(Volume  8) https://archive.org/details/principalnaviga00unkngoog

(Volume  9) https://archive.org/details/cihm_33125

(Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/principalnavigat10hakl

(Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/principalnavigat11hakl

(Volume 12) https://archive.org/details/principalnavigat12hakl

(Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/theprincipalnavi25645gut

(Volume 13) https://www.gutenberg.org/files/25645/

(Volume 16) https://archive.org/details/cihm_33132

HIGGINSON, THOMAS W.

The old English seamen.

(Harper's Mag., 66: 217. 1883)

The Spanish discoverers.

(Harper's Magazine. 65: 729. 1882.)

HUDSON, HENRY.

Divers voyages and northern discoveries.

(Purchas his pilgrimes, volume 3.

Collections of the New York Historical Society, volume 1.

New York. 1811.)

JUET, ROBERT.

Extract from the journal of the voyage

of the Half-Moon, Henry Hudson, master, 1609.

(Collections of the New York Historical Society,

2d series, volume 1.

New York. 1841.)

http://halfmoon.mus.ny.us/Juets-journal.pdf

KOHL, J. G.

History of the discovery of Maine; with

an appendix on the voyages of the Cabots.

(Collections of the Maine Historical Society.,

2d series, volume 1.

Portland: 1869.)

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofdiscove00kohl

LESTER, C. EDWARDS, and A. FOSTER.

Life and voyages of Americus Vespucius.

New York: Baker & Scribner. 1846.

https://archive.org/details/lifeandvoyages00lestrich/page/n3/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/lifevoyagesofame00lestiala

https://archive.org/details/cu31924020421867

NICHOLLS, J. F.

Remarkable life, adventures and discoveries of Sebastian Cabot.

London: Sampson Low, Son & Marston. 1869.

https://archive.org/details/remarkablelifead00nich

PARKMAN, FRANCIS.

Pioneers of France in the New World.

Boston: Little. Brown & Company. 1865.

https://archive.org/details/pioneers_of_france_in_new_world_0908_librivox1

PAYNE, EDWARD JAMES.

Voyages of the Elizabethan seamen to America;

13 original narratives from the collection of Hakluyt.

London: Thomas de la Rue & Company. 1880.

https://archive.org/details/voyagesofelizabe02hakluoft

READ, JOHN MEREDITH, Jr.

Historical inquiry concerning Henry Hudson.

Albany: J. Munsell. 1866.

https://archive.org/details/historicalinquir00readuoft

SANTAREM, Viscount. Researches respecting Americus

Vespucius and his voyages (1842); translated by E. V. Childe.

Boston: C. C. Little & Jas. Brown. 1850.

https://archive.org/details/researchesrespe02conggoog

STANLEY OF ALDERLEY. Lord.

The first voyage round the world, by Magellan; translated from

the accounts of Pigafetta and other contemporary writers; with

documents, notes, etc.

London: Hakluyt Society. 1874.

https://archive.org/details/firstvoyageround00piga

TARDUCCI, FRANCESCO.

John and Sebastian Cabot, biographical notice, with documents;

translated from the Italian by Henry F. Brownson.

Detroit: H. F. Brownson. 1893.

https://archive.org/details/johnsebast00tardrich

TOWLE, GEORGE M.

Magellan.

Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1880.

https://archive.org/details/magellan00towl/page/n5/mode/2up

VERRAZANO, JOHN DE. The relation of.

(Collections of the New York Historical Society., volume 1.

New York. 1811.)

The same: a new translation, by J. G. Cogswell.

(Collections of the New York Historical Society,

2d series, volume 1.

New York. 1841.)

Voyage, 1524.

(Old South leaflets, general series, No. 17.)

Boston: D. C. Heath & Company.

VESPUCCI, AMERIGO.

Account of his first voyage; letter to Pier Soderini.

(Old South leaflets, general series, No. 34.)

Boston: D. C. Heath & Company.

The first four voyages; reprinted in facsimile and

translated from the rare original edition. (1505-6).

London: Bernard Quaritch. 1893.

https://archive.org/details/lettersofamerigo00vesp

https://archive.org/details/lettersofamerigo00vesprich

VOYAGES OF THE CABOTS, THE.

From Hakluyt's "Principal navigations."

Boston: D. C. Heath & Company.

(Old South leaflets, general series, No. 37.)

SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE CONQUEST AND OCCUPATION.

ANDAGOYA, PASCUAL DE.

Narrative of the proceedings of Pedrarias Davila [1514-1541];

translated and edited by C. R. Markham.

London: Hakluyt Society. 1865.

https://archive.org/details/narrativeofproce00anda

BANDELIER, ADOLF F. A.

Discovery of New Mexico [Cibola] by Fray Marcos of Nizza.

(Magazine of Western History, 4: 659. 1886.)

BENZONI, GIROLAMO.

History of the new world, shewing his travels in America,

1541-1556; translated and edited by W. H. Smyth.

London: Hakluyt Society. 1857.

https://archive.org/details/historynewworld00smytgoog/page/n10/mode/2up

BLACKMAR, FRANK W.

Spanish Institutions of the southwest.

Baltimore. 1801. (Johns Hopkins University studies in

history and political science. Extra volume 10.)

https://archive.org/details/spanishinstituti00blac

CHARLEVOIX, Father F. P. X. DE.

History of Paraguay (1756);

[translated from the French].

London: L. Davis. 1769. 2 volumes.

(French)  https://archive.org/details/histoireduparag04chargoog

(English) https://books.google.com/books?id=40sIAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

CHEVALIER, MICHEL.

Mexico, ancient and modern; translated by T. Alpass.

London: J. Maxwell & Company. 1864. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/gri_33125000251625/page/n3/mode/2up

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/mexicoancientan01alpagoog

CIEZA DE LEON, PEDRO DE.

Travels, A. D. 1532-50, contained in the first and

second parts of his Chronicle of Peru (1553-):

translated an edited by C. R. Markham.

London: Hakluyt Society 1864-83.

https://archive.org/details/travelsofpedrode33ciez/page/n31/mode/2up

CLAVIGERO, Abbé D. FRANCESCO SAVERIO.

History of Mexico, collected from Spanish and Mexican

historians, from MSS. and ancient paintings of the Indians;

translated from the Italian by Charles Cullen.

Philadelphia: Thomas Dobson. 1804. 3 volumes.

https://archive.org/details/historyofmexicoc03clav

CORTEZ, HERNANDO.

Despatches addressed to the emperor Charles V. during

the conquest: translated from the Spanish, with

introduction and notes by George Folsom.

New York: Wiley & Putnam. 1843.

https://archive.org/details/despatchesofhern0cort

DIAZ DEL CASTILLO, BERNAL.

Memoirs, containing a true and full account of the

discovery and conquest of Mexico and New Spain (1612):

translated from the Spanish by John I. Lockhart.

London: J. Hatchard & Son. 1844. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/memoirsofconquis01dauoft

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/memoirsconquist01lockgoog

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.40349/page/n3/mode/2up

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/memoirsofconquis02di

DISCOVERY and conquest of Terra Florida, by Don Fernando de Solo;

written by a gentleman of Elvas (1557), and translated out of

Portuguese by Richard Hakluyt: edited by W. B. Rye.

London: Hakluyt Society 1851.

https://archive.org/details/discoveryandcon00haklgoog

FANCOURT, CHARLES. ST. J.

History of Yucatan.

London: J. Murray. 1854.

https://archive.org/details/historyofyucatan00fanc

HELPS, Sir ARTHUR.

Life of Hernando Cortes.

London: Bell & Son. 1871. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/lifehernandocor00goog/page/n9/mode/2up

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.85399/page/ii/mode/2up

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/lifeofhernandoco01helpuoft

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/lifeofhernandoco02helpuoft

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.86033

Life of Las Casas.

London: Bell & Son. 1868.

https://archive.org/details/lifeoflascasasth00help/page/n7/mode/2up

Life of Pizarro.

London: Bell & Son. 1869.

https://archive.org/details/lifeofpizarrowit00help

The Spanish conquest In America.

London: Parker & Son. (1855-61.)

New York: Harper & Brothers. 1867. 4 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/spanishconquesti01helpuoft

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/spanishconquest00conggoog

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/spanishconquest06oppegoog

(Volume 3) https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/agf7071.0003.001

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/spanish_conquest_in_america_vol4/page/n3/mode/2up

IRVING, THEODORE.

History of De Soto's conquest of Florida (1835).

New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/conquestflorida01irvirich/page/n5/mode/2up

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/conquestflorida01irvigoog

MARKHAM, CLEMENTS R.

History of Peru, chapters 1-4.

Chicago: C. H. Sergel & Co. 1892.

https://archive.org/details/ahistoryperu01markgoog

Edited and translated.

Reports on the discovery of Peru.

London: Hakluyt Society 1872.

https://archive.org/details/reportsondiscove04mark

MAYER, BRANTZ.

Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and republican, book. 1.

Hartford: S. Drake & Company. 1851. 2 volumes.

https://books.google.com/books/about/Mexico_Aztec_Spanish_and_republican.html?id=4QNQAQAAIAAJ

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/mexicoaztecspan01mayegoog

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/mexicoaztecspani02maye

RESCOTT, WILLIAM H.

History of the conquest of Mexico (1843);

edited by J. F. Kirk.

Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 3 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/conquestofmexico01presrich

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/conquestmexico02presuoft

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyconmex03pres

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofconques04pres

History of the conquest of Peru (1847);

edited by J. F. Kirk.

Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofconques01presiala

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofconques02presiala

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofconques03presiala

RAYNAL, Abbé.

A philosophical and political history of the settlements and

trade of the Europeans in the east and west Indies (1770);

translated from the French by J. O. Justamond.

London. 1788. 8 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol01rayn

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol02rayn

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol03rayn

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol04rayn

(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol06rayn

(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol05rayn

(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol07rayn

(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/philosophicalpol08rayn/

RIVERO, M. E., and TSCHUDI, J. J. VON.

Peruvian antiquities:

translated from the Spanish by F. L. Hawks.

New York: G. P. Putnam & Company. 1853.

https://archive.org/details/peruvianantiqui01tschgoog/page/n10/mode/2up

SIMPSON, J. H.

Coronado's march in search of the "Seven cities of Cibola."

Washington. 1871.

https://archive.org/details/coronadosmarchin00simprich/page/n11/mode/2up

SOLIS, Don ANTONIO DE

History of the conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards (1684);

translated from the Spanish by T. Townsend,

revised and corrected by N. Hook.

London: T. Woodward. 1738. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://books.google.com/books/about/The_History_of_the_Conquest_of_Mexico.html?id=ejQVAAAAQAAJ

SOUTHEY, ROBERT.

History of Brazil, volume 1.

London: Longman. 1810-19. 3 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofbrazil01sout

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofbrazil02sout

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofbrazil03sout

SOUTHEY, THOMAS.

Chronological history of the West Indies, volume 1.

London: Longman. 1827. 3 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/chronologicalhis01sout

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/chronologicalhis02sout

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/chronologicalhis03sout

TOWLE, GEORGE M.

Pizarro.

Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1879.

https://archive.org/details/pizarrohisadvent00towlrich/page/n5/mode/2up

TYLOR, EDWARD B.

Anahuac; or Mexico and the Mexicans, ancient and modern.

London: Longman, Green & Company. 1861.

https://archive.org/details/b24883360

WASHBURN, CHARLES A.

History of Paraguay, chapters 1-4.

Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1871. 2 volumes.

(volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofparagua01washuoft/page/n3/mode/2up

(volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofparagua02wash

WATSON, ROBERT G.

The Spanish and Portuguese in South America during

the colonial period, volume 1.

London: Trübner & Company. 1884. 2 volumes.

(volume 1) https://archive.org/details/spanishportugues01watsuoft

(volume 1) https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50990

(volume 2) https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/52252

WILSON, ROBERT A.

A new history of the conquest of Mexico, in which

Las Casas' denunciations of the popular historians

of that war are vindicated.

Philadelphia: Jas. Challen & Son. 1859.

https://archive.org/details/anewhistoryconq00goog

{xxiv}

ENGLISH AND FRENCH COLONIZATION.

ACRELIUS, ISRAEL.

History of New Sweden. (Memoirs of the Pennsylvania

Historical Society, volume 11.

Philadelphia. 1876.)

https://archive.org/details/historyofnewswed11acre

https://archive.org/details/historyofnewswed00acre

https://archive.org/details/cihm_12822/page/n5/mode/2up

ADAMS, CHARLES FRANCIS.

Three episodes of Massachusetts history.

Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1892 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/threeepisodesofm01adamuoft

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/threeepisodesofm02adam

BAYLIES, FRANCIS.

Historical memoir of the colony of New Plymouth (1830).

Boston: Wiggin & Lunt. 1866. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historicalmemoir11bayl

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historicalmemoir02bayl

BEVERLEY, ROBERT.

History of Virginia (1705).

Richmond: J. W. Randolph. 1855.

https://archive.org/details/historyvirginia00campgoog

BOZMAN, JOHN LEEDS

History of Maryland, 1633-1660.

Baltimore: Lucas & Deaver. 1837 (introduction 1811.)

Baltimore: John Murphy & Co.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofmarylan00bozm

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historymaryland02bozmgoog

BRADFORD, WILLIAM.

History of Plymouth Plantation.

(Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society,

4th series, volume 3. Boston. 1856.)

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofplymout1162brad

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historymaryland02bozmgoog

BRIDGES, GEORGE W.

Annals of Jamaica, volume 1.

London: J. Murray. 1827. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/annalsofjamaica01briduoft

(Volume 2 )https://archive.org/details/annalsjamaica05bridgoog

BRODHEAD, JOHN R., editor   Documents relating to the colonial history

of the state of New York.

Albany. 1856-87. 14 volumes.

(Volume  1) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ01brod

(Volume  2) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ02brod/page/n9/mode/2up

(Volume  3) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ03brod/page/n7/mode/2up

(Volume  4) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ04brod/page/n7/mode/2up

(Volume  5) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ05brod/page/n9/mode/2up

(Volume  6) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ06brod/page/n7/mode/2up

(Volume  7) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ07brod/page/n9/mode/2up

(Volume  8) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ08brod/page/n5/mode/2up

(Volume  9) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ09brod/page/n7/mode/2up

(Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ10brod/page/n7/mode/2up

History of the state of New York, volume 1.

New York: Harper & Brothers. 1853. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ01brod

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ02brod

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ03brod

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ04b/page/n7/mode/2up

(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ05brod/

(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ06brod/

(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ07brod/

(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ08brod/

(Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ09brod/

(Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ10brod/

(Index)     https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ11brod/page/n7/mode/2up

BROWN, ALEXANDER editor

The genesis of the United States [a collection of

historical mss. and tracts, with notes, etc.].

Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1890. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/genesisofuniteds01brow

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/genesisofuniteds02brow

BROWN, WILLIAM HAND, editor.

Archives of Maryland.

Baltimore. 1883-.

https://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000021/html/am21p--1.html

Has links to other volumes.

BURKE, EDMUND.

An account of the European settlements in America.

London: R. & J. Dodsley. 1757. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/accountofeuropea01burk

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/accountofeuropea02burk

BURY, Viscount.

Exodus of the western nations.

London: Richard Bentley. 1865. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/exodusofwesternn01albeuoft

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/exodusofwesternn02albeuoft

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.82499

CAMPBELL, CHARLES.

Introduction to the history of the colony and

ancient dominion of Virginia.

Richmond: D. B. Minor. 1847.

https://archive.org/details/introductiontohi00campb

History of the colony and ancient dominion of Virginia.

Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company.

https://archive.org/details/historyofcolonya00camp

CAMPBELL, DOUGLAS.

The Puritan in Holland, England and America.

New York: Harper & Brothers. 1892. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/puritaninholland01camp

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/puritaninholland02camp

CARROLL, B. R., editor.

Historical collections of South Carolina.

New York: Harper & Brothers. 1836. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historicalcolle00carrgoog/page/n9/mode/2up

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historicalcolle02carrgoog/page/n6/mode/2up

CHARLEVOIX, Father PIERRE F. X. DE.

History and general description of New France (1744):

translated, with notes, by John G. Shea.

New York: J. G. Shea. 1866-7.2. 6 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_32251

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cihm_32765

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historygeneralde03char

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historygeneralde04char

(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historygenerald05achar

(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/historygeneralde06char

CHEEVER, GEORGE B., editor   Journal of the Pilgrims at Plymouth in 1620.

New York: J. Wiley. 1848.

https://archive.org/details/journalofpilgrim00mouruoft

DALTON, HENRY G.

History of British Guiana, chapter 2.

London: Longmans. 1855. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historybritishg01daltgoog

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historybritishg02daltgoog

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historybritishg03daltgoog

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historybritishg00daltgoog/page/n10/mode/2up

DOUGLASS, WILLIAM.

Summary, historical and political, of the British settlements

in North America.

London: R. Baldwin. 1755. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/summaryhistorica01doug/page/n7/mode/2up

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/McGillLibrary-rbsc_lc_summary-historical-political_Lande00193_v2-15869

DOYLE, JOHN A.

The American colonies (Arnold prize essay).

London: Rivingtons. 1869.

The English In America: Virginia.

Maryland and the Carolinas (1882).

The Puritan colonies (1887), 2 volumes.

London: Longmans, Green & Company.

New York: Henry Holt & Co.

https://archive.org/details/englishcoloniesi01doyl

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/englishcoloniesi03doyl

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/englishcoloniesi04doyl/page/n7/mode/2up/page/n7/mode/2up

DRAKE, SAMUEL ADAMS.

The making of New England, 1580-1643.

New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1886.

https://archive.org/details/makingofnewengla00drakrich

The making of Virginia and the middle colonies.

New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1893.

https://archive.org/details/makingofvirginia00drak

DRAKE, SAMUEL G.

History and antiquities of Boston, 1630-1770.

Boston: L. Stevens. 1856.

https://archive.org/details/historyantiquiti00dra

EDWARDS, BRYAN.

History, civil and commercial, of the British colonies

in the West Indies. [Caribs, etc.]

London: J. Stockdale. 1793-1801. 3 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_44458

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historycivilcomm04edwa

https://archive.org/details/historycivilcomm06edwa/page/n5/mode/2up

FERRIS, BENJAMIN.

History of the original settlements on the Delaware.

Wilmington: Wilson & Heald. 1846.

https://archive.org/details/historyoforigina00ferr

FISHER. GEORGE P.

The colonial era (American History series).

New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1892.

(1906) https://archive.org/details/colonialera00fishuoft

(1910) https://archive.org/details/colonialerabygeo00fish

FISKE, JOHN.

The beginnings of New England.

Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1889.

(1897) https://archive.org/details/beginningsofne00fisk

FORCE, PETER. editor.

Tracts and other papers relating principally to the origin,

settlement and progress of the colonies in North America.

Washington. 1886-47. 4 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/tractsotherpaper01forc

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/tractsotherpaper02forc

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/tractsotherpaper1844forc

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/tractsotherpaper04forc

GAYARRÉ, CHARLES.

History of Louisiana; the French domination (1851-4).

New York: William J. Widdleton. 1861.

(1867) https://archive.org/details/historyoflouisia03gaya

GOODWIN, JOHN A.

The pilgrim republic.

Boston: Ticknor & Company. 1888.

https://archive.org/details/pilgrimrepublich00good/page/n11/mode/2up

GRAHAME, JAMES.

History of the rise and progress of the United States

of North America. till 1688, volume 1.

London: Longman. 1827. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofrisepro01grah/page/n5/mode/2up

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofrisepro02grah/page/n5/mode/2up

(Volume 4, 1836) https://archive.org/details/historyriseandp01grahgoog/page/n8/mode/2up

The same, enlarged [to 1776] and amended [edited by

Josiah Quincy, and published under the title of

"History of the United States"].

Philadelphia: Lea & Blanchard. 1846.

HAWKS, FRANCIS L.

History of North Carolina [to 1729] (1857-60).

Fayetteville: Hale & Son. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924028788374

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historynorthcar00lillgoog

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historynorthcar00pittgoog

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historynorthcar00unkngoog

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_MzgTAAAAYAAJ/page/n3/mode/2up

HIGGINSON, THOMAS W.

The French Voyageurs.

(Harper's Mag., 66: 505. 1883.)

HUBBARD, Rev. WILLIAM.

General history of New England, to 1680 (1815).

(Collections of the Massachusetts History Society,

2d series, volumes 5-11. Boston. 1848.)

https://archive.org/details/generalhistoryof00hubb

HUTCHINSON, THOMAS.

History of the colony [and province] of Massachusetts-Bay

[to 1749].

Boston: T. & J. Fleet. 1764-7. 2 volumes.

https://archive.org/details/historyofcolonyo00hutc

LAMBRECHTSEN, N. C.

Short description of the discovery and subsequent history

of the New Netherlands (1818): [translated from the Dutch].

(Collections of the New York Historical Society,

2d series, volume 1. New York. 1841.)

LODGE, HENRY CABOT.

Short history of the English colonies in America.

New York: Harper & Brothers. 1881.

https://archive.org/details/histenglishcolonies00lodgrich

MARSHALL, JOHN.

History of the colonies planted by the English on the continent

of North America.

Philadelphia: A. Small. 1824.

https://archive.org/details/plantedcolonies00marsrich

MOORE, N.

Pilgrims and Puritans: the story of the planting of Plymouth

and Boston.

Boston: Ginn & Co. 1888.

https://archive.org/details/pilgrimspuritans00tiff

MOURT, GEORGE.

Relation, or journal of the plantation at Plymouth (1622);

with introduction and notes by H. M. Dexter.

Boston: J. K. Wiggin. 1865.

https://archive.org/details/mourtsrelationo00dextgoog

NEILL, EDWARD D.

English colonization of America during the 17th century.

London: Strahan & Company. 1871.

https://archive.org/details/cu31924032746145

History of the Virginia Company of London.

Albany: J. Munsell. 1869.

https://archive.org/details/cu31924028784738

Virginia vetusta [Supplement to above].

Albany: J. Munsell's Sons. 1885.

https://archive.org/details/virginiavetusta00neilgoog

O'CALLAGHAN, E. B.

Register of New Netherland, 1626-1674.

Albany: J. Munsell. 1865.

https://archive.org/details/registerofnewnet00ocal

PALFREY, JOHN G.

History of New England during the Stuart dynasty.

Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1858-1864. 3 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofnewengl01bost

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historynewengla19palfgoog

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historynewengla18palfgoog/page/n6/mode/2up

PRINCE, THOMAS.

Chronological history of New England [to 1633] (1736-55).

Boston: Cummings, Hilliard & Company. 1826.

https://archive.org/details/achronologicalh00halegoog/page/n6/mode/2up

SAINSBURY, W. N. editor.

Calendar of state papers: colonial series

[America and the West Indies].

London: Longman. 1860-89. 3 volumes. 1860-84. 6 volumes.

(1675-1676) https://archive.org/details/calendarstatepa19offigoog

(1677-1680) https://archive.org/details/calendarstatepa08offigoog/page/n11/mode/2up

(1685-1688) https://archive.org/details/calendarstatepa18offigoog/page/n9/mode/2up

(1689-1692) https://archive.org/details/calendarstatepa14offigoog

(1696-1697) https://archive.org/details/cu31924087794685

(1719-1720) https://archive.org/details/colonialrecordsc31greauoft/page/n3/mode/2up

(1699)      https://archive.org/details/calendarstatepa15offigoog

SHURTLEFF, N. B., editor.

Records of the governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay,

1628-86. Printed by order of the Legislature.

Boston. 1853-4; 5 volumes in 6.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/recordsofgoverno01mass

(Volume 4, Part 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924091024590

(Volume 4, Part 2) https://archive.org/details/recordsofgoverno42mass

SHURTLEFF, N. B., and D. PULSIFER. editors.

Records of the colony of New Plymouth.

Printed by order of the Legislature.

Boston. 1855-61. 12 volumes. in 10.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/recordsofcolonyo0102newp/page/n5/mode/2up

(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/recordsofcolonyo05newp

https://www.plymouthcolony.net/resources/pcr.html#pcrarchive

STITH, WILLIAM.

History of the first discovery and settlement of Virginia (1747).

New York: Reprinted for Jos. Sabin. 1865.

https://archive.org/details/101292821.nlm.nih.gov/page/n3/mode/2up

TARBOX, Rev. INCREASE N.

Sir Walter Raleigh and his colony in America.

Boston: Prince Society. 1884.

https://archive.org/details/sirwalterralegh00lanegoog

TRUMBULL, BENJAMIN.

General history of the United States of America to 1792.

Boston: Farrand, Mallory & Company. 1810. volume 1.

https://archive.org/details/generalhistoryof03trum

(Volume 1 of 3) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory01trumgoog/page/n8/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/generalhistoryof03trum/page/n13/mode/2up

TYTLER, PATRICK F.

Historical view of the progress of discovery on the

more northern coasts of America; with natural history,

by Jas. Wilson.

Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd. 1832.

New York: Harper Brothers.

https://archive.org/details/historicalviewp00goog

WHITEFIELD, WILLIAM A., editor.

Documents relating to the colonial history of the state of New

Jersey.

Newark. 1880-. 11 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelati01socigoog/page/n10/mode/2up

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelati04socigoog/page/n12/mode/2up

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelati05socigoog/page/n6/mode/2up

(William Nelson)

(Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelati03socigoog/page/n10/mode/2up

(Volume 19) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelati02socigoog/page/n4/mode/2up

(Volume 22) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelati00socigoog/page/n10/mode/2up

WILSON, JAMES GRANT, editor   Memorial history of the city of New York, volume 1.

New York: History Co. 1892. 4 volumes.

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cu31924024757290

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/memorialhistoryo01wilsuoft

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/memorialhistoryo02wilsuoft/page/n9/mode/2up

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/memorialhistoryo03wilsuoft/page/n7/mode/2up

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/memorialhistoryo04wilsuoft/page/n13/mode/2up

WINTHROP, JOHN.

History of New England, 1630-1649 (1825-6). New edition.

Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1853. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/winthropsjournal00wint/page/n11/mode/2up

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/winthropsjournal02wint

YOUNG, ALEXANDER.

Chronicles of the first planters of the colony of

Massachusetts Bay, 1623-1636.

Boston: Little & Brown. 1846.

https://archive.org/details/chroniclesoffirs00younuoft

https://archive.org/details/chroniclesoffirs00youn

https://archive.org/details/chroniclesoffirs00youn_0

Chronicles of the pilgrim fathers, 1602-1625.

Boston: Little & Brown. 1841.

https://archive.org/details/chroniclesofpilg00youn

{xxv}

AMERICAN ARCHÆOLOGY.

ABBOTT, CHARLES. C.

Primitive Industry; or illustrations of the handiwork, in

stone, bone and clay, of the native races of the northern

Atlantic seaboard of America.

Salem: G. A. Bates. 1881.

https://archive.org/details/primitiveindustry00abborich

Traces of an American autocthon.

(American Naturalist, 10: 329. 1876.)

AMERICAN ANTIQUARIAN AND ORIENTAL JOURNAL.

Chicago. 1878-.

AMERICAN ANTIQUARIAN SOCIETY.

Proceedings.

Boston.

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ARCHÆOLOGY.

Baltimore. 1885-7.

Boston: Ginn & Company. 1888-.

ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON.

Proceedings (1879-).

(Smithsonian miscellaneous collections, volume 25-.

Washington. 1882-.)

ATWATER, CALEB.

Description of the antiquities discovered in Ohio and other

western states.

(Archæologia Americana, volume 1.

Worcester: American Antiquities Society. 1820.)

https://archive.org/details/descriptionofant0000atwa/page/n3/mode/2up

BACON, A. T.

Ruins of the Colorado valley.

(Lippincott's Magazine, 20: 521. 1880.)

BAILEY, Rev. JACOB.

Observations and conjectures on the antiquities of America.

(Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society.,

volume 4. Boston. 1795.)

BALDWIN, JOHN D.

Ancient America.

New York: Harper & Brothers. 1872.

https://archive.org/details/ancientamericain00bald/page/n7/mode/2up

Pre-historic nations.

New York: Harper & Brothers. 1869.

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.115963

BANDELIER, ADOLF

A historical introduction to studies among the sedentary Indians

of New Mexico. Report on the ruins of the Pueblo of Pecos.

Boston: A. Williams & Company. 1881.

(Papers Archæological Institute of America.)

https://archive.org/details/historicalintrod00bandrich/page/n7/mode/2up

Report of an archæological tour in Mexico, in 1881.

Boston: Cupples, Upham & Company. 1884.

https://archive.org/details/archaeologmexico02bandrich/page/n5/mode/2up

BARBER, EDWIN A.

Ancient pueblos, Rio San Juan.

(American Naturalist, 12: 526, 606. 1878.)

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/272184

Pueblo pottery. (American Naturalist, 15: 453. 1881.)

Rock inscriptions of the "ancient pueblos."

(American Naturalist, 10: 716. 1876.)

BAXTER, SYLVESTER.

The father of the pueblos [Zuni].

(Harper's Magazine, 65: 72. 1882.)

BEAUCHAMP, W. M.

Indian occupation of New York.

(Science, 19: 76. 1892.)

https://archive.org/details/aboriginaloccupa00beau

https://archive.org/details/aboriginaloccupa00beau_0

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY.

America before Columbus.

(Bibliographical note in Bulletins, volume 3, pages 65-71.)

BOSTON SOCIETY OF NATURAL HISTORY.

Palæolithic implements of the valley of the Delaware;

by C. C. Abbott and others (from Proceedings, volume 21).

Cambridge. 1881.

BRINTON, DANIEL G.

The books of Chilan Balam, the prophetic and historic records

of the Mayas of Yucatan.

Philadelphia: Edw. Stern & Company. 1882.

https://archive.org/details/bookschilanbala00bringoog/page/n6/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/cu31924020440115

Essays of an Americanist.

Philadelphia: Porter & Coates. 1890.

https://archive.org/details/essaysofamerican00brin/page/n5/mode/2up

Prehistoric chronology of America.

(Science, 10: 76. 1887.)

BRYANT, W. C.

Interesting archæological studies in and about Buffalo.

[Buffalo. 1890.]

BRYCE, GEORGE.

The mound builders.

Winnipeg Historical Society. 1884-5.

https://archive.org/details/moundbuilders00bryc

CARR, LUCIEN.

The mounds of the Mississippi valley, historically considered.

Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1883.

https://archive.org/details/cu31924104076934

CHARNAY, DÉSIRÉ.

Ancient cities of the new world, being voyages and

explorations in Mexico and Central America, 1857-82;

translated from the French by J. Gonino and H. S. Conant.

New York: Harper & Brothers. 1887.

https://archive.org/details/ancientcitiesofn00char_1

CONANT, A. J.

Footprints of vanished races in the Mississippi valley.

St. Louis: C. R. Barns. 1879.

https://archive.org/details/footprintsvanrace00conarich

CUSHING, FRANK H.

The nation of the willows [Zunis].

(Atlantic Monthly, 50: 362,541. 1882.)

Zuni social, mythic and religious systems.

(Popular Science Monthly, 21: 186. 1882.)

DALL, W. H.

On the remains of later pre-historic man obtained from caves

in the Catherina Archipelago, Alaska (1876).

(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 22.

Washington. 1880.)

https://archive.org/details/cu31924104074822/page/n3/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/ontheremains00dallrich/page/n5/mode/2up

EVERETT, J. T.

The earliest American people.

(Magazine of American History, 22: 114. 1889.)

https://archive.org/details/magazineamerica05stevgoog

https://archive.org/stream/magazineamerica05stevgoog/magazineamerica05stevgoog_djvu.txt

FISKE, JOHN.

The discovery of America.

Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company 1892. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/discoveryamerica01fisk

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/discoveryofameri02fisk

FORCE, M. F.

Some early notices of the Indians of Ohio;

to what race did the mound builders belong.

Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1879.

https://archive.org/details/someearlynotice00ohiogoog

FOSTER, J. W.

Prehistoric races of the United States of America:

Chicago: S. C. Griggs & Company. 1873.

https://archive.org/details/prehistoricraces00fostiala/page/n5/mode/2up

GANNETT, HENRY.

Prehistoric ruins in southern Colorado.

(Popular Science Monthly, 16: 666. 1880.)

HABEL, S.

The sculptures of Santa Lucia Cosumalwhuapa in Guatemala (1878).

(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 22.

Washington. 1880.)

(French) https://archive.org/details/sculpturesdesant00habe

HALE, HORATIO.

Indian migrations, as evidenced by language; comprising the

Huron-Cherokee stock, Dakota, Algonkins, Chahta-Muskoki,

mound-builders, Iberians.

Chicago. 1883.

(American Association for the Advancement of Science., 1882,

American Antiquarian, January, April, 1883.)

https://archive.org/details/indianmigrations00halerich

HARVARD UNIVERSITY.

Peabody Museum of American archæology and ethnology. Reports.

Cambridge. 1868-.

HAVEN, SAMUEL F.

Archæology of the United States. (1855).

(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 8.

Washington. 1856.)

https://archive.org/details/archologyunited00havegoog/page/n5/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/archaeologyus00haverich

HIGGINSON, T. W.

The first Americans.

(Harper's Magazine, 65: 342. 1882.)

HUMBOLDT, ALEXANDER von.

Researches concerning the Institutions and monuments of the

ancient inhabitants of America;

translated by Helen M. Williams.

London: Longman 1814. 2 volumes.

https://archive.org/details/researchesconcer01humb

JACKSON, W. H.

Ancient ruins in southwestern Colorado.

(American Naturalist, 10: 31. 1876.)

JONES, CHARLES C. Jr.

Antiquities of the southern Indians, particularly of the

Georgia tribes.

New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1873.

https://archive.org/details/antiquitiesofsou00jone_0/antiquitiesofsou00jone_0?view=theater

Monumental remains of Georgia, part 1.

Savannah: J. M. Cooper & Company. 1861.

https://archive.org/details/monumentalremain01jone

JONES, JOSEPH

Explorations of the aboriginal remains of Tennessee (1876).

(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 22.

Washington. 1880.)

JOURNAL OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY AND ARCHÆOLOGY.

Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1891-.

KINGSBOROUGH, Lord.

Antiquities of Mexico: comprising fac-similes of ancient

Mexican paintings and hieroglyphics, etc., illustrated by many

valuable inedited mss.

London. R. Havell. 1830-48. 9 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexi1King

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexiv2King

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexiv3King

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexi4King

(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexi5King

(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexi6King

(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexi7King

(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexiv8King

(Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/AntiquitiesMexiv9King

LAPHAM, I. A.

The antiquities of Wisconsin (1853),

(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 7.

Washington 1855.)

https://archive.org/details/antiquitiesofwis00laph

LARKIN, FREDERICK.

Ancient man in America. 1880.

MacLEAN, J. P.

The mound builders.

Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1879.

https://archive.org/details/moundbuilders00maclgoog/page/n10/mode/2up

MINDELEFF, V.

Origin of pueblo architecture.

(Science, 9: 593. 1887.)

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19856/19856-h/19856-h.htm

MITCHILL, Dr. SAMUEL.

Communications [on American antiquities, ethnology, etc.].

(Archæologia Americana, volume 1.

Worcester: American Antiquarian Society, 1820.)

MOOREHEAD, WARREN K.

Fort Ancient, the great prehistoric earthwork of Warren

County, Ohio; compiled from a careful survey.

Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1890.

https://archive.org/details/fortancientgrea00moorgoog

NADAILLAC, Marquis de.

Prehistoric America (1882);

translated by N. d'Anvers.

edited by W. H. Dall.

New York: G. W. Putnam's Sons. 1884.

https://archive.org/details/cihm_52727/page/n7/mode/2up

NEWBERRY, JOHN S.

Ancient civilizations of America.

(Popular Science Monthly, 41: 187. 1892.)

OHIO STATE ARCHÆOLOGICAL SOCIETY.

Report on the antiquities of Ohio.

(Final report of the Ohio State board of Centennial managers.

Columbus. 1877.)

PEET, Reverend STEPHEN D.

Prehistoric America.

Chicago: American Antiquarian Office. 1890-. 5 volumes. volume 1.

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cu31924088416932

The mound builders, volume 2.

Emblematic mounds and animal effigies.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/prehistoricameri01peetuoft/page/n7/mode/2up

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/prehistoricameri02peet

https://archive.org/details/prehistoricameri04peet/page/n7/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/prehistoricameri03peet

https://archive.org/details/prehistoricameri05peet

https://archive.org/details/cu31924088416932

https://archive.org/details/cu31924088416924/page/n7/mode/2up

PHILADELPHIA. Numismatic and Antiquarian Society.

Proceedings.

POWELL, J. W.

Annual reports of the Bureau of Ethnology.

Washington.

(1) https://archive.org/details/rosettaproject_dak_vertxt-1/page/n3/mode/2up

(7) http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26568/26568-h/26568-h.htm

(1st) https://archive.org/details/rosettaproject_dak_vertxt-1/page/n3/mode/2up

(10th) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbu108889smit

(11th)https://archive.org/details/eleventhannualre1889powe

(12th) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbu1218901891smit

(Pubs) https://ia902705.us.archive.org/26/items/listofpubethno00smitrich/listofpubethno00smitrich.pdf

Prehistoric man in America.

(Forum, 8: 489. 1890.)

PRIEST, JOSIAH.

American antiquities and discoveries in the west, 2d edition,

revised.

Albany: Hoffman  1835

https://archive.org/details/americanantiqui05priegoog

PUTNAM, F. W.

Archæological notes, and other pamphlets.

Prehistoric remains in the Ohio valley.

(Century, 17: 698. 1890.)

QUATREFAGES, A. DE.

The peopling of America.

(Popular Science Monthly, 38: 305. 1891.)

RAU, CHARLES.

The archæological collection of the United States National

Museum (1876).

(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 22.

Washington. 1880.)

https://archive.org/details/archaeologicalc00raugoog

The Palenque tablet in the United States National Museum (1879).

(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge,

volume 22. Washington. 1880.)

https://archive.org/details/palenquetabletin00rauc

{xxvi}

READ, Matthew Canield

Archæology of Ohio.

Cleveland: Western Reserve History Society. [1888.]

https://archive.org/details/archaeologyohio00readrich

REISS, W., and A. STÜBEL.

The necropolis of Ancon in Peru.

Berlin: A. Asher & Company. 1880-7. 8 volumes.

https://archive.org/details/gri_33125012875635

RIO, Don ANTONIO DEL.

Description of the ruins of an ancient city, discovered near

Palengue, Guatemala (1787); translated: [also] Teatro Critico

Americano, by Dr. Paul Felix Cabrera.

London: Henry Berthoud. 1822.

https://archive.org/details/descriptionofrui00roan_0

RIVERO, MARIANO EDW., and JOHN JAMES VON TSCHUDI.

Peruvian antiquities: translated from the Spanish by

Francis L. Hawks.

New York: G. P. Putnam. 1853.

https://archive.org/details/peruvianantiqui01tschgoog

ST. LOUIS ACADEMY OF SCIENCE.

Contributions to the archæology of Missouri, part 1: Pottery.

Salem: George A. Bates. 1880.

SHORT, JOHN T.

The North Americans of antiquity; their origin, migrations and

type of civilization considered.

New York: Harper & Brothers. 1880.

https://archive.org/details/northamericansof00shorrich

STEPHENS, JOHN L.

Incidents of travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan.

New York: Harper & Brothers. 1843. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/incidentsoftrave11841step

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/incidentstravel07stepgoog

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/b2935030x_0001

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/b2935030x_0002

Incidents of travel In Yucatan.

New York: Harper & Brothers. 1843. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/travelinyucatan01step

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/incidentsoftrave01step_1

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/travelyucatan02step

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/incidentsoftrave21843step

SQUIER E. G.

Aboriginal monuments of New York. (1849).

(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 2.

Washington. 1851.)

https://archive.org/details/aboriginalmonume0000squi/page/n5/mode/2up

Antiquities of the state of New York; with a

supplement on the antiquities of the west.

Buffalo: G. H. Derby & Company. 1851.

https://archive.org/details/antiquitiesofsta00squirich

Nicaragua: its people, scenery, monuments.

New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1852. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/gri_nicaraguaits01squi

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/nicaraguaitspeo05squigoog/page/n8/mode/2up

SQUIER E. G., and E. H. DAVIS.

Ancient monuments of the Mississippi valley (1847).

(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 1.

Washington. 1848.)

https://archive.org/details/ancientmonuments00squi

THOMAS, CYRUS.

Catalogue of prehistoric works east of the Rocky Mountains.

Washington. 1891.

(Smithsonian Institute Bureau of Ethnology.)

https://archive.org/details/catalogueprehis01thomgoog

The Cherokees In pre-Columbian times.

New York: N. D. C. Hodges. 1800.

https://archive.org/details/cherokeesinpreco00thom

The circular, square, and octagonal earthworks of Ohio.

Washington. 1889. (Smithsonian Institute Bureau of Ethnology.)

https://archive.org/details/b30477633

The problem of the Ohio mounds.

Washington. 1889.

(Smithsonian Institute Bureau of Ethnology.)

https://archive.org/details/problemofohiomou01thom

A study of the Manuscript Troano.

(United States geography and geological survey.

Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 5.

Washington. 1882.)

https://archive.org/details/studyofmanuscrip00thom_0/page/n5/mode/2up

THRUSTON, GATES P.

The antiquities of Tennessee and the adjacent states, and the

state of aboriginal society in the scale of civilization

represented by them.

Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1890.

https://archive.org/details/antiquitiestenn00thurrich

UNITED STATES.

Bureau of Ethnology, John W. Powell, director.

Annual reports. Washington.

See POWELL, J. W.

WALLACE, A. R.

American museums, of American pre-historic archæology.

(Fortnightly Review, 48: 665. 1887.)

WHITTLESEY, CHARLES.

Description of ancient works in Ohio (1850).

(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 3.

Washington. 1852.)

https://archive.org/details/descriptionsofan00whit

WINSOR, JUSTIN, editor.

Narrative and critical history of America, volume 1.

Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1886. 8 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica01wins

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica02wins

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica03wins

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica04wins

(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica05wins

(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica06wins

(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica07wins

(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica08wins

AMERICAN ABORIGINES,

ADAIR, JAMES.

The history of the American Indians, particularly those

nations adjoining to the Mississippi, East and West Florida,

Georgia, South and North Carolina, and Virginia.

London: E. & C. Dilly. 1775.

https://archive.org/details/historyofamerica00adairich

ALLEN, PAUL.

History of the expedition under the command of Lewis and

Clarke, to the Pacific Ocean, 1804-6.

Philadelphia. Dublin: J. Christie. 1817. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyexpediti01allegoog/page/n12/mode/2up

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyexpediti04allegoog/page/n6/mode/2up

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyexpediti02allegoog/page/n6/mode/2up

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyexpediti03allegoog/page/n15/mode/2up

AMERICAN STATE PAPERS:

Indian affairs, 1789-1827.

Washington: 1852-4. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/americanstatepap_c11unit

ATWATER, CALEB.

Remarks made on a tour to Prairie du Chien in 1829.

Columbus, Ohio: I. N. Whiting. 1831.

https://archive.org/details/remarksmadeontou00atwa

BANCROFT, GEORGE.

History of the United States of America; the authors's last

revision, volume 2.

New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1883-5. 6 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyoftheunit037605mbp

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofunited32banc/page/n3/mode/2up

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.506697

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofusa03bancrich

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds0004banc/page/n7/mode/2up

(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds05banciala

BANCROFT, HUBERT HOWE.

The native races of the Pacific States of North America.

New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1874-6. 5 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/nativeraces01bancrich

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/nativeracespaci03bancgoog

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/nativeracespaci02bancgoog

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/nativeracespaci01bancgoog

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/nativeracespaci00bancgoog

https://archive.org/details/nativeracespaci04bancgoog/page/n18/mode/2up

BARROWS, William.

The Indian's side of the Indian question.

Boston: D. Lothrop & Company. 1887.

https://archive.org/details/cihm_03383

BEACH, W. W., editor.

The Indian miscellany.

Albany: J. Munsell. 1877.

https://archive.org/details/rsindianmiscella00beacuoft

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY.

The Indian question (list in Bulletins,

volume 4, pages 68-70).

BRINTON, DANIEL G.

The American race; a linguistic classification and

ethnographic description of the native tribes of North and

South America.

New York: N. D. C. Hodges. 1891.

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/55096

Races and peoples: lectures on the science of ethnography.

New York: N. D. C. Hodges. 1890.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/57315

https://archive.org/details/racesandpeoplesl57315gut

BROOKS, ELBRIDGE S.

The story of the American Indian, his origin, development,

decline and destiny.

Boston: D. Lothrop & Co. 1887.

https://archive.org/details/storyofamericani00broo/page/n5/mode/2up

BROWN, ROBERT.

The races of mankind, volume 1.

London: Cassell, Petter & Galpin. 1873-6: 4 volumes.

https://archive.org/details/racesofmankindbe01browuoft

BROWNELL, CHARLES DE WOLF.

The Indian races of North and South America.

New York: American Subscription House. 1857.

https://archive.org/details/indianracesofnor00brow

CANADA.

Department of Indian affairs.

Annual reports. Ottawa.

CATLIN, GEORGE.

Illustrations of the manners, customs and condition of the

North American Indians (1841).

London: Henry G. Bohn. 1861. 2 volumes.

Chatto & Windus. 1876. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/illustrationsofm01catl

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/illustrationsofm02catl

North American portfolio of hunting scenes, etc.

London: H. Bohn. 1844.

https://archive.org/details/Ayer_250_45_C2_1844_Catlin/page/n27/mode/2up

CHARLEVOIX, Father.

Letters to the Dutchess of Lesdiguieres [containing account of

the North American tribes, 1720-22; translated]

London. 1763.

https://archive.org/details/letterstodutche00char

COLDEN, CADWALLADER.

History of the five Indian nations of Canada, which are

dependent on the province of  New York in America.

New York. 1727.

[Enlarged edition].

London. 1747.

https://archive.org/details/McGillLibrary-131832-5200

COLTON, C.

Tour of the American lakes in 1830.

London: F. Westley & A. H. Davis. 1833. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/tourofamericanla0000colt/page/n1/mode/2up

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/touramericanlak00coltgoog

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/touramericanlak01coltgoog

CRAIG, NEVILLE B., editor.

The olden time.

Pittsburg. 1846-8.

Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1876. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/GR_3089-1/page/n5/mode/2up

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/oldentimeamonth00craigoog

DODGE, Colonel RICHARD I.

Our wild Indians: thirty-three years' personal experience

among the red men of the great west; with an introduction by

Gen. Sherman.

Hartford: A. D. Worthington & Company. 1882.

https://archive.org/details/ourwildindiansth00dodgrich

DOMENECH, Abbé EM.

Seven years' residence in the great deserts of North America.

London: Longman, Green & Company. 1860. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/sevenyearsreside01domeuoft

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/sevenyearsresid00domegoog

DONALDSON, THOMAS

The George Catlin Indian gallery, United States National

Museum, Washington.

(Report of the Smithsonian Institute, 1885, part 2.)

DRAKE, FRANCIS S.

Indian history for young folks.

New York: Harper & Brothers. 1885.

https://archive.org/details/indianhistoryfo00dowdgoog/page/n12/mode/2up

DRAKE, SAMUEL G.

The aboriginal races of North America, 15th edition.

Philadelphia: C. Desilver & Sons. 1859.

https://archive.org/details/aboriginalraceso01drak

Biography and history of the Indians of North America.

(1841), 11th edition.

Boston: B. B. Mussey & Company. 1851.

(Edition 8) https://archive.org/details/cihm_34854

(Edition 9) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37353

The old Indian chronicle; being a collection of exceeding rare

tracts written and published in the time of king Philip's war.

Boston: Antiquarian Institute. 1836.

https://archive.org/details/oldindianchroni00lithgoog

ELLIS, GEORGE E.

The red man and the white man in North America.

Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1882.

https://archive.org/details/cu31924028719007

https://archive.org/details/redmanwhitemanin00ellirich

FIELD, THOMAS. W.

An essay towards an Indian bibliography.

New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Company. 1873.

https://archive.org/details/essaytowardsindi00fielrich

FLETCHER, ALICE C.

Indian education and civilization; a report.

Washington. 1888.

https://archive.org/details/indianeducationa00unitrich

GALLATIN, ALBERT.

A synopsis of the Indian tribes of North America.

(Archæologia Americana, volume 2.

Cambridge: American Antiquarian Society. 1836.)

Writings; edited by H. Adams. Lippincott. 1879. 3 volumes.

https://archive.org/details/synopsisofindian01gall/page/n3/mode/2up

HOLMES, Reverend ABIEL.

Annals of America, 1492-1826 (1895).

Cambridge: Hilliard & Brown. 1829. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1, 1826) https://archive.org/details/cihm_47268/page/n3/mode/2up

(Volume 1, 1826) https://archive.org/details/annalsamer00holmrich

(Volume 2, 1826) https://archive.org/details/cihm_47269

HUMBOLDT ALEXANDER VON.

Personal narrative of travels to the equinoctial regions of

the new continent, 1799-1804, by Alexander de Humboldt and

Aimé Bonpland;

translated by Helen Maria Williams, volume 5, pages 315-334.

London: Longman. 1826. 7 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/personalnarrati00humbgoog/page/n6/mode/2up

(Volume 1, 2) https://archive.org/details/personalnarrati01humbgoog/page/n10/mode/2up

INDIAN RIGHTS ASSOCIATION.

Annual reports of the executive committee.

Philadelphia.

( 6th, 1888) https://archive.org/details/annualreportexe00assogoog/page/n10/mode/2up

(30th, 1912) https://archive.org/details/annualreportexe02commgoog

(31st, 1913) https://archive.org/details/annualreportexe00assogoog/page/n10/mode/2up

JACKSON. Mrs. HELEN HUNT.

A century of dishonor (1881). New edition, with appendix.

Boston: Roberts Brothers, 1885.

https://archive.org/details/centuryofdishono005246mbp/page/n23/mode/2up

KINGSLEY, JOHN STERLING, editor.

The standard natural history, volume 6.

Boston: S. E. Cassino & Company. 1885. 6 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/standardnaturalh01king

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/standardnaturalh02king

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/cu31924003839358/page/n11/mode/2up

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/standardnaturalh03king

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/standardnaturalh04king/page/n9/mode/2up

(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/standardnaturalh05king/page/n11/mode/2up

(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/standardnaturalh06king/page/n11/mode/2up

KIP, Reverend WILLIAM INGRAHAM.

The early Jesuit, missions in North America; composed and

translated from the letters of the French Jesuits.

New York: Wiley & Putnam. 1846. 2 volumes.

https://archive.org/details/earlyjesuitmissi00kip/page/n7/mode/2up

(Part 1) https://archive.org/details/earlyjesuitmissi00kipw_0

(Part 1) https://archive.org/details/earlyjesuitmissi02kipw

LAHONTAN, Baron.

New voyages to North America, containing an account of the

several nations of that vast continent, 1683-1694 (1703):

[translated from the French.] 2d edition.

London. 1735. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1, 1905) https://archive.org/details/newvoyagestonort01laho

(Volume 2, 1905) https://archive.org/details/newvoyagestonort02laho/page/n7/mode/2up

{xxvii}

LAKE MOHONK annual conference of friends of the Indian.

Proceedings. Philadelphia.

https://www.maquah.net/Historical/Mohonk.html

(17th, 1890)https://archive.org/details/proceedingsannu00unkngoog

(1896) https://archive.org/details/proceedingsannu01unkngoog/page/n6/mode/2up

(17th, 1899) https://archive.org/details/proceedingsannu39unkngoog

McKENNEY, THOMAS L., and JAMES HALL.

History of the Indian tribes of North America, with 120

portraits from the Indian gallery at Washington (1838-44).

Philadelphia: D. Rice & A. N. Hart. 1854. 3 volumes.

(Volume 1, 1872) https://archive.org/details/historyofindiant01mckerich/page/n7/mode/2up

(Volume 2, 1872) https://archive.org/details/historyofindiant02mckerich/page/n7/mode/2up

MANYPENNY, GEORGE W.

Our Indian wards.

Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1880.

https://archive.org/details/Ayer_155_M25_1880

MASON, Professor OTIS T., editor.

Miscellaneous papers relating to anthropology, from the

Smithsonian report for 1881.

Washington. 1883.

MASSACHUSETTS.

The Indian question; report of the committee appointed by

Governor Long.

Boston. 1880.

MORGAN, LEWIS H.

Houses and house-life of the American aborigines.

Washington. 1881.

(U. S. geographic and geological survey,

Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 4.)

https://archive.org/details/houseshouselifeo00morg_0

Systems of consanguinity and affinity of the human family

(1868). (Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 17.

Washington. 1871.)

https://archive.org/details/systemsofconsang00morgrich/page/n21/mode/2up

MORSE, Reverend JEDIDIAH.

A report to the secretary of war of the United States, on

Indian affairs, comprising a narrative of a tour in 1820.

New Haven: S. Converse. 1822.

https://archive.org/details/reporttosecretar00mors

MORTON, SAMUEL G.

Crania Americana; or a comparative view of the skulls of

various aboriginal nations of North and South America.

Philadelphia: J. Penington. 1839.

https://archive.org/details/Craniaamericana00Mort

NOTT, J. C., GEORGE. R. GLIDDON, and others.

Indigenous races of the earth.

Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1857.

https://archive.org/details/indigenousraceso01nott

OTIS, ELWELL S.

The Indian question.

New York: Sheldon & Company. 1878.

https://archive.org/details/indianquestion00otisrich

PARKMAN, FRANCIS.

History of the conspiracy of Pontiac (1851).

Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1888. 2 volumes.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39253

The Jesuits in North America.

Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1867.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6933

PESCHEL, OSCAR.

The races of man and their geographical distribution;

from the German. (1874).

New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1876.

(1876) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.501969

(1888) https://archive.org/details/racesofmantheirg00pescuoft

PRICHARD, JAMES C.

Researches into the physical history of mankind (1813). 2d ed.

London: J. & A. Arch. 1826. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1, 1841) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop08pricgoog

(Volume 1, 1851) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop03pricgoog

(Volume 1, 1836) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop06pricgoog/page/n8/mode/2up

(Volume 2, 1837) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop02pricgoog

(Volume 2, 1851) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop04pricgoog

(Volume 3, 1811) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop09pricgoog

(Volume 3, 1841) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop10pricgoog

(Volume 3, 1841) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop05pricgoog/page/n8/mode/2up

(Volume 4, 1844) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop01pricgoog

(Volume 5, 1847) https://archive.org/details/researchesintop07pricgoog

RADISSON, PETER ESPRIT.

Voyages, being an account of his travels and experiences among

the North American Indians, 1652-1684; with historical

illustrations and an introduction by Gideon D. Scull.

Boston: Prince Society. 1885.

https://archive.org/details/voyagespeteresp00sculgoog/page/n14/mode/2up

RAWLE, WILLIAM.

A vindication of Heckewelder's "History of the Indian

nations." (Memoirs of the Pennsylvania Historical Society,

volume 1.

Philadelphia. 1826.

J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1864.)

https://archive.org/details/5f1b0c76-4bcd-4e48-b937-081944dc88aa/mode/2up

ROGERS, Major ROBERT.

A concise account of North America.

London. 1765.

https://archive.org/details/aconciseaccount00rogeuoft/page/n5/mode/2up

SCHOOLCRAFT, HENRY R.

Historical and statistical information respecting the history,

condition and prospects of the Indian tribes; prepared under

the direction of the Bureau of Indian affairs.

Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo & Company. 1851-5. 5 volumes.

(Part 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924032190161

(Part 2) https://archive.org/details/historicalstatis02scho

(Part 3) https://archive.org/details/cu31924091889976

(Part 4) https://archive.org/details/historicalstatipt4scho

(Part 5) https://archive.org/details/historicalstatis05scho

(Part 5) https://archive.org/details/historicalstati00schoa

(Part 6) https://archive.org/details/historicalstatis06scho/page/n7/mode/2up

SHALER, NATHANIEL S.

Nature and man in America.

New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1891.

(1891) https://archive.org/details/natureandmanina00shalgoog

(1924) https://archive.org/details/naturemaninameri00

STANFORD'S COMPENDIUM OF GEOGRAPHY AND TRAVEL:

North America; edited and enlarged by Professor F. V. Hayden

and Professor A. R. C. Selwyn.

London: E. Stanford. 1883.

https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.86162

STANLEY'S PORTRAITS OF NORTH AMERICAN INDIANS IN SMITHSONIAN

INSTITUTION.

Catalogue (1852).

(Smithsonian miscellaneous collections, volume 2. Washington. 1862.)

https://archive.org/details/portraitsnaindians00stanrich

THATCHER, B. B.

Indian biography.

New York: J. & J. Harper. 1832. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) http://www.gutenberg.org/files/54898

(Volume 2) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/54072

UNITED STATES.

Board of Indian Commissioners. Annual reports. Washington.

(2nd, 1870)  https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo02unitrich/page/n5/mode/2up

(3rd, 1871)  https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo03unitrich/page/n5/mode/2up

(4th, 1872)  https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo04unitrich/page/n3/mode/2up

(5th, 1873)  https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo05unitrich/page/n5/mode/2up

(6th, 1874)  https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo06unitrich/page/n5/mode/2up

(7th, 1875)  https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo07unitrich/page/n5/mode/2up

(8th, 1876)  https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo08unitrich/page/n3/mode/2up

(17th, 1885) https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo17unitrich

(20th, 1888) https://archive.org/details/20annualreport00unitrich

(1928)       https://archive.org/details/annualreportofbo00unitrich/page/n3/mode/2up

Commissioner of Indian affairs. Annual reports. Washington.

WALKER, FRANCIS A.

The Indian question.

Boston: J. R. Osgood & Company. 1874.

https://archive.org/details/indianquestion00walk

WOMEN'S NATIONAL INDIAN ASSOCIATION.

Annual reports. Philadelphia.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES.

SPECIAL TRIBES, GROUPS AND REGIONS.

AB-SA-RA-KA, HOME OF THE CROWS.

Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 1868.

https://archive.org/details/absarakahomeofcr00carr/page/n5/mode/2up

BANDELIER, ADOLF F.

The delight makers.

New York: Dodd, Mead & Company. 1890.

https://archive.org/details/delightmakers00bandrich

The gilded man (El Dorado).

New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1893.

https://archive.org/details/gildedmaneldorad00bandrich/page/n7/mode/2up

BARTRAM, WILLIAM.

Travels through North and South Carolina, Georgia, etc.

[1773-8]. [Creeks, Cherokees and Choctaws.]

Philadelphia. 1791.

https://archive.org/details/travelsthroughno00bart

BEAUCHAMP, William Martin

The Iroquois trail; in which are included David Cusick's

sketches of ancient history of the six nations.

Fayetteville, New York: H. C. Beauchamp. 1892.

https://archive.org/details/cihm_04555

BECKWOURTH, JAMES P., Chief of the Crows.

Life and adventures (1856).

New York: Harper & Brothers. 1858.

https://archive.org/details/lifeadventuresof00beckrich

BENSON, HENRY C.

Life among the Choctaw Indians.

Cincinnati: L. Swormstedt & A. Poe. 1860.

https://archive.org/details/lifeamongchoctaw00bens

BIART, LUCIEN.

The Aztecs, their history, manners and customs (1885);

translated from the French, by J. L. Garner.

Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co. 1887.

(1919) https://archive.org/details/aztecstheirhist01garngoog

BLACKBIRD, ANDREW J. (MACK-AW-DE-BE-NESSY).

History of the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan, a

grammar of their language, etc.

Ypsilanti, Michigan. 1887.

https://archive.org/details/completebothearl01blac

BLAKE, Lady.

The Beothuks of Newfoundland.

(Nineteenth Century, 24: 899. 1888.)

BRETT, Reverend W. H.

The Indian tribes of Guiana.

London: Bell & Daldy. 1868.

https://archive.org/details/indiantribesofgu00bret

BRINTON, DANIEL G., editor.

The annals of the Cakchiquels; the original text, with a

translation, notes and introduction.

Philadelphia. 1885.

https://archive.org/details/bp_684862

The Lenâpé and their legends, with the complete text and

symbols of the Walam Olum.

Philadelphia. 1885.

https://archive.org/details/lenptheirleg00brin

Editor. The Maya chronicles.

Philadelphia: D. G. Brinton. 1882.

https://archive.org/details/mayachronicles00briniala

Notes on the Floridian peninsula.

Philadelphia: Jos. Sabin. 1859.

https://archive.org/details/notesonfloridia01bringoog

The Shawnees and their migrations.

(Historical magazine, volume. 10, January, 1866.)

BRODHEAD, JOHN Romeyn

History of the state of New York., volume 1.

New York: Harper & Brothers. 1853-71. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofstateof01brod_0

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ01brod

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ02brod

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ03brod

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ04brod

(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ05brod

(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ06brod

(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ07brod

(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ08brod

(Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/documentsrelativ09brod

CASWELL, Mrs. HARRIET S.

Our life among the Iroquois Indians.

Boston: Congregational Sunday School and Publishing Society. 1892.

https://archive.org/details/ourlifeamongiroq00caswiala

CATON, JOHN D.

The last of the Illinois, and a sketch of the Pottawatomies

(1870).

(Fergus historical series.)

Chicago: Fergus Printing Company. 1876.

https://archive.org/details/cihm_04014

CLAIBORNE, J. F. H.

Mississippi, as a province, territory and state.

Jackson, Mississippi: Power & Barksdale. 1880. volume 1.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924028795405

CLARKE, PETER D.

Origin and traditional history of the Wyandotts, etc.

Toronto: Hunter, Rose & Company. 1870.

https://archive.org/details/origintraditiona00clar

COPWAY, GEORGE (KAH-GE-GA-GAH-BOWH), Chief.

Traditional history and characteristic sketches of the Ojibway

nation.

London: C. Gilpin. 1850.

https://archive.org/details/traditionalhist00bookgoog

COX, ROSS.

Adventures on the Columbia River.

London. 2 volumes.

New York: J. & J. Harper. 1832.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/adventuresoncolu00coxr

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.7215

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cihm_33605

COZZENS, SAMUEL W.

The marvellous country; or, three years in Arizona and New

Mexico, the Apaches' home (1873).

Boston: Lee & Shepard.

https://archive.org/details/marvellouscountry00cozzrich/page/n9/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/marvellouscountr00cozz_0

https://archive.org/details/marvellouscountr00cozzrich

CRANTZ, DAVID.

History of Greenland, book 4 (volume 1).

London: 1767. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofgree01cran

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofgreen02cran

CRUISE OF THE REVENUE-STEAMER CORWIN IN ALASKA AND THE North West

ARCTIC OCEAN IN 1881.

Washington. 1883. (H. of Rep's, 47th congress, 2d session.

Ex. doc. 105.)

https://archive.org/details/cruiseofrevenues00muir

CUSHING, FRANK HAMILTON.

My adventures in Zuni.

(Century, volumes 3-4, December, 1882, February, May, 1883.)

https://archive.org/details/zunifolktales00cushrich

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48342

(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/zuibreadstuff00cush/page/n3/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/zuifetiches00cush/page/n3/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/cu31924104094010

CUSTER, General. G. A.

My life on the plains.

New York: Sheldon & Co. 1874.

https://archive.org/details/mylifeonplainsor00cust

DALL, WILLIAM. H.

Tribes of the extreme northwest.

(United States geography and geology survey.

Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 1.

Washington. 1877.)

https://archive.org/details/tribesextremeno01dallgoog/page/n8/mode/2up

DALTON, HENRY G.

History of British Guiana, volume 1.

London: Longman. 1855. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historybritishg02daltgoog

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historybritishg03daltgoog

https://archive.org/details/historybritishg01daltgoog/mode/2up

DEFOREST, JOHN W.

History of the Indians of Connecticut (1853).

Albany: J. Munsell. 1871.

(1851) https://archive.org/details/historyindiansc00darlgoog

(1851) https://archive.org/details/historyindiansc01darlgoog

DENTON, DANIEL.

A brief description of New York; likewise a brief relation of

the customs of the Indians there (1670).

New York: William Gowans. 1845.

https://archive.org/details/briefdescription11dent/page/n13/mode/2up

DOBRIZHOFFER, MARTIN

An account of the Abipones, an equestrian people of Paraguay

(1784); from the Latin.

London: John Murray. 1822. 3 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/accountofabipone04dobr

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/accountofabipone05dobr

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/accountofabiponex03dobr

(Volume 1) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50629

(Volume 2) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50621

(Volume 3) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50623

DODGE. J. R.

Red men of the Ohio valley, 1650-1795.

Springfield, Ohio: Ruralist Publishing Company. 1860.

https://archive.org/details/redmenofohiovall00dodg

{xxviii}

DORSEY, JAMES OWEN.

The Biloxi Indians of Louisiana.

Salem. 1893.

https://archive.org/details/dictionaryofbilo0047dors/page/n5/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/jstor-534279/page/n1/mode/2up

The gentile system of the Siletz tribes.

https://archive.org/details/jstor-532806/page/n1/mode/2up

Migrations of Siouan tribes.

(American Naturalist, volume 20, March, 1886.)

https://archive.org/details/jstor-2449921/page/n1/mode/2up

DUNBAR, J. B.

The Pawnee Indians.

(Magazine of American History, volume 4, April, 1880.)

EASTMAN, Mrs. MARY.

Dahcotah; or life and legends of the Sioux around Fort

Snelling.

New York: John Wiley. 1849.

https://archive.org/details/cihm_35037

EELLS, MYRON.

Indians of Puget Sound.

(American Antiquarian, 9: 1,271. 10: 26, 174. 1887-8.)

EGGLESTON, EDWARD, and LILLIE E. SEELYE.

Pocahontas.

New York: Dodd, Mead & Company. [1879.]

https://archive.org/details/pocahontas00seel

GATSCHET, ALBERT S.

The Klamath Indians of southwestern Oregon.

Washington. 1890. 2 volumes.

(United States geographical and geological survey.

Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 2.)

https://archive.org/details/klamathindiansof02gatsuoft

https://archive.org/details/cihm_52744/page/n7/mode/2up

A migration legend of the Creek Indians, with a linguistic,

historic and ethnographic introduction.

Philadelphia: D. G. Brinton. 1884. volume 1.

(Volume 1) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/49031

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924096785484

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/migrationcreek00gatsrich

GIBBS, GEORGE.

Tribes of western Washington and northwestern Oregon.

(United States geographical and geological survey.

Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 1.

Washington. 1877.)

https://archive.org/details/cihm_14847/page/n9/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/tribesextremeno00dallgoog/page/n8/mode/2up

GOOKIN, DANIEL.

Historical account of the doings and sufferings of the

Christian Indians of New England.

(Archæologia Americana, volume 2.

Cambridge: American Antiquarian Society. 1886.)

https://books.google.com/books/about/Historical_Account_of_the_Doings_and_Suf.html?id=Qmhumu27RG0C

Historical collections of the Indians in New England.

(Collections of the Mass. Historical Society, volume 1.

Boston. 1792.)

GRANT, Mrs. ANNE (of Laggan).

Memoirs of an American lady [Mrs. Philip Schuyler] (1808).

(Mohawks.) New York.

https://archive.org/details/memoirsanameric03grangoog

GRINNELL, GEORGE BIRD.

Pawnee hero stories and folk-tales, with notes on the origin,

customs and character of the Pawnee people.

New York: Forest and Stream Pub. Company, 1889.

(1893) https://archive.org/details/pawneeherostorie00grinrich/page/n3/mode/2up

GWYTHER, G.

Pueblo Indians.

(Overland Monthly, 6: 260. 1871.)

HALE, HORATIO, editor.

The Iroquois book of rites.

Philadelphia: D. G. Brinton. 1883.

https://archive.org/details/cu31924099385514

HARDACRE, EMMA C.

The cliff-dwellers.

(Scribner's Monthly, 17: 266. 1878.)

HAUGHTON, JAMES

Additional memoir of the Moheagans.

(Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, volume 9.

Boston. 1804.)

https://archive.org/details/memoirjameshaug00hauggoog

HEALY, Capt. M. A.

Report of the cruise of the revenue marine steamer Corwin in

the Arctic Ocean in 1885.

Washington. 1887. (House of Representatives,

49th congress, 1st session. Ex. doc. 153.)

https://archive.org/details/cihm_04426

HEARNE, SAMUEL.

A journey from Hudson's Bay to the Northern Ocean, 1769-72.

London: A. Strahan & T. Cadell. 1795.

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38404

https://archive.org/details/journeyfromprin00hear

HECKEWELDER, Reverend JOHN.

History of the manners and customs of the Indian nations

who once inhabited Pennsylvania, etc. (1818; new edition,

with introduction by Reverend William C. Reichel.

Memoirs of the Pennsylvania Historical Society, volume 12.

Philadelphia. 1876).

https://archive.org/details/histmannerscust00heckrich

Narrative of the mission of the United Brethren among

the Delaware and Mohegan Indians, 1740-1808.

Philadelphia: M'Carthy & Davis. 1820.

https://archive.org/details/narrativeofmissi00heck

HENRY, ALEXANDER

Travels and adventures in Canada and the Indian territories,

1760-76.

New York: I. Riley. 1809.

(1809) https://archive.org/details/travelsandadven00henrgoog/page/n8/mode/2up

(1901) https://archive.org/details/travelsadventur00henr

(1901) https://archive.org/details/travelsadventure00henr/page/n7/mode/2up

HILLARD, G. S.

Life of captain John Smith.

(Library of American biography: conducted by Jared Sparks. 1884.

New York: Harper & Brothers. 10 volumes.)

https://archive.org/details/lifeofcaptainjoh00simms

https://archive.org/details/lifecaptainsmith00simmrich

HIND, HENRY YOULE.

Explorations in the interior of the Labrador peninsula; the

country of the Montagnais and Nasquapee Indians.

London: Longman, Green & Company. 1863. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_42676

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/explorationsinin021863hind

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cihm_42677

Narrative of the Canadian Red River exploring expedition of

1857, and of the Assinniboine and Saskatchewan expedition of 1858.

London: Longman, Green & Company. 1860. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_35699

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativeofcanad02hind

HOWARD, OLIVER OTIS.

Nez Percé Joseph; an account of his ancestors, his lands, etc.

Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1881.

https://archive.org/details/nezpercejoseph01howa

https://archive.org/details/nezpercejosepha01howagoog

HUBBARD, J. NILES.

An account of Sa·go-ye-wat·ha, or Red Jacket and his people,

1750-1830.

Albany: Joel Munsell's Sons. 1886.

https://archive.org/details/accountofsagoyew00hubbuoft

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7339

HUNTER, JOHN D.

Manners and customs of several Indian tribes located west of

the Mississippi.

Philadelphia. 1823.

https://archive.org/details/mannerscustoms00huntrich

Memoirs of a captivity among the Indians.

London: Longman. 1824.

https://archive.org/details/memoirsacaptivi01huntgoog

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.82979

HURT, Dr. GARLAND.

Indians of Utah. (Simpson's Report of explorations, 1850.

Washington. 1876.)

HUTCHINSON, THOMAS. J.

The Parana.

London: Edward Stanford. 1868.

https://archive.org/details/paranwithincide00hutcgoog

IM THURN, EVERARD FERDINAND.

Among the Indians of Guiana.

London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Company. 1883.

https://archive.org/details/amongindiansgui00thurgoog

IRVING, JOHN TREAT.

Indian sketches taken during a United States expedition to

make treaties with the Pawnee and other tribes of Indians in

1833 (1833).

New York. G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1888.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/indiansketchest01irvigoog

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/GR_2157-2

https://archive.org/details/indiansketchesta00irvirich/page/ii/mode/2up

JAMES, EDWIN, comp.

Account of an expedition from Pittsburgh to the Rocky

Mountains., 1819-20, under command of Major Long.

Philadelphia: Carey & Lea. 1823. 2 volumes, with atlas.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/accountofexpedit01jame

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/account02ofexpeditjame

JEWITT, JOHN R.

Narrative of adventures and sufferings among the Indians of

Nootka Sound.

Ithaca, New York: Andrus, Gauntlett & Company. 1851.

https://archive.org/details/narrativeofadven00jewi

JOGUES PAPERS, THE (1642-6);

translated, with a memoir, by J. G. Shea.

(Collections of the New York Historical Society,

2d series, volume 3. New York, 1857.)

JOHNSON, ELIAS, Tuscarora chief.

Legends, traditions and laws of the Iroquois or six

nations, and history of the Tuscarora Indians.

Lockport. 1881.

https://archive.org/details/cihm_24792

https://archive.org/details/bp_583763/page/3/mode/2up

JONES, Reverend PETER (KAHKEWAQUONABY).

History of the Ojebway Indians.

London: A. W. Bennett. 1861.

https://archive.org/details/historyofojebway00jone

KEATING, WILLIAM H., comp.   Narrative of an expedition to the source of St. Peter's River,

Lake Winnepeek, &c., in 1823, under command of Major Long.

Philadelphia: Carey & Lea. 1824. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativeofexped01keat

https://archive.org/details/narrativeofanexp010860mbp/page/n7/mode/2up

KETCHUM, WILLIAM.

Authentic and comprehensive history of Buffalo, with some

account of its early inhabitants; comprising historic notices

of the six nations [Senecas, chiefly].

Buffalo: Rockwell, Baker & Hill. 1864. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/anauthenticandc01ketcgoog

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/anauthenticandc00ketcgoog

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/authenticcompreh02ketc

KIDDER, FREDERIC.

The Abenaki Indians. (Collections of the Main Historical

Society., volume 6. Portland: 1859.)

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25416

https://archive.org/details/abenakiindiansw00kiddgoog

https://archive.org/details/cihm_36479

KIP, Reverend. WILLIAM INGRAHAM, compo. and translator.   The early Jesuit missions in North America; from the letters

of the Fr. Jesuits, with notes.

New York: Wiley & Putnam. 1846. 2 volumes.

Albany: J. Munsell. 1873.

https://archive.org/details/earlyjesuitmissi00kip

https://archive.org/details/earlyjesuitmissi00kipwrich

KOHL, J. G.

Kitchi-gami; wanderings round Lake Superior [translated from

the German]. [Ojibbewas.] London: Chapman & Hall. 1860.

https://archive.org/details/kitchigamiwander00kohl/page/n7/mode/2up

LA ROCHEFOUCAULT LIANCOURT, Duc de.

Travels through the United States, the country of the Iroquois

and upper Canada, 1795-7.

London. 1799.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/travelsthroughun01larorich

LE CLERCQ, Father CHRISTIAN.

First establishment of the faith in New France (1691); now

first translation, with notes, by John G. Shea.

New York: J. G. Shea. 1881. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/firstestablishme01lecl

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/firstestablishme02lecl

LEWIS AND CLARKE.

Journal to the Rocky Mountains., 1804-6, as related by Patrick

Gass (1807).

Dayton: Ells, Claflin & Company. 1847.

https://archive.org/details/lewisclarksjourn00gassrich

LORD, JOHN K.

The naturalist in Vancouver's Island and British Columbia,

volume 2.

London: Richard Bentley. 1866. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/naturalistinvanc01lord

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/naturalistinvanc00lord

LOSKIEL, GEORGE HENRY.

History of the mission of the United Brethren among the Indians

of North America; translated from the German by C. I. La Trobe.

London 1794.

https://archive.org/details/historyofmiss00losk

https://archive.org/details/historyofmission01losk

LUMMIS, CHARLES. F.

The land of poco tiempo [New Mexico].

New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1893.

https://archive.org/details/cu31924028915036

McKENNA, J. A. J.

Indians of Canada.

(Catholic World, 53: 350. 1891.)

McKENNEY, THOMAS. L.

Sketches of a tour to the lakes [1826],

the Chippeway Indians, etc.

Baltimore: F. Lucas, Jr. 1827.

https://archive.org/details/sketchesatourto01mckegoog

MARCY, Colonel R. B.

Thirty years of army life on the border.

New York: Harper & Brothers. 1866.

https://archive.org/details/thirtyyearsofarm01marc

MARCY, Colonel. R. B., and GEORGE. D. McCLELLAN.

Exploration of the Red River of Louisiana In 1852.

[Comanches and Kiowas.]

Washington. 1854. (House of Representatives, 33d congress,

1st session Ex. doc)

https://archive.org/details/explorationredr00mcclgoog

MARSHALL, ORSAMUS H.

Historical writings relating to the early history of the west;

with introduction by William L. Stone.

Albany: Joel Munsell's Sons. 1887.

https://archive.org/details/historicalwritin01mars

https://archive.org/details/historicalwriti00marsgoog/page/n21/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/cihm_09926

The Niagara frontier; read before the Buffalo Historical Club.

February 27, 1865. [Buffalo: The author.]

https://archive.org/details/niagarafrontiere00mars/page/n5/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/cihm_40160

MATTHEWS, WASHINGTON.

Ethnography and philology of the Hidatsa Indians.

Washington. 1877.

(United States geographical and geological survey.

F. V. Hayden in charge: miscellaneous publications. No.7.)

https://archive.org/details/ethnographyandp00mattgoog

https://archive.org/details/ethnographyandp01mattgoog

https://archive.org/details/ethnographyphilo00mattrich

https://archive.org/details/rosettaproject_hid_morsyn-2

MEGAPOLENSIS, J., Jr.

Short sketch of the Mohawk Indians in New Netherland (1644);

translated, revised, with an introduction, by J. H. Brodhead.

(Collections of the New York Historical Society. 2d series,

volume 3.

New York. 1857.)

MEMOIR OF THE PEQUOTS, etc.

(Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society.,

volume 10. Boston. 1800.)

MILLER, JOAQUIN.

Unwritten history; life amongst the Modocs.

Hartford: American Pub. Company. 1874.

https://archive.org/details/amongstthemodocs00millrichs://archive.org/details/unwrittenhist00millrich

https://archive.org/details/unwrittenhist00millrich

MILLER. WILLIAM. J.

Notes concerning the Wampanoag tribe of Indians.

Providence: S. S. Rider. 1880.

https://archive.org/details/notesconcerningw00mill/page/n5/mode/2up

{xxix}

MINER, LEWIS H.

The valley of Wyoming.

New York: Robert H. Johnston & Company. 1866.

https://archive.org/details/valleywyomingro00minegoog

https://archive.org/details/valleyofwyomingr00mine

MÖLLHAUSEN, BALDWIN.

Diary of a journey from the Mississippi to the coasts of the

Pacific, with a United States government expedition [1853-4];

translated by Mrs. Percy Sinnett.

London: Longman. 1858. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/diaryajourneyfr00sinngoog/page/n10/mode/2up

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/Diaryjourneyfro11Moll

MORELET, ARTHUR.

Travels in Central America; translated from the French by

Mrs. M. F. Squier; introduction by M. G. Squier.

London: Trübner & Company. 1871.

New York: Henry Holt & Company. 1871.

https://archive.org/details/travelsincentra00moregoog

MORGAN, LEWIS H.

League of the Ho-dé-no-sau-nee, or Iroquois.

Rochester: Sage & Brother. 1851.

https://archive.org/details/leagueofhodnos00inmorg

(2 volumes, 1922) https://archive.org/details/hodenosaunee00morgrich

https://archive.org/details/leagueofhodnos00inmorg

Report on the fabrics, inventions, implements and utensils of

the Iroquois, made to the regents of the university [of New

York.], 1851.

NEW YORK STATE.

Commissioners of Indian affairs, for the extinguishment of

Indian titles. Proceedings, with introduction and notes by

F. B. Hough.

Albany: Joel Munsell. 1861. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/proceedingsofcom01newy

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/proceedingsofcom01newy_0

https://archive.org/details/bp_616923/page/n3/mode/2up

Regents of the university. Annual reports on the condition of

the state cabinet of natural history and the historical and

antiquarian collection.

Albany.

Special committee to Investigate the Indian problem.

Report. Albany. 1889.

NORMAN, B. M.

Rambles in Yucatan; including a visit to the remarkable ruins

of Chi-Chen, Kabah, Zayi, and Uxmal.

New York: J. & H. G. Langley. 1842.

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/57074

https://archive.org/details/ramblesinyucatan00norm

NUTTALL, THOMAS.

Journal of travels into the Arkansa territory, 1819.

Philadelphia. T. H. Palmer. 1821.

https://archive.org/details/journaloftravels00nutt

https://archive.org/details/journaloftravels00nutt_0

OBER, F. A.

Acoma, a picturesque pueblo.

(American architect, 29: 65. 1890.)

PALFREY, JOHN GORHAM.

Compendious history of New England. 1494-1775 (1884). volume 1.

Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 4 volumes.

https://archive.org/details/historynewengla23palfgoog

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/compendioushisto01palfuoft

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/compendioushisto02palfuoft

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/compendioushisto03palfuoft

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/compendioushisto04palfuoft

PIDGEON, WILLIAM.

Traditions of De-coo-dah, comprising extensive explorations,

surveys and excavations of the remains of the mound builders in

America. (1853).

New York: Horace Thayer. 1858.

https://archive.org/details/traditionsofdeco00inpidg

POWERS, STEPHEN.

Tribes of California.

Washington. 1877.

(United States geographical and geological survey,

Contributions to North American ethnology, volume 3.)

https://archive.org/details/tribescaliforni00powegoog/page/n9/mode/2up

RAE, J.

Indians of Hudson's Bay territories.

(Journal of the Society of Arts, 30: 483. 1882.)

REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL POLAR EXPEDITION TO POINT BARROW,

ALASKA [1881-2].

Washington. 1885. (House of Representatives, 48th congress,

2d session Ex. doc. 44.)

https://archive.org/details/reportofpolar00inteuoft

RIGGS, Reverend Dr. STEPHEN R.

Mary and I; forty years with the Sioux.

Chicago: W. G. Holmes. 1880.

https://archive.org/details/maryandifortyyea00riggrich

RINK, Dr. HENRY.

The Eskimo tribes; their distribution and characteristics,

with a comparative vocabulary (volume 11 of the "Middelelser

om Gronland").

Copenhagen: C. A. Reitzel.

London: Williams & Norgate. 1887.

https://archive.org/details/eskimotribesthei00rinkrich

Tales and traditions of the Eskimo, with a sketch of their

habits, religions, language, etc. (1866-71); translated from

the Danish by the author, edited by Dr. R. Brown.

Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1875.

https://archive.org/details/talestraditionso01rink

RONAN, PETER.

Historical sketch of the Flathead Indian nation, 1813-1890.

Helena: Journal Publishing Company. 1800.

https://archive.org/details/historicalsketch00ronarich

RONDTHALER, Reverend EDWARD.

Life of John Heckewelder;

edited by B. H. Coates.

Philadelphia: T. Ward. 1847.

https://archive.org/details/lifeofjohnheckew00rondt

RUTTENBER. E. M.

History of the Indian tribes of Hudson's River: their origin,

manners, etc.

Albany: J. Munsell. 1872.

https://archive.org/details/ruttenberindians00ruttrich

SCHERMERHORN, J. F.

Report, on the western Indians.

(Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society.,

2d series, volume 2.

Boston. 1814.)

https://archive.org/details/correctviewoftha00sche

SCHOOLCRAFT, HENRY R.

Notes on the Iroquois.

Albany: E. H. Pease & Company. 1847.

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50053

Personal memoirs of a residence of thirty years with

the Indian tribes on the American frontiers, 1-12-1842 (1831).

Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company.

http://www.fullbooks.com/Personal-Memoirs-Of-A-Residence-Of-Thirty.html

SCHWEINITZ, EDMUND DE.

Life and times of David Zeisberger, apostle of the Indians.

Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 1870.

https://archive.org/details/cihm_26078

SEAVER, JAS. E.

Life of Mary Jemison: Deh-he-wä-mis (1842).

New York: Miller, Orton & Mulligan. 1856.

(1918) https://archive.org/details/narrativeoflifeo00seavuoft

SHEA, J. G.

Inquiries respecting the lost neutral nation.

(Schoolcraft's Information respecting the Indian tribes, part. 4.)

See SCHOOLCRAFT, HENRY R.

SHELDON, WILLIAM.

Account of the Caraibs.

(Archæologia Americana, volume 1.

Worcester: American Antiquarian Society. 1820.)

SIMPSON, JAMES H.

Journal of a military reconnoissance from Santa Fe to the

Navajo country, 1840. [Navajos and Pueblos.]

Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo & Company. 1852.

https://archive.org/details/journalamilitar00simpgoog

The shortest route to California, with some account

of the Indian tribes [of Utah].

Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 1860.

https://archive.org/details/shortestroutetoc00simp

SITGREAVES, Capt. L.

Report of an expedition down the Zuni and Colorado rivers.

Washington, 1854.

(Senate ex. doc's, 33d congress, 1st session.)

https://archive.org/details/reportanexpidit00sitggoog

https://archive.org/details/reportanexpedit00engigoog

SKENANDOAH.

Letters on the Iroquois; addressed to Albert Gallatin.

(Reprinted in volume 2 of Craig's "The olden time."

Pittsburgh: Wright & Charlton. 1848. 2 volumes.)

SMET, Father P. J. DE.

Letters and sketches, with a narrative of a year's residence

among the Indian tribes of the Rocky Mountains.

Philadelphia: M. Fithian. 1843.

https://archive.org/details/letterssketchesw00smet

Oregon missions and travels over the Rocky Mountains. 1845-6.

New York: Edward Dunigan. 1847.

https://archive.org/details/cihm_40687

Western missions and missionaries.

New York: T. W. Strong. 1859.

https://archive.org/details/westernmissionsm01smet/page/n7/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/westernmissionsm0000smet/page/n3/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/westernmissionsa00smetrich

SMITH, Capt. JOHN.

Description of Virginia. General historie of Virginia. (Works,

1608-1631); edited by E. Arber, Birmingham. 1884.

SPRAGUE, JOHN T.

The origin, progress, and conclusion of the Florida war.

New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1843.

https://archive.org/details/originprogressa03spragoog

Historical and mythological traditions of the Algonquins, with

a translation of the "Walumolum."

(New York Historical Society.)

STONE, WILLIAM L.

Life and times of Sa-go-ye-wat-ha, or Red Jacket (1841).

Albany: J. Munsell. 1866.

https://archive.org/details/lifeandtimessag01stongoog

Life of Joseph Brant--Thayendanegea (1838).

Albany: J. Munsell. 1865. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/lifeofjosephbran01ston

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/lifejosephbrant03stongoog

STRACHEY, WILLIAM.

Historie of travaile into Virginia Britannia. (1618?).

London: Hakluyt Society. 1849.

https://archive.org/details/historietravail00majogoog

SWAN, JAMES G.

The Haidah Indians of Queen Charlotte's Islands (1874).

(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 21.

Washington. 1876.)

https://archive.org/details/haidahindians00swanrich

https://archive.org/details/cihm_23957

The Indians of Cape Flattery, Washington Territory. (1868).

(Smithsonian contributions to knowledge, volume 16.

Washington. 1870.)

https://archive.org/details/indianscapeflatt00swanrich

https://archive.org/details/b21914084

The northwest coast;

or three years [1852-5] in Washington Territory.

New York: Harper & Brothers. 1857.

https://archive.org/details/northwestcoastor00swan

SULLIVAN, Honorable JAMES.

History of the Penobscott Indians.

(Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society.,

volume 9. Boston. 1804.)

VETROMILE, EUGENE.

The Abnaki Indians.

(Collections of the Maine Historical Society., volume 6.

Portland. 1859.)

https://archive.org/details/abnakisandtheir00vetrgoog

The Abnakis and their history.

New York: J. B. Kirker. 1866.

https://archive.org/details/abnakistheirhist00vetr

WILLIAMSON, WILLIAM. D.

Indian tribes in New England (1839)

(Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society.,

3d series, volume 9. 1846.)

WILLIS, WILLIAM.

The language of the Abnaquies or eastern Indians: appendix by

C. E. Potter. (Collections of the Maine Historical Society,

volume 4.

Portland. 1856.)

WILSON, DANIEL.

The Huron-Iroquois of Canada.

(Translation Royal Society, Canada. 1884.)

https://archive.org/details/cihm_29131/page/n5/mode/2up

ZEISBERGER, DAVID, Moravian Missionary, Ohio.   Diary [1781-1798]; translated from the German and

edited by E. F. Bliss.

Cincinnati: Robert Clarke & Company. 1885. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/diaryofdavid01zeisrich

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/diaryofdavid02zeisrich

ZYLYFF.

The Ponca chiefs, an Indian's attempt to appeal from the

tomahawk to the courts; with introduction by Inshtatheamba

(Bright Eyes), and dedication by Wendell Phillips.

Boston: Lockwood, Brooks & Company. 1880.

https://archive.org/details/poncachiefsanin01tibbgoog

AUSTRIA.

GENERAL.

BRYCE, JAMES.

The holy Roman empire (1864).

London: Macmillan & Company.

(1871) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44101

(1915) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.213191

COXE, WILLIAM.

History of the house of Austria, 1218-1792 (1807).

London: H. G. Bohn. 3 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofhouseof01coxeuoft

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofhouseof02coxeiala

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofhouseof02coxeuoft

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofhouseof03coxeuoft

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.458810

DUNHAM, S. A.

History of the Germanic empire.

London: Longman. 1834. 3 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofgermani01dunhiala/page/n5/mode/2up

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofgermani02dunhiala/page/n9/mode/2up

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofgermani03dunhiala/page/n7/mode/2up

DYER, THOMAS HENRY.

History of modern Europe, 1453-1857.

London: John Murray, 4 volumes; George Bell & Sons. 4 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofmodern01dyer

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.40858

FREEMAN, EDWARD A.

The historical geography of Europe.

London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1881. 2 volumes.

https://archive.org/details/b31349638

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historicalgeog01free

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historicalgeogra01freeuoft

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historicalgeogra01free

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historicalgeogra02freeuoft

{xxxi}

GOULD, S. BARING.

GOULD, S. BARING-GOULD.

The story of Germany (Story of the nations).

London: T. F. Unwin.

New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1886.

https://archive.org/details/storyofgermany00bari/page/n11/mode/2up

HEEREN, A. H. L.

A manual of the history of the political system of Europe and

its colonies (1809); translated from the German.

London: H. G. Bohn.

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.501449/page/n1/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/manualofhistoryo00heerrich

https://archive.org/details/manual00ofhistoryoheerrich

KOCH, CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM.

The revolutions of Europe (1771);

from the French.

London: Whittaker & Company. 1839.

https://archive.org/details/revolutionseurop00koch

KOHLRAUSCH, FRIEDRICH.

History of Germany (1816); [translated by J. D. Haas].

London: Chapman & Hall. 1844.

https://archive.org/details/ahistorygermany00haasgoog

New York: Appleton. 1845.

https://archive.org/details/ahistorygermany00haasgoog

LATHAM, ROBERT. G.

Ethnology of Europe.

London: J. Van Voorst. 1852.

https://archive.org/details/ethnologyofeurop00lathuoft/page/n5/mode/2up

The nationalities of Europe. volume 2.

London: W. H. Allen & Company. 1863. 2 volumes.

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.31028

LAVISSE, ERNEST.

General view of the political history of Europe;

translated by Charles Gross.

London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1891.

https://archive.org/details/generalviewofpol00laviiala

https://archive.org/details/generalviewofpol00lavi

https://archive.org/details/generalviewpoli01grosgoog

LEGER, LOUIS.

History of Austro-Hungary (1666; 2d edition., 1878-88);

translated by Mrs. Birkbeck Hill.

London: Rivingtons.

New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

https://archive.org/details/historyofaustroh00lege

https://archive.org/details/ahistoryaustroh00hillgoog

LEWIS, CHARLTON T.

History of Germany.

New York: Harper & Brothers. 1874.

https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany00lewi

https://archive.org/details/ahistorygermany00unkngoog

LODGE, RICHARD.

History of modern Europe, 1453-1878.

London: J. Murray. 1885.

New York: Harper Brothers.

https://archive.org/details/historyofmoderne00lodguoft

https://archive.org/details/historyofmoderne017244mbp

https://archive.org/details/cu31924027987092

MALLESON, G. B.

Lost opportunities of the house of Austria

(Royal Historical Society Papers, volume 12, page 225).

MENZEL, WOLFGANG.

History of Germany (1824-5);

translated from 4th German edition by Mrs. G. Horrocks.

London: H. G. Bohn. 1848. 3 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany01menzuoft

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany02menzuoft

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany03menzuoft

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historygermanyf00menzgoog

MICHELET, JULES.

A summary of modern history (1827);

translated and continued by M. C. M. Simpson.

London: Macmillan & Co. 1875.

https://archive.org/details/asummarymodernh00michgoog

https://archive.org/details/summaryofmodernh00michuoft

RUSSELL, WILLIAM.

History of modern Europe (1779).

London: George Routledge & Sons. 4 volumes.

Whittaker & Company. 4 volume

New York: Harper Brothers. 3 volumes.

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historymoderneu01jonegoog

(Epitomized) https://archive.org/details/russellshistory00russgoog/page/n6/mode/2up

SIME, JAMES.

History of Germany.

London: Macmillan & Company. 1874.

New York: Henry Holt & Co. 1874.

https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany00simerich

https://archive.org/details/historygermany00simegoog

https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany0000unse_n7z0/page/n7/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany00sime

https://archive.org/details/historyofgermany00simeuoft

SMYTH, WILLIAM.

Lectures on modern history (1840).

London: H. G. Bohn. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.3073

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.2173

TURNER, SAMUEL EPES.

Sketch of the Germanic constitution from early times to the

dissolution of the empire.

New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1888.

https://archive.org/details/asketchgermanic01turngoog

VOLTAIRE, F. M. AROUET DE.

Annals of the empire, from the time of Charlemagne

(Works, translated by Smollett and others, 1761, volumes 20-22).

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/annalsoftheempir01voltuoft

MEDIÆVAL.

BUSK, Mrs. WILLIAM.

Mediæval popes, emperors, kings and crusaders.

London: Hookham & Sons. 1854-6. 4 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/medivalpopesem01buskuoft

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/medivalpopesemp01buskgoog

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/medivalpopesem02buskuoft

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/MediaevalPopesEmperorsKingsCrusadersV2

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/medivalpopesemp00buskgoog

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/medivalpopesem03buskuoft

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/medivalpopesem04buskuoft

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/MediaevalPopesEmperorsKingsCrusadersV4

COMYN, Sir ROBERT.

History of the western empire, from Charlemagne to Charles V.

[800-1520],

London: W. H. Allen & Company. 1841. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historywesterne01unkngoog

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historywesterne02unkngoog/page/n7/mode/2up

DURUY, VICTOR.

The history of the middle ages (1839);

translated by E. H. and M. D. Whitney, with notes and

revisions by G. B. Adams.

New York: Henry Holt & Company. 1891.

https://archive.org/details/historyofmiddlea00dur

https://archive.org/details/historyofmiddlea00duru

https://archive.org/details/historyofmiddlea00duruuoft

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.169467

HALLAM, HENRY.

View of the state of Europe during the middle ages.

London: J. Murray. 3 volumes.

New York: W. J. Widdleton. 3 volumes.

(Volume 3) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33540

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/viewofstateofe01hall

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/viewofstateofeur01hall

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/viewofstateofeur02hall

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/viewofstateofeur03hall

https://archive.org/details/cu31924027794654/page/n3/mode/2up

HENDERSON, ERNEST F.,

Select historical documents of the middle ages.

London: George Bell & Sons. 1892.

New York: Macmillan & Company.

https://archive.org/details/selecthistorical00hendiala

https://archive.org/details/ErnestF.HendersonSelectHistoricalDocumentsOfTheMiddleAges

https://archive.org/details/cu31924014186161

https://archive.org/details/selectdocuments00hend

https://archive.org/details/cu31924014186526

STUBBS, WILLIAM.

Seventeen lectures on the study of medieval and modern history.

Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1886.

New York: MacMillan & Company. 1887.

https://archive.org/details/seventeenlecture00stub

https://archive.org/details/cu31924027811011

The Constitutional History of England in Its Origin and Development

https://archive.org/details/constitutionalh04stubgoog

The Early Plantagenets

https://archive.org/details/earlyplantagenet01stub

16TH-17TH CENTURIES.--REFORMATION--THIRTY YEARS WAR.

CUST, Sir EDWARD,

Lives of the warriors of the thirty years' war.

London: John Murray. 1865. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/livesofwarriorspt1custuoft/page/n3/mode/2up

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/livesofwarriorspt2custuoft

GARDINER, SAMUEL R.

The thirty years' war, 1618-1648 (Epochs of history).

London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1874.

New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40082

https://archive.org/details/gardinersamuel00rawsrich

https://archive.org/details/thirtyyearswar00gardgoog

https://archive.org/details/thirtyyearswar1600gard

https://archive.org/details/thirtyyearswar1600

GINDELY, ANTON.

History of the thirty years' war (1869-80):

translated by A. Ten Brook.

London: Richard Bentley & Son.

New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1884. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historythirtyye01broogoog

MALDEN, HENRY E.

Vienna, 1683.

London: Kegan Paul & Company. 1883.

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/56023

MARTIN, HENRI.

History of France: age of Louis XIV.(1860);

translated by Mrs. Booth.

Boston: Walker, Wise & Company. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_nW0PAAAAYAAJ

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_T30PAAAAYAAJ

MAXWELL, Sir WILLIAM STIRLING.

Don John of Austria, 1547-78.

London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1883. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/donjohnofaustria01stiriala

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/donjohnofaustria02stiruoft

MITCHELL, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Life of Wallenstein.

London: Jas. Fraser. 1837.

https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.94161

PRAET, JULES VAN.

Essays on the political history of the 15th, 16th and 17th

centuries; [translated] edited by Sir Edmund Head.

London: Richard Bentley. 1868.

https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.77834

RANKE, LEOPOLD VON.

Ferdinand I. and Maximilian II. of Austria (1832);

translated by Lady Duff Gordon.

London: Longman.

(1853) https://archive.org/details/FerdinandIAndMaximilianIIOfAustria/page/n5/mode/2up

History of the Latin and Teutonic nations, 1494-1514 (1824);

translated from the German by Philip A. Ashworth.

London: George Bell & Sons. 1887.

(1887) https://archive.org/details/historyoflatinte01rank

(1909) https://archive.org/details/historyoflatinte00rankiala

(1915) https://archive.org/details/historyoflatinte00rankrich

History of the reformation in Germany (1839-43);

translated by Sarah Austin.

London: Longman. 1845-7. 3 volumes.

(1905) https://archive.org/details/historyreformat02rankgoog/page/n6/mode/2up

ROBERTSON, WILLIAM.

History of the reign of the emperor Charles V. (1769); with

life of the emperor after his abdication, by W. H. Prescott

(1857).

London: George Routledge & Sons. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1)https://archive.org/details/historyreignemp42robegoog

(Volume 1)  https://archive.org/details/historyofreign01robe

(Volume 2)  https://archive.org/details/reignofemperorch02robe

https://archive.org/details/historyreignemp27robegoog/page/n10/mode/2up

Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co. 3 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofreignof1864robe

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofreignof02robe

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofreignof03robe

New York: Hopkins & Seymore

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofreignof01robguat/page/n11/mode/2up

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofreignof03roguat/page/n11/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/historyreignemp32robegoog/page/n6/mode/2up

(Complete) https://archive.org/details/historyofreignof00roberich

TRENCH, RICHARD C.

Gustavus Adolphus in Germany.

London: Macmillan & Company, 2d edition. 1872.

(Volume 1)https://archive.org/details/historyreignemp27robegoog/page/n10/mode/2up

18TH CENTURY.

BRACKENBURY. Colonel. C. B.

Frederick the great.

New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1884.

https://archive.org/details/frederickgreat00bracrich

BROGLIE, Duc de.

Frederick the great and Maria Theresa (1882);

translated by Mrs. Hoey and J. Lillie.

London: Low, Marston & Company. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/frederickgreatma01brogiala

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/frederickgreatma02brogiala

CARLYLE, THOMAS.

History of Friedrich II. of Prussia, called Frederick the

great (1858).

London: Chapman & Hall.

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric37carlgoog

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric27carlgoog

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric47carlgoog

(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric57carlgoog

New York: Harper & Brothers.

(Books 1-19) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2102

(Books 1-21) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25808

(Books 1-5) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri01carl

(Books 8-10) https://archive.org/details/friedrichiiofpru03carl

(Books 15-17) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric47carlgoog

New York: Dana Estes and Charles E. Lauriat

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri01carl/page/n7/mode/2up

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri02carl

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri03carl

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri04carl

(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri05carl

(Volume 6)  https://archive.org/details/historyoffriedri06carl

New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric54carlgoog/page/n12/mode/2up

(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric51carlgoog/page/n8/mode/2up

Leipzig: Bernard Tauchnitz

(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/historyfriedric10carlgoog

CUST, Sir Edward.

Annals of the wars of the eighteenth century.

London: John Murray. 1862. 5 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/annalswarseight05custgoog

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/annalswarseight00custgoog/page/n4/mode/2up

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/annalswarseight03custgoog

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/annalswarseight04custgoog

(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.106238/page/n1/mode/2up

DOVER, Lord.

Life of Frederick II., King of Prussia.

London: Longman. 1831.

New York: Harper & Brothers. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/lifeoffredericse01doveuoft

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/lifefredericsec08dovegoog/page/n8/mode/2up

FREDERICK II. (called the great).

History of my own times [1740-1745].

(Posthumous works; translated by Thomas Holcroft. Volume 1.

London. 1789. 13 volumes.)

(Part 1) https://archive.org/details/vol2historyofmyo00fred

(Part 2) https://archive.org/details/vol3historyofmyo00fred

See CARLYLE, THOMAS for mant other volumes.

GERARD, JAMES W.

The peace of Utrecht, 1713-14.

New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1885.

https://archive.org/details/cu31924027872021

https://archive.org/details/peaceutrechtahi00geragoog

KUGLER, FRANCIS.

Pictorial history of Germany during the reign of Frederick the

great (1842); [translated from the German.].

London: H. G. Bohn.

https://archive.org/details/pictorialhistor00menzgoog

LECKY, WILLIAM EDWARD HARTPOLE

History of England in the 18th century.

London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1878-90. 8 volumes.

New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1878-90. 8 volumes.

https://archive.org/details/historyofengland06leck/page/n7/mode/2up

LONGMAN, F. W.

Frederick the great and the seven years' war.

London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1881.

New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.41356

https://archive.org/details/frederickgreatse01long

MACAULAY, Lord.

Essays: Frederick the great (1842).

London: Longmans, Green & Company.

Boston: Estes & Lauriat. 3 volumes.

New York: Maynard, Merrill, &: Co.

https://archive.org/details/essayonfredericg00maca/page/n5/mode/2up

MALLESON, Colonel. G. B.

Loudon [Austrian fieldmarshal, 1743-1790].

London: Chapman & Hall. 1884.

MALLET, CHARLES EDWARD.

The French revolution.

New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1893.

(1897) https://archive.org/details/frenchrevolution00malluoft

(1893) https://archive.org/details/frenchrevolution00mallrich

(1893) https://archive.org/details/cu31924031498128/page/n9/mode/2up

MIGNET, FRANÇOIS A. M.

History of the French revolution, 1789-1814 (1824);

translated from the French.

London: George Bell & Sons.

https://archive.org/details/historyoffrenchr00migniala

https://archive.org/details/historyfrenchre03conggoog

RAUMER, FREDERICK VON.

Contributions to modern history: Frederick II. and his times.

London: Charles Knight & Company. 1837.

https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.91064

SCHLOSSER, F. C.

History of the eighteenth century, etc.;

translated by D. Davison.

London: Chapman & Hall. 1843-52. 8 volumes.

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyeighteen03schlgoog

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyeighteen08schlgoog

(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyeighteen01schlgoog/page/n6/mode/2up

(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/historyeighteen02schlgoog/page/n5/mode/2up

STANHOPE, Earl (Lord Mahon).

History of England 1713-1783 (1836-53).

London: John Murray.  7 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofengland01stan

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofengland02stan

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofengland03stan/page/n5/mode/2up

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofengland04stan

(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyofengland05stan/page/n7/mode/2up

(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/historyofengland07stan/page/n5/mode/2up

Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz 1853

(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_4CFTAAAAcAAJ

STEPHENS, H. MORSE.

History of the French revolution. Volumes 1-2.

London: Rivingtons. 1880.

New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1886-91.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyoffrenchr01stepiala

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924024309480

THIERS, LOUIS ADOLPHE.

History of the French revolution (1827);

translated by F. Shoberl (1854).

New York: D. Appleton & Co. 4 volumes.

London: Richard Bentley & Son. 5 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyoffrench01thieuoft

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyoffrench02thieuoft

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/v3a4historyoffren03thieuoft

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyoffrench04thieuoft

(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyoffrench05thieuoft

{xxxi}

19TH CENTURY: EARLY AND GENERAL.

ADAMS, Major CHARLES.

Great campaigns in Europe from 1796 to 1870;

edited by C. C. King.

Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1877.

https://archive.org/details/greatcampaignssu00adam

ALISON, Sir ARCHIBALD.

History of Europe, 1789-1815 (1842). 10 volumes.

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyeuropefr04alisgoog/page/n8/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/historyeuropefr37alisgoog

History of Europe, 1815-1852 (1857). 6 volumes.

Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons.

New York: Harper & Brothers.

(Volume  1) https://archive.org/details/historyofeurope701alisuoft

(Volume  2) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef02alis

(Volume  3) https://archive.org/details/historyofeurope703alisuoft

(Volume  4) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropefc04alis

(Volume  5) https://archive.org/details/historyofeurope705alisuoft

(Volume  6) https://archive.org/details/historyofeurope706alisuoft

(Volume  7) https://archive.org/details/historyofeurope707alisuoft

(Volume  8) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef08alisuoft

(Volume  9) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef09alisuoft

(Volume  9) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef09alis

(Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef11alisiala

(Volume 12) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef12alisuoft

(Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef13alisuoft

(Volume 14) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef14alisuoft

(Volume 15) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef15alisuoft

(Volume 16) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef16alisuoft

(Volume 17) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef17alisuoft

(Volume 20) https://archive.org/details/historyofeuropef00alisuoft

AUSTRIA.

(North British Review, 44: 27. 1866.)

AUSTRIAN NATIONALITIES AND AUSTRIAN POLICY:

by J. W. W. (Fraser's Magazine., 52: 163. 1855).

DUFF, MOUNTSTUART E. GRANT-.

Studies in European politics.

Edinburgh: Edmonston &: Douglas. 1866.

https://archive.org/details/studiesineurope01duffgoog

https://archive.org/details/studiesineurope00duffgoog

https://archive.org/details/cu31924027804248

https://archive.org/details/studiesineuropea00granrich

FYFFE, C. A.

History of modern Europe. [1792-1878].

London: Cassell. 1880-1889. 3 volumes.

New York: Henry Holt & Company. 1881-90. 3 volumes.

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6589

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.172930/page/n1/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/historyofmoderne00fyffuoft

JOURNAL OF A NOBLEMAN:

his residence at Vienna during the congress.

London. Philadelphia. 1833.

KELLY, WALTER K.

History of the house of Austria [1792-1848]. And   Genesis or the late Austrian revolution: by an officer of

state [Count Hartig]: translated from the German.

London: H. G. Bohn. 1853.

https://archive.org/details/historyofhouseof00kell

KOHL, J. G.

Austria.

London: Chapman & Hall. 1844.

https://archive.org/details/austriaviennapr00kohlgoog

KRAUSE, GUSTAV.

The growth of German unity.

London: David Nutt. 1892.

LANFREY, P.

History of Napoleon I. [translated from the French.].

London: Macmillan & Company. 1871-1879. 4 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofnapoleo01lanfuoft

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofnapole02lanf

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cu31924024344834

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofnapoleo03lanfuoft

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/cu31924024344842

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofnapoleo04lanfuoft

MALLESON, Colonel George Bruce

Life of Prince Metternich (Statesmen series).

London: W. H. Allen & Company. 1888.

Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott &: Co.

https://archive.org/details/lifeofprincemett00mall

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.181131/page/n3/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/lifeofprincemet00mall

https://archive.org/details/lifeofprincemett00malluoft

(Audio) https://archive.org/details/life_of_prince_metternich_1611_librivox/lifeofprincemetternich_01_malleson_128kb.mp3

METTERNICH, Prince.

Memoirs [1773-1835]: translated by Mrs. Alexander Napier.

London: Bentley & Son. 1880.

New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

https://archive.org/details/memoirsofprincem02mettuoft/page/n5/mode/2up

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.85236/page/ii/mode/2up

MICHIELS, ALFRED, compiler.

Secret history of the Austrian government.

London: Chapman & Hall. 1859.

https://archive.org/details/secrethistoryau00michgoog

MÜLLER, W.

Political history of recent times, 1816-1875:

translated [and continued to 1881] by John P. Peters.

New York: Harper & Brothers. 1882.

https://archive.org/details/politicalhistory00mulliala

https://archive.org/details/politicalhistory00mluoft

https://archive.org/details/politicalhistory00ml

https://archive.org/details/politicalhistor00mlgoog

https://archive.org/details/politicalhistor00petegoog

ROSE, J. H.

A century of continental history, 1780-1880.

London: Edward Stanford. 1889.

https://archive.org/details/cu31924031187804

STEPHENS, H. MORSE.

Europe, 1789-1815.

London: Macmillan &: Company. 1893.

https://archive.org/details/europestephens00step

THIERS, ADOLPH.

History of the consulate and the empire of France under

Napoleon (1845-62); translated by D. F. Campbell and H. W.  Herbert.

London: George Bell & Sons (Bohn).

Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 5 volumes.

Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 1894. 12volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire01thieiala

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyconsulate02thieiala

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire03thieiala

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire04thieiala

(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyofconsula05thieiala

(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire06thieiala

(Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire07thieiala

(Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire08thieiala

(Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/historyofconsula09thieiala

(Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire10thieiala

(Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire11thieiala

(Volume 12) https://archive.org/details/consulateempire12thieiala

TURNBULL, PETER EVAN

Austria, volume 2.

London: J. Murray. 1840. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/austria01turngoog/page/n10/mode/2up

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/austria02turngoog/page/n8/mode/2up

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/austria03turngoog/page/n6/mode/2up

VEHSE, E.

Memoirs of the court, aristocracy and diplomacy of Austria;

translated by Franz Demmler.

London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1856. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/memoirsofcourtof01vehs

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/memoirsofcourtar02vehs

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/memoirscourtari00vehsgoog

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cu31924088019769

WEIR, ARCHIBALD.

The historical basis of modern Europe, 1760-1815.

London: Swan Sonnenschein & Company. 1886.

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.501799

https://archive.org/details/cu31924027892375/page/n7/mode/2up

WHITMAN, SIDNEY.

The realm of the Habsburgs.

London: William Heinemann. 1893.

https://archive.org/details/realmofhabsburgs00whituoft

https://archive.org/details/realmofhabsburgs00whit/page/n9/mode/2up

AUSTRIA, HUNGARY, AND THE LESSER PROVINCES.

AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY.

(Edinburgh Review, 90: 230. 1849.)

AUSTRIA IN 1848-9.

(Edinburgh Review, 174: 440. 1891.)

BONER, CHARLES.

Transylvania.

London: Longmans. 1865.

https://archive.org/details/transylvaniaits00bonegoog

BRACE, CHARLES LORING.

Hungary in 1851.

New York: Charles Scribner. 1852.

https://archive.org/details/hungaryin1851wit01brac

https://archive.org/details/hungaryinwithan00bracgoog

FELBERMANN, LOUIS.

Hungary and its people.

London: Griffith, Farran & Company. 1892.

https://archive.org/details/hungaryitspeople00felb

FITZMAURICE, EDMOND.

Home rule in Austria.

(Nineteenth Century, 19: 443. 1886.)

FORSTER, FLORENCE A.

Francis Deak, Hungarian statesman: a memoir, with a preface by

M. E. Grant Duff.

London: Macmillan & Company. 1880.

https://archive.org/details/francisdekhung00arnoiala

https://archive.org/details/francisdekhunga00forgoog

GERARD, E.

The land beyond the forest [Transylvania].

Edinburgh: William Blackwood & Sons. 1888. 2 volumes.

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/57168

https://archive.org/details/cu31924011921420

GODKIN, EDWIN LAWRENCE

History of Hungary and the Magyars.

London: Cassell & Company. 1858.

https://archive.org/details/historyofhungary00godkiala/page/n5/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/historyhungarya00godkgoog

GÖRGEI, ARTHUR.

My life and acts in Hungary, 1848-9 (1851); translated.

London: D. Bogue.

New York: Harper & Brothers.

https://archive.org/details/mylifeactsinhung00grrich

HOFER, ANDREW,

Memoirs of the life of: containing an account of the

transactions in the Tyrol, 1809: [translated] from the German,

by C. H. Hall.

London: John Murray. 1820.

https://archive.org/details/memoirslifeandr00unkngoog

KAY, DAVID.

Home rule in Austria-Hungary.

(Nineteenth Century, 19: 41. 1886.)

https://archive.org/details/austriahungary00kayd

KLAPKA, General GEORGE.

Memoirs of the war of independence in Hungary:

translated by O. Wenckstern.

London: C. Gilpin. 1850. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/memoirswarindep00wencgoog

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/memoirswarindep01klapgoog

MAURICE, C. EDMUND.

Revolutionary movement of 1848-9 in Italy, Austria-Hungary,

and Germany.

London: George Bell & Sons. 1887.

New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39540

https://archive.org/details/revolutionarymo00maurgoog/page/n16/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/revolutionarymo00unkngoog

https://archive.org/details/therevolutionary39540gut

https://archive.org/details/revolutionarymov00maur

PAGET, JOHN.

Travels in Hungary and Transylvania (1839).

London: John Murray.

Philadelphia: Lea &: Blanchard. 1850. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.36331/page/n5/mode/2up

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/agw0321.0001.001.umich.edu/page/II/mode/2up

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/hungarytransylva02pageuoft/page/n7/mode/2up

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/agw0321.0002.001.umich.edu/page/n9/mode/2up

PARDOE, Miss JULIA.

The city of the Magyar, or Hungary and her institutions in 1839-40.

London: G. Virtue. 1840. 3 volumes.

https://books.google.com/books/about/The_City_of_the_Magyar.html?id=S-gDAAAAQAAJ

PATON, A. A.

Highlands and islands of the Adriatic.

London: Chapman & Hall. 1849. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/highlandsislands00pato/page/n7/mode/2up

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_dzbNcsnbcOYC

PATTERSON, ARTHUR J.

The Magyars: their country and institutions.

London: Smith, Elder & Company. 1869. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/magyarstheircou06johngoog

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/magyarstheircou01pattgoog/page/n6/mode/2up

PLANTA, JOSEPH.

History of the Helvetic confederacy.

London. 1800. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofhelveti01planuoft

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyhelvetic02plangoog

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyhelvetic00plangoog

PRICE, BONAMY.

Austria and Hungary.

(Fraser's Magazine, 65: 384. 1862.)

STILES, WILLIAM. H.

Austria in 1848-49.

New York: Harper & Brothers. 1852-3. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924088020130

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cu31924088020148

SZABAD, EMERIC.

Hungary, past and present.

Edinburgh: A. & C. Black. 1854.

https://archive.org/details/hungarypastandp00szabgoog/page/n4/mode/2up

VÁMBÉRY, ARMINIUS, and LOUIS HEILPRIN.

The story of Hungary (Story of the nations).

New York: G. P. Putnam‘s Sons. 1886.

London: T. F. Unwin.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50038

https://archive.org/details/storyhungary00vmgoog

AUSTRIA AND ITALY.

ARRIVABENE, Count CHARLES.

Italy under Victor Emmanuel.

London: Hurst & Blackett. 1862. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/italyundervicto02arrigoog

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/italyundervicto01arrigoog

AUSTRIA, FRANCE AND ITALY.

(Edinburgh Review., 109: 286. 1859.)

AUSTRIANS AND ITALY, The.

(Eclectic Magazine, 47: 538. 1859.)

GARIBALDI, GIUSEPPE.

Autobiography: translated by A. Werner,

with a supplement by Jessie White Mario.

London: Walter Smith & Innes. 1889. 3 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/autobiography01gariuoft

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/autobiographygi00garigoog

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/autobiographygi02garigoog

ITALY AND THE WAR OF 1866.

(Westminster Review., 87: 275. 1867.)

MAZADE, CHARLES DE.

Life of Count Cavour.

New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1877.

https://archive.org/details/lifeofcountcavou00mazarich

O'CLERY, PATRICK KEYES (The Chevalier O'Clery).

The history of the Italian revolution: 1st period, 1796-1849.

London: R. Washbourne. 1875.

https://archive.org/details/historyitalianr00oclgoog/page/n8/mode/2up

The making of Italy.

London: Kegan, Paul, Trench &: Company. 1892.

https://archive.org/details/makingofitaly18500oclerich

https://archive.org/details/makingitaly00oclgoog

https://archive.org/details/makingofitaly0000ocle/page/n5/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/makingitaly01oclgoog

PROBYN, JOHN W.

Italy, 1815-1890.

London: Cassell & Company. 1891.

https://archive.org/details/italyfromfallofn00probuoft

https://archive.org/details/italyfromfallna00probgoog

https://archive.org/details/italyfromfallna01probgoog/italyfromfallna01probgoog

STUART, R.

The Austro-Italian alliance.

(Contemporary Review., 40: 921. 1881.)

THAYER, WILLIAM ROSCOE.

The dawn of Italian Independence, 1814-1849.

Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1893. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/dawnofitalianind01thayiala

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/dawnofitalianind02thayuoft

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cu31924082152400

WRIGHTSON, RICHARD HEBER

A history of modern Italy [1800-50].

London: Richard Bentley. 1855.

https://archive.org/details/dli.ministry.14113

https://archive.org/details/ahistorymoderni00wriggoog

AUSTRIA AND GERMANY.

CHESNEY, C. C.

The campaign [of 1866] in western Germany.

(Blackwood's Magazine, 101: 68. 1867.)

DICEY, EDWARD.

The battlefields of 1866.

London: Tinsley Brothers. 1866.

https://archive.org/details/battlefields00dicegoog

The campaign [of 1866] in Germany.

(Macmillan's Magazine, 14: 386. 1866.)

DICEY, EDWARD T.

The campaign [of 1866] in Italy.

(Macmillan's Magazine, 14: 241. 1866.)

GERMANIC CONFEDERATION and the Austrian empire, The.

(Quarterly Review, 84: 425. 1849.)

HOZIER, H. M.

The seven weeks' war [1866].

London: Macmillan & Company. 1867. 2 volumes.

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.238477

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.45879

{xxxii}

LOWE, CHARLES.

Prince Bismarck; an historical biography.

London: Cassell & Company. 1885. 2 volumes.

https://archive.org/details/princebismarkhis00lowe

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/princebismarckhi01loweiala

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/princebismarcka01lowegoog

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/princebismarcka02lowegoog

MALET, Sir ALEXANDER.

The overthrow of the Germanic confederation. 1866.

London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1870.

https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.77288/page/iii/mode/2up

MALLESON, Colonel. G. B.

Battle-fields of Germany.

London: W. H. Allen & Company. 1884.

https://archive.org/details/battlefieldsofge00malluoft

The refounding of the German empire. 1848-71.

London: Seeley & Company. 1893.

https://archive.org/details/refoundingofgerm00mall

PRUSSIAN CAMPAIGN OF 1806.

(Edinburgh Review, 125: 187. 1867.)

RECONSTRUCTION OF GERMANY, The.

(North British Review, 51: 133. 1869.)

SIMON, EDOUARD.

The emperor William and his reign:

from the French.

London: Remington & Company. 1886. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/emperorwilliama00simogoog

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/emperorwilliama01simogoog

SYBEL, HEINRICH VON.

The founding of the German empire by William I.;

based chiefly upon Prussian state documents:

translated by M. L. Perrin and G. Bradford, Jr.

New York: T. Y. Crowell & Company. 1890-1. 5 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/foundingofgerman01sybe

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/foundingofgerman02sybe

(Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/foundingofgerman03sybe

(Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/foundingofgerman04sybe

(Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/foundingofgerman05sybe

(Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/foundingofgerman06sybe

AUSTRIA AND THE SOUTHEASTERN STATES.

AUSTRIA, GERMANY AND THE EASTERN QUESTION.

(Fraser's Magazine, 96: 407. 1877.)

AUSTRIA'S POLICY IN THE EAST.

(Macmillan's Magazine, 53: 17. 1885.)

BOURCHIER, John David

The sentinel of the Balkans.

(Fortnightly Review., 52: 806. 1889.)

CAILLARD, VINCENT.

The Bulgarian imbroglio.

(Fortnightly Review, 44: 740. 1885.)

FREEMAN; EDWARD A.

The house of Habsburg in south-eastern Europe.

(Fortnightly Review., 51: 839. 1889.)

The position of the Austrian power in south-eastern Europe.

(Contemporary Review., 41: 727. 1882.)

THE RECONSTRUCTED EMPIRE: ITS REFORMS AND POLICY.

AUSTRIA AND HER REFORMS.

(Westminster Review. 75: 503. 1801.)

AUSTRIA SINCE SADOWA.

(Quarterly Review., 131: 90. 1871.)

AUSTRIA: qu'est que c'est l'Austrie?

(Edinburgh Review, 40: 298. 1824.)

AUSTRIAN CONSTITUTIONALISM.

(Westminster Review, 79: 333. 1863.)

BEUST, FRIEDRICH F. Count VON.

Memoirs [1830-1885].

London: Remington & Company. 2 volumes.

(Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.92139

(Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/memoirsfriedric00beusgoog

BOURCHIER, J. D.

The heritage of the Hapsburgs.

(Fortnightly Review, 51: 377. 1889.)

DILKE, Sir CHARLES W.

Position of European politics, 1887.

London: Chapman & Hall. 1887..

https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.91722

DUALISM IN AUSTRIA.

(Westminster Review, 88: 431. 1867.)

FOREIGN POLICY AND INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE AUSTRIAN

EMPIRE.

(Foreign Quarterly Review, 18: 257. 1837.)

NATIONAL LIFE AND THOUGHT.

London: T. F. Unwin. 1891.

---------- End: History for Ready Reference ----------

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY FOR READY REFERENCE, VOLUME 1, A-ELBA ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

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

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Table of Contents

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE